The Politics of Naming and the Costs of Denial: Genocide in Sri Lanka

This article critically examines the reluctance of the international legal community to characterize the mass atrocities committed against Tamil civilians during the final stages of the Sri Lankan civil war as genocide. Drawing on statements by figures such as former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navanethem Pillay and institutions like the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights (ECCHR), it highlights how the prevailing emphasis on establishing mens rea—specifically genocidal intent—has constrained legal recognition. While the presence of actus reus is often acknowledged, the absence of explicit policy documents or confessions has led to cautious, if not avoidant, use of the term “genocide.” This article challenges such narrow legalism by revisiting jurisprudence from Rwanda and Bosnia, where courts inferred collective genocidal intent from the systematic and coordinated nature of mass killings. It argues that a similar contextual determination should precede, rather than follow, individual culpability in the Sri Lankan case. The article further contends that the recognition of “Collective Tamil Genocide” aligns with international legal practice and affirms the right to truth and memory for survivors. Through a detailed analysis of patterns of violence—such as the targeting of no-fire zones, hospitals, food convoys, and surrendering prisoners—the article makes the case that genocide need not be proven solely through internal state documents. Instead, it can and should be inferred from the structure, scale, and intention manifest in the conduct of war itself.<br/><br/>