Tweet
International Institute for Genocide and Human Rights Studies
(A Division of the Zoryan Institute)
PRESS RELEASE
CONTACT: Torrey Swan
DATE: October 9, 2007
TEL: 416-250-9807
Implications of Groundbreaking World Court Ruling Analyzed
in Current Genocide Studies and Prevention Journal
Two of the foremost experts on international law concerning genocide
analyzed the International Court of Justice's (ICJ) February 2007 ruling
on Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro in Volume 2, Number 2
of Genocide Studies and Prevention: An International Journal.
Dr. William A. Schabas, Chair in Human Rights Law and Director of the
Irish Centre for Human Rights at the National University of Ireland and
Dr. David Scheffer, Professor of Law and Director of the Center for
International Human Rights, Northwestern University and formerly United
States Ambassador for War Crimes, both contributed important articles
evaluating the ramification of the ICJ's ruling.
The ICJ is the highest international authority dealing with inter-state
justice and is mandated to oversee the United Nations Convention on
Genocide (1948). In February 2007, it concluded its consideration of
Bosnia and Herzegovina's claims that Serbia and Montenegro had committed
genocide during the 1994-6 Balkan War. While the court found that
genocide had not taken place, except during the Srebrenica Massacre and
even then it found Serbia not responsible, the court did establish
significant precedents for dealing with genocide.
Dr. Schabas argued that the ruling made a major pronouncement on the
duty to prevent genocide to parties of the 1948 UNCG, establishing that
this obligation requires states to take action, to the extent that they
may be able to exercise some influence, when genocide is threatened
outside their own territory. This is significant because it allows
states to act in countries where genocide looms before the genocide
actually takes place.
Dr. Scheffer highlighted that the ICJ ruling found that a state, and not
only an individuals, can be found responsible for genocide. This is an
improvement on the previous understanding that only individuals could be
held accountable, a reading that allowed many perpetrators to be
protected by collective responsibility.
Together these precedents provide powerful deterrents to potentially
genocidal regimes. Not only are third party states empowered to act
preemptively to stop genocide, but perpetrator states themselves can be
found responsible, and thus the perceived benefits of genocide may not
be enjoyed by a regime that commits this atrocious crime. Furthermore,
states can be found liable for not acting to prevent genocide or for
been complicit in the crime. The ruling thus increases the risks facing
a genocidal regime and decreases the obstacles facing an international
intervention.
"With this latest issue, GSP continues the tradition of making
significant contributions to the field of genocide studies," reflected
Chair of the International Institute for Genocide and Human Rights
Studies (A Division of the Zoryan Institute), Prof. Roger W. Smith. "To
date it has published five comprehensive issues, thirty-three
groundbreaking articles, several in-depth book reviews, and stimulating
editorials, all contributed by dozens of scholars from nine different
countries." He concluded that "equally important to the mission of the
journal is that it is being read widely and in many circles inside and
outside academia. Together, these achievements mean that an
international dialogue is being fostered between specialists,
policy-makers, and the public on the nature of genocide, its wider
ramifications and on methods for its prevention."
In addition to the articles dealing with the ICJ's ruling, the new issue
also includes articles by Alfred de Zayas, addressing the Istanbul
Pogrom of 1955, where 100,000 Greeks were "ethnically cleansed" from
Istanbul, and Elizabeth More, exploring the 2006 International Criminal
Tribunal for Rwanda finding concerning the 1994 genocide, both bring the
relevance of their subjects to the current genocide in Darfur. The
issue also includes, in review essays, Dr. Joseph A. Kéchichian's
deconstruction of Dr. Guenter Lewy's denial of the Armenian Genocide and
Dr. Paul Bartrop's assessment of recent literature on the genocide of
North American aboriginals, as well as several book reviews.
Genocide Studies and Prevention: An International Journal was co-founded
by the International Association of Genocide Scholars and the
International Institute for Genocide and Human Rights Studies (A
Division of the Zoryan Institute). The journal's mission is to
understand the phenomenon of genocide, create an awareness of it as an
ongoing scourge, and promote the necessity of preventing it, for both
pragmatic and moral reasons. It is the official journal of the
International Association of Genocide Scholars and is published three
times a year by the University of Toronto Press. For more information,
contact the IIGHRS (Zoryan Institute), [email protected], Tel:
416-250-9807.
