This video features the IWM Institute Annual Lecture 2024, delivered by Philippe Sands, a human rights lawyer and professor. He discusses the historical origins and legal definitions of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide, drawing parallels to current global conflicts. The lecture explores the complexities of international law, the challenges in prosecuting these crimes, and the societal impact of these legal concepts. It also includes a discussion with Lindsay Hilsum, International Editor for Channel 4 News.
The legal definition of genocide, as established in the 1948 convention, has a much higher threshold than the common understanding. While people generally associate genocide with committing horrible acts against a large number of people from a particular group, the legal definition requires proving a specific intent to destroy a group, in whole or in part. This specific intent is difficult to prove and often needs to be inferred from a pattern of behavior.
This distinction is important in legal cases because the high threshold set by the convention and interpreted by courts makes it challenging to establish genocide, especially in the context of military conflicts. Judges are cautious about opening the floodgates to numerous cases, so they tend to interpret the requirements stringently. This gap between public perception and legal definition can lead to misunderstandings and a sense that justice is not being served when acts that appear genocidal to the public are not legally classified as such.
The proposed convention on crimes against humanity is in a significant stage of development. The UN International Law Commission finalized a draft convention on this topic in 2019, aiming to create a parallel convention to the genocide convention. A key difference is that this convention would not require proving the specific intent to destroy a group, making it potentially easier to prosecute acts of violence against civilians on a widespread and systematic basis.
The main obstacle to its adoption has been that states have been hesitant to agree to a new convention, partly due to the complexities encountered with the genocide convention. The process has been slow, with states needing to reach consensus. While a significant number of states now support the initiative, a group of countries, including China, Russia, Iran, and Israel, have been holding up the process. These nations, and to some extent the US and UK with their own anxieties, are concerned about the potential implications of such a convention and how it might be used against them. The hope is that by October, a decision will be made to move towards formal negotiation and adoption of this convention.
