Fragmentation or Stabilisation? Recent Case Law on the Crime of Genocide in Light of the 2007 Judgment of the International Court of Justice

Schabas, William

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-71476-9_10

William Schabas¹⁷

Part of the book series: Nigerian Yearbook of International Law ((NYBIL,volume 2017))

351 Accesses

Abstract

The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide was the first human rights treaty to be adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations. By a unanimous resolution on 9 December 1948, the Assembly approved the text that had been negotiated over the previous 2 years, opening the Convention for signature. On the same day, it also adopted a companion resolution mandating the creation of an international criminal court, giving effect to the reference to such an institution in Article 6 of the Convention itself. But within a few years, international criminal law had gone into virtual hibernation from which it was not to emerge for more than four decades.

Professor of international law, Middlesex University, London; professor of international criminal law and human rights, Leiden University; emeritus professor of human rights law, National University of Ireland Galway.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Chapter: USD 29.95; Price excludes VAT (USA)

eBook: USD 84.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Softcover Book: USD 109.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Hardcover Book: USD 109.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

1.
Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v Serbia and Montenegro), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2007.
2.
Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Croatia v Serbia), Judgment, 3 February 2015.
3.
Jorgic v Germany, no. 74613/01, § 112, ECHR 2007-III.
4.
ibid 45.
5.
ibid 112.
6.
ibid.
7.
Stichting Mothers of Srebrenica and Others v the Netherlands (dec.), no. 65542/12, §§ 49-53, 11 June 2013.
8.
Cited at Stichting Mothers of Srebrenica and Others v the Netherlands.
9.
Perinçek v Switzerland, no. 27510/08, §§ 23, 83, 116, 17 December 2013.
10.
Catan and Others v the Republic of Moldova and Russia [GC], nos. 43370/04, 8252/05 and 18454/06, §§ 76, 96, 115, 19 October 2012.
11.
Vallianatos and Others v Greece [GC], nos. 29381/09 and 32684/09, Partly Concurring, Partly Dissenting Opinion of Judge Pinto de Albuquerque, 7 November 2013.
12.
Perinçek v Switzerland [GC], no. 27510/08, 15 October 2015; Vasiliauskas v Lithuania, [GC], no. 35343/05, 20 November 2015.
13.
Simba v Prosecutor (ICTR-01-76-A), Judgment, 27 November 2007, paras. 256-270; Bagosora and Nsengiyumva v Prosecutor (ICTR-98-41-A), Judgment, 14 December 2011, paras. 382-386.
14.
Karera v Prosecutor (ICTR-01-74-A), Judgment, 2 February 2009; Bikindi v Prosecutor (ICTR-01-72-A), Judgment, 18 March 2010; Prosecutor v Rukundo (ICTR-2001-70-A), Judgment, 20 October 2010; Zigiranyirazo v Prosecutor (ICTR-01-73-A), Judgment, 18 December 2010; Muvunyi v Prosecutor (ICTR-2000-55A-A), Judgment, 1 April 2011; Mugenzi and Mugiraneza v Prosecutor (ICTR-99-50-A), Judgment, 4 February 2013.
15.
Prosecutor v François Karera (ICTR-01-74-T), Judgment and Sentence, 7 December 2007, paras. 533-549; Prosecutor v Nchamihigo (ICTR-01-63-T), Judgment and Sentence, 12 November 2008, paras. 329-336; Prosecutor v Bikindi (ICTR-01-72-T), Judgment, 2 December 2008, paras. 404-426; Prosecutor v Théoneste Bagosora et al. (ICTR-98-41-T), Judgment and Sentence, 18 December 2008, paras. 2084-2163; Prosecutor v Zigiranyirazo (ICTR-01-73-T), Judgment, 18 December 2008, paras. 396-428; Prosecutor v Renzaho (ICTR-97-31-T), Judgment and Sentence, 14 July 2009, paras. 760-780; Prosecutor v Nsengimana (ICTR-01-69-T), Judgment, 17 November 2009, paras. 831-841; Prosecutor v Rukundo (ICTR-2001-70-T), Judgment, 27 February 2009, paras. 555-576; Prosecutor v Ndindiliyimana et al. (ICTR-00-56-T), Judgment and Sentence, 17 May 2011, paras. 2044-2085; Prosecutor v Nyiramasuhuko et al. (ICTR-98-42-T), Judgment and Sentence, 24 June 2011, paras. 5653-6038; Prosecutor v Bizimungu et al. (ICTR-99-50-T), Judgment and Sentence, 30 September 2011, paras. 1954-1987; Prosecutor v Karemera et al. (ICTR-98-44-T), Judgment and Sentence, 2 February 2012, paras. 1575-1672.