(A Division of the Zoryan Institute)
PRESS RELEASE
CONTACT: Torrey Swan
DATE: October 9, 2007
TEL: 416-250-9807
Implications of Groundbreaking World Court Ruling Analyzed
in Current Genocide Studies and Prevention Journal
Two of the foremost experts on international law concerning genocide
analyzed the International Court of Justice's (ICJ) February 2007 ruling
on Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro in Volume 2, Number 2
of Genocide Studies and Prevention: An International Journal.
Dr. William A. Schabas, Chair in Human Rights Law and Director of the
Irish Centre for Human Rights at the National University of Ireland and
Dr. David Scheffer, Professor of Law and Director of the Center for
International Human Rights, Northwestern University and formerly United
States Ambassador for War Crimes, both contributed important articles
evaluating the ramification of the ICJ's ruling.
The ICJ is the highest international authority dealing with inter-state
justice and is mandated to oversee the United Nations Convention on
Genocide (1948). In February 2007, it concluded its consideration of
Bosnia and Herzegovina's claims that Serbia and Montenegro had committed
genocide during the 1994-6 Balkan War. While the court found that
genocide had not taken place, except during the Srebrenica Massacre and
even then it found Serbia not responsible, the court did establish
significant precedents for dealing with genocide.
Dr. Schabas argued that the ruling made a major pronouncement on the
duty to prevent genocide to parties of the 1948 UNCG, establishing that
this obligation requires states to take action, to the extent that they
may be able to exercise some influence, when genocide is threatened
outside their own territory. This is significant because it allows
states to act in countries where genocide looms before the genocide
actually takes place.
Dr. Scheffer highlighted that the ICJ ruling found that a state, and not
only an individuals, can be found responsible for genocide. This is an
improvement on the previous understanding that only individuals could be
held accountable, a reading that allowed many perpetrators to be
protected by collective responsibility.
Together these precedents provide powerful deterrents to potentially
genocidal regimes. Not only are third party states empowered to act
preemptively to stop genocide, but perpetrator states themselves can be
found responsible, and thus the perceived benefits of genocide may not
be enjoyed by a regime that commits this atrocious crime. Furthermore,
states can be found liable for not acting to prevent genocide or for
been complicit in the crime. The ruling thus increases the risks facing
a genocidal regime and decreases the obstacles facing an international
intervention.
"With this latest issue, GSP continues the tradition of making
significant contributions to the field of genocide studies," reflected
Chair of the International Institute for Genocide and Human Rights
Studies (A Division of the Zoryan Institute), Prof. Roger W. Smith. "To
date it has published five comprehensive issues, thirty-three
groundbreaking articles, several in-depth book reviews, and stimulating
editorials, all contributed by dozens of scholars from nine different
countries." He concluded that "equally important to the mission of the
journal is that it is being read widely and in many circles inside and
outside academia. Together, these achievements mean that an
international dialogue is being fostered between specialists,
policy-makers, and the public on the nature of genocide, its wider
ramifications and on methods for its prevention."
In addition to the articles dealing with the ICJ's ruling, the new issue
also includes articles by Alfred de Zayas, addressing the Istanbul
Pogrom of 1955, where 100,000 Greeks were "ethnically cleansed" from
Istanbul, and Elizabeth More, exploring the 2006 International Criminal
Tribunal for Rwanda finding concerning the 1994 genocide, both bring the
relevance of their subjects to the current genocide in Darfur. The
issue also includes, in review essays, Dr. Joseph A. Kéchichian's
deconstruction of Dr. Guenter Lewy's denial of the Armenian Genocide and
Dr. Paul Bartrop's assessment of recent literature on the genocide of
North American aboriginals, as well as several book reviews.
Genocide Studies and Prevention: An International Journal was co-founded
by the International Association of Genocide Scholars and the
International Institute for Genocide and Human Rights Studies (A
Division of the Zoryan Institute). The journal's mission is to
understand the phenomenon of genocide, create an awareness of it as an
ongoing scourge, and promote the necessity of preventing it, for both
pragmatic and moral reasons. It is the official journal of the
International Association of Genocide Scholars and is published three
times a year by the University of Toronto Press. For more information,
contact the IIGHRS (Zoryan Institute), [email protected], Tel:
416-250-9807.