Порівняльно-правовий аналіз законодавства зарубіжних держав про відповідальність за геноцид

This article examines the diversity of approaches to the criminalization and penalization of the crime of genocide, based on a comparative analysis of the legislation of 90 states worldwide. It has been established that the majority of legislators have stipulated liability for the aforementioned crime directly within the criminal code. At the same time, the legislators of Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Denmark, Germany, Great Britain, Greece, Iceland, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Italy, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Philippines, Portugal, Rwanda, South Africa, Sweden, and Uruguay have prescribed liability for genocide in specific legislative acts. It has been determined that legislators have adopted varying approaches to the implementation of international legal norms concerning liability for the crime of genocide. While certain legislators have reproduced the relevant international legal norms contained in the 1948 Convention and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court verbatim or with minimal textual amendments that do not affect the substance, others have transformed the aforementioned norms of international law to a greater or lesser extent. It has been elucidated that in Argentina, Canada, Great Britain, Ireland, New Zealand, and Rwanda, the referral method was employed in the criminalization of genocide. It has been clarified that a number of legislators (specifically, Andorra, Austria, Belarus, Bolivia, Burkina Faso, Canada, Chad, Colombia, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Honduras, Lesotho, Lithuania, Liechtenstein, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Slovakia, Spain, Switzerland, Uruguay) provide an expanded range of groups protected from genocide, in comparison to the 1948 Convention. It has been established that, alongside those enumerated in the relevant international legal acts, the legislators of Angola, Andorra, Colombia, Côte d’Ivoire, Estonia, Ethiopia, Italy, Lithuania, Mongolia, Nicaragua, North Macedonia, Panama, Paraguay, Spain, Uruguay, and Vietnam have included other acts committed against members of a particular group of people within the objective element of genocide. The differences in the legislative formulation of the forms of genocide, as outlined in international legal acts, have been analyzed. Particular attention has been directed to the Italian experience in the endeavor to criminalize cultural genocide. The specificities of the criminalization by legislators of various states of conspiracy to commit genocide and direct and public incitement to commit genocide have been established. A significant diversity of existing approaches is noted, not only in the criminalization but also in the penalization of the crime of genocide. It is emphasized that the analyzed foreign experience may be useful in improving the domestic criminal law prohibition pertaining to liability for the specified crime. In particular, the identification by some legislators of other groups of people, not specified in international legal acts, against whom genocide is committed, as well as the expansion of the list of actions that constitute the objective element of this crime, deserve serious attention.