16.
Prosecutor v Bagaragaza (ICTR-2005-86-11bis), Decision on Prosecutor’s Request for Referral of the Indictment to the Kingdom of the Netherlands, 13 April 2007, para. 23, fn. 32, citing Applicability of Article VI, Section 22, of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1989, p. 177, para. 47; Prosecutor v Rwamakuba (ICTR-98-44C-I), Decision on Appropriate Remedy, 31 January 2007, para. 48, fn. 71, citing Interpretation of the Agreement of 25 March 1951 between the WHO and Egypt, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1980, p. 73 and Reparation for injuries suffered in the service of the United Nations, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1949, p. 174; Prosecutor v Karemera et al. (ICTR-98-44-T), Decision on Nzirorera’s Preliminary Motion to Dismiss the Indictment for Lack of Jurisdiction: Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, 29 March 2004, para. 10, fn. 4, citing Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970), Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1971, p. 16; Prosecutor v Karemera et al. (ICTR-98-44-PT), Decision on Severance of André Rwamakuba and Amendments of the Indictment, 7 December 2004, para. 22, fn. 22, citing Case concerning the Northern Cameroons (Cameroon v United Kingdom), Preliminary Objections, Judgment of 2 December 1963, I.C.J. Reports 1963, p. 15 and Nuclear Tests (Australia v France), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1974, p. 253.
17.
Prosecutor v Bagaragaza (ICTR-2005-86-11bis), Decision on Prosecutor’s Request for Referral of the Indictment to the Kingdom of the Netherlands, 13 April 2007, para. 23, fn. 33.
18.
Nahimana et al. v Prosecutor (ICTR-99-52-A), Judgment, 28 November 2007.
19.
Prosecutor v Seromba (ICTR-2001-66-A), Judgment, 12 March 2008, para. 46.
20.
ibid.
21.
ibid.
22.
ibid.
23.
ibid 117, citing Prosecutor v Ntakirutimana et al. (ICTR-96-10-A and ICTR-96-17-A), Judgment, 13 December 2004, para. 855.
24.
The reference in Seromba is to the Report of the International Law Commission on the Work of its Forty-Eighth Session 6 May-26 July 1996, UN GAOR International Law Commission, 51st Sess., Supp. No. 10, p. 91, UN Doc. A/51/10 (1996). However the precise reference appears to be erroneous; the statement to which the Appeals Chamber seems to have been referring appears on p. 46.
25.
Prosecutor v Seromba (ICTR-2001-66-A), Judgment, 12 March 2008, para. 47.
26.
ibid para. 48.
27.
Prosecutor v Karadžić (IT-95-5/18-AR98bis.l), Judgment, 11 July 2013, para. 32, 83.
28.
Hategekimana v Prosecutor (ICTR-00-55B-A), Judgment, 8 May 2012, para. 133.
29.
ibid.
30.
Prosecutor v Gatete (ICTR-00-61-A), Judgment, 9 October 2012, para. 260.
31.
ibid para. 261.
32.
ibid para. 262 (reference omitted).
33.
ibid per Judge Agius, para. 3.
34.
ibid para. 4.
35.
ibid para. 5. For the discussion to which Judge Agius refers, see: Prosecutor v Popović et al. (IT IT-05-88-T), Judgment, 10 June 2010, paras. 2111-2127.
36.
Prosecutor v Bashir (ICC-02/05-01/09), Decision on the Prosecution's Application for a Warrant of Arrest against Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir, 4 March 2009.
37.
Prosecutor v Bashir (ICC-02/05-01/09), Judgment on the appeal of the Prosecutor against the ”Decision on the Prosecution’s Application for a Warrant of Arrest against Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir”, 3 February 2010.
38.
Prosecutor v Bashir (ICC-02/05-01/09), Second Decision on the Prosecution’s Application for a Warrant of Arrest against Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir, 12 July 2010.
39.
Prosecutor v Bashir (ICC-02/05-01/09), Decision on the Prosecution’s Application for a Warrant of Arrest against Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir, 4 March 2009, para. 114, fn. 133, para. 135, fns. 148, 149 and 150, para. 137, fn. 152, para. 138, fn. 153, para. 139, fn. 154, para. 140, fn. 155, para. 142, fn. 156, para. 143, fn. 157, para. 144, fns. 158, 159 and 160, para. 146, fns. 161, 162 and 163, para. 167, fn. 188, para. 182, fns. 202, 203, 204, 205 and 206, para. 183, fns. 207 and 208, para. 194, fn. 221.
