Reviving the Genocide Convention’s Preventive Purpose

The contemporary discourse on genocide is dominated by international criminal law, designed to punish individuals after the fact. This article proposes a legal framework derived from Public International Law and the Genocide Convention’s original purpose to prevent genocide. We clarify the conceptual and practical differences between individual criminal responsibility for the crime of genocide and State responsibility for breaches of the Genocide Convention, including distinct standards of proof and indicia of intent. We propose correctives to prevailing errors. We argue for a more appropriate and flexible standard of proof for State breaches of the Genocide Convention. We further outline a novel method for inferring genocidal intent from systematic genocidal acts targeting a protected group, as indicia of genocidal intent. Finally, we urge States to domesticate the duty to prevent in law and policy, offering broad recommendations for the establishment of atrocity prevention institutions to better implement the duty to prevent and responsibility to protect populations at risk of mass atrocities worldwide.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Genocide Studies and Prevention
Published
2024-12-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.5038/1911-9933.18.2.1984
Primary Topic
International Law and Human Rights
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Reviving the Genocide Convention’s Preventive Purpose

John Packer, Yonah Diamond
Genocide Studies and Prevention
International Law and Human Rights
article

Reviving the Genocide Convention’s Preventive Purpose

John Packer, Yonah Diamond
article en

Abstract

The contemporary discourse on genocide is dominated by international criminal law, designed to punish individuals after the fact. This article proposes a legal framework derived from Public International Law and the Genocide Convention’s original purpose to prevent genocide. We clarify the conceptual and practical differences between individual criminal responsibility for the crime of genocide and State responsibility for breaches of the Genocide Convention, including distinct standards of proof and indicia of intent. We propose correctives to prevailing errors. We argue for a more appropriate and flexible standard of proof for State breaches of the Genocide Convention. We further outline a novel method for inferring genocidal intent from systematic genocidal acts targeting a protected group, as indicia of genocidal intent. Finally, we urge States to domesticate the duty to prevent in law and policy, offering broad recommendations for the establishment of atrocity prevention institutions to better implement the duty to prevent and responsibility to protect populations at risk of mass atrocities worldwide.

Genocide Studies and PreventionVol. 18(2)
University of Ottawa (CA), Kunststoff-Institut Lüdenscheid (DE)
Openalex Percentile: Top 53%
International Law and Human Rights
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Reviving the Genocide Convention’s Preventive Purpose — John Packer, Yonah Diamond · Genocide Studies and Prevention (2024) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS