Genocide in the ICJ: should States be obliged to hold each other accountable?

This paper examines the legal obligations of States under the Genocide Convention to hold each other accountable for the crime of genocide. It explores whether the interstate complaint mechanism of Article IX should be interpreted as a duty rather than a right, analysing international jurisprudence, particularly the International Court of Justice’s (ICJ) evolving stance on State responsibility. By evaluating contemporary cases, including the Gambia v. Myanmar and South Africa v. Israel, this study argues that the duty to prevent genocide inherently includes the obligation to invoke international legal mechanisms against potential violators. The research identifies both objective and subjective factors that influence the applicability of this duty, considering jurisdictional constraints, State influence, and the role of international law in enforcing compliance. Ultimately, this paper contributes to the ongoing discourse on strengthening global legal frameworks to prevent mass atrocities.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Universidade Católica Portuguesa
Published
2026-02-02
DOI
https://doi.org/10.34632/catolicalawreview.2026.18115
Primary Topic
Global Peace and Security Dynamics
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Genocide in the ICJ: should States be obliged to hold each other accountable?

António Kreiseler Albuquerque
Universidade Católica Portuguesa
Global Peace and Security Dynamics
article

Genocide in the ICJ: should States be obliged to hold each other accountable?

António Kreiseler Albuquerque
article en

Abstract

This paper examines the legal obligations of States under the Genocide Convention to hold each other accountable for the crime of genocide. It explores whether the interstate complaint mechanism of Article IX should be interpreted as a duty rather than a right, analysing international jurisprudence, particularly the International Court of Justice’s (ICJ) evolving stance on State responsibility. By evaluating contemporary cases, including the Gambia v. Myanmar and South Africa v. Israel, this study argues that the duty to prevent genocide inherently includes the obligation to invoke international legal mechanisms against potential violators. The research identifies both objective and subjective factors that influence the applicability of this duty, considering jurisdictional constraints, State influence, and the role of international law in enforcing compliance. Ultimately, this paper contributes to the ongoing discourse on strengthening global legal frameworks to prevent mass atrocities.

Universidade Católica Portuguesa
London School of Economics and Political Science (GB)
Peace, Justice and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 35%
Global Peace and Security Dynamics
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.