40.
Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, (2002) 187 UNTS 90, art. 9(3).
41.
ibid, art. 21(1) (a).
42.
Bashir (n 36), para. 113.
43.
See, e.g., PCNICC/1999/L.5/Rev.1/Add.2, pp. 5-7, issued 22 December 1999. The initial proposal for the Elements of Crimes, submitted by the United States, borrowed the ‘widespread or systematic’ language from the Rome Statute’s definition of crimes against humanity: Proposal Submitted by the United States of America, Draft elements of crimes, PCNICC/1999/DP.4.
44.
PCNICC/2000/L.1/Rev.1/Add.2, pp. 6-8 (issued 7 April 2000).
45.
Prosecutor v Jelisić (IT-95-10-T), Judgment, 14 December 1999.
46.
Bashir (n 36), para. 117.
47.
ibid para. 119, citing: Prosecutor v Jelisić (IT-95-10-T), Judgment, 14 December 1999, para. 400 (an error; the correct reference is to para. 100); Prosecutor v Akayesu (ICTR-96-4-T), Judgment, 2 September 1998, paras. 520, 523.
48.
Prosecutor v Jelisić (IT-95-10-T), Judgment, 14 December 1999, para. 100; affirmed: Prosecutor v Jelisić (IT-95-10-A), Judgment, 5 July 2001.
49.
Bashir (n 36) para. 119 (references omitted). Contra: Bashir (ICC-02/05-01/09), Separate and Partly Dissenting Opinion of Judge Anita Ušacka, 4 March 2009, para. 19, fn. 26.
50.
ibid para. 120.
51.
ibid para. 125.
52.
ibid para. 124.
53.
Bashir (n 36), para. 20. Separate and Partly Dissenting Opinion of Judge Anita Ušacka.
54.
Bashir (n 36) para. 132.
55.
ibid para. 133.
56.
UN Doc. A/CONF.183/C.1/SR.3, para. 100.
57.
See particularly the debates at UN Doc. A/CONF.183/C.1/SR.3, paras. 20-179.
58.
Bashir (n 36) para. 139, fn. 154, referring to: Claus Kreβ, ‘The Darfur Report and Genocidal Intent’, (2005) 3 Journal of International Criminal Justice 562, 565-572; William Schabas, Genocide in International Law, The Crime of Crimes (2^nd edn Cambridge University Press, 2009) 241-264.
59.
Prosecutor v Popović et al. (IT-05-88-T), Judgment, 10 June 2010, para. 807, fns. 2910 and 2911, para. 808, fn. 2913, para. 809, fn. 2916, para. 812, fn. 2925, para. 813, fn. 2926, para. 814, fn. 2929, para. 817, fn. 2934, para. 819, fn. 2937, para. 821, fn. 2940, para. 822, fns. 2943 and 2944, para. 827, fn. 2958, para. 831, fn. 2968.
60.
ibid para. 811.
61.
ibid para. 812.
62.
ibid para. 813.
63.
ibid para. 813, fn. 2926, citing Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v Serbia and Montenegro), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2007, p. 43, para. 190 (emphasis in the original).
64.
ibid para. 814.
65.
ibid para. 819.
66.
ibid para. 819, fn. 2937, citing Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v Serbia and Montenegro), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2007, p. 43, para. 355.
67.
ibid para. 829.
68.
ibid.
69.
ibid.
70.
ibid.
71.
Prosecutor v Krstić (IT-98-33-A), Judgment, 19 April 2004, para. 224.
72.
Prosecutor v Popović et al. (IT-05-88-T), Judgment, 10 June 2010, para. 830.
73.
Prosecutor v Popović et al. (IT-05-88-A), Judgment, 30 January 2015, paras. 438-439.
74.
Prosecutor v Karadžić (IT-95-5/18), Prosecution’s Marked-Up Indictment, 19 October 2009, para. 8.
75.
ibid para. 38.
76.
Karadžić (n 74) Transcript, 28 June 2012, p. 28751, lines 23-25, p. 28752, line 1, p. 28757, line 25, p. 28758, lines 1-10.
77.
ibid p. 28763, lines 20-24.
78.
ibid p. 28764, lines 22-25.
79.
ibid p. 28765, lines 1-4.
80.
ibid p. 28765, lines 4-13.
81.
ibid p. 28765, lines 19-22.
82.
ibid p. 28766, lines 3-6.
83.
ibid p. 28766, lines 12-18.
84.
ibid p. 28766, lines 23-25, p. 28767, lines 1-3.
85.
ibid p. 28767, lines 11-17.
86.
ibid p. 28767, line 22.
87.
ibid p. 28768, lines 5-15.
88.
ibid p. 28769, lines 3-6.
89.
ibid p. 28769, lines 10-12.
90.
Karadžić (n 74).
91.
ibid para. 94.
92.
ibid para. 25. This is probably a misreading of the Trial Chamber’s position. Like the Appeals Chamber, the Trial Chamber methodically examined the relevance of each of the three punishable acts of genocide. Before turning to causing serious bodily and mental harm (beginning at p. 28765, line 14), it discussed killing in the previous paragraph (beginning at p. 28764, line 19). There it concluded, in language similar to what it used for the other two acts of genocide further on in the ruling, that ‘even if taken at its highest, does not reach the level from which a reasonable trier of fact could infer that a significant section of the Bosnian Muslim and/or Bosnian Croat groups and a substantial number of members of these groups were targeted for destruction so as to have an impact on the existence of the Bosnian Muslims and/or Bosnian Croats as such’ (p. 28764, lines 8-13).
93.
ibid paras. 34-36.
94.
ibid para. 37 (reference omitted).
95.
ibid paras. 47-48.
96.
Prosecutor v Stakić (IT-97-24-A), Judgment, 22 March 2006, para. 55.
97.
Karadžić (n 74) paras. 59-60.
98.
ibid para. 56.
99.
ibid para. 56.
100.
ibid para. 61, citing Prosecutor v Karadžić (IT-95-5/18), Transcript, 28 June 2012, p. 28765, lines 9-13 (emphasis added by the Appeals Chamber).
101.
ibid para. 68.
102.
ibid paras. 79-83.
103.
ibid paras. 84, 95.
104.
ibid para. 97.
105.
ibid para. 99, citing Prosecutor v Jelisić (IT-95-10-A), Judgment, 5 July 2001, para 47; Prosecutor v Krstić (IT-98-33-A), Judgment, 19 April 2004, para 34; Hategekimana v Prosecutor (ITCR-00-55B-A), Judgment, 8 May 2012, para 133; Gacumbitsi v Prosecutor (ICTR-2001-64-A), Judgment, 7 July 2006, paras. 40-41.
106.
ibid para. 100.
107.
Prosecutor v Delalić et al. (IT-96-21-A), Judgment, 20 February 2001, para. 434 (emphasis in original). See also: Prosecutor v Jelisić (IT-95-10-A), Judgment, 5 July 2001, para. 37.
108.
Prosecutor v Tolimir (IT-05-88/2-T), Judgment, 12 December 2012, para. 746 (emphasis in the original), citing Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v Serbia and Montenegro), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2007, p. 43, para. 187.
109.
ibid para. 765.
110.
ibid para 764, citing Prosecutor v Blagojević and Jokić (IT-02-60-T), Judgment, 17 January 2005.
111.
ibid.
112.
Prosecutor v Blagojević and Jokić (IT-02-60-A), Judgment, 9 May 2007, para. 123. Note that this judgment was issued several weeks after the February 2007 judgment of the International Court of Justice. The judgment is listed as an authority at the end of the Appeals Chamber’s judgment but it is not in fact cited anywhere in the reasons of the Appeals Chamber.
113.
Blagojević and Jokić (n 112) Partly Dissenting Opinion of Judge Shahabuddeen.
114.
Prosecutor v Tolimir (IT-05-88/2-T), Judgment, 12 December 2012, para. 766.
115.
ibid para 773.
116.
Prosecutor v Tolimir (IT-05-88/2-T), Judgment, 12 December 2012, para. 781.
117.
ibid para 782.
118.
ibid para 766.
119.
ibid paras. 787-791.
120.
Tolimir (n 116) para 226. For other references to the Croatia v Serbia judgment, see: paras. 203 (fn. 580), 230, 231, 233 (fns. 670, 671, 673, 675), 234 (fn. 678), 246 (fn. 724), 247 (fn. 729), 754 (fn. 751).
121.
Ahmadou Sadio Diallo (Republic of Guinea v Democratic Republic of the Congo), 30 November 2010, para. 66.
122.
Reservations to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1951, p. 23.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Middlesex University, London, UK
William Schabas

Authors

William Schabas
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to William Schabas .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

International Criminal Court, The Hague, The Netherlands
Chile Eboe-Osuji
School of Law, University of Bradford, Bradford, United Kingdom
Engobo Emeseh

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Schabas, W. (2018). Fragmentation or Stabilisation? Recent Case Law on the Crime of Genocide in Light of the 2007 Judgment of the International Court of Justice. In: Eboe-Osuji, C., Emeseh, E. (eds) Nigerian Yearbook of International Law 2017. Nigerian Yearbook of International Law , vol 2017. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71476-9_10

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71476-9_10
Published: 13 May 2018
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-71475-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-71476-9
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics