3. (1951) 78 UNTS 277Google Scholar. On the Convention generally, see Schabas, W.A., Genocide in International Law (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press 2000)Google Scholar.

4. Schwarzenberger, G., International Law, Vol. I, 3rd edn. (London, Stevens & Sons 1957) p. 143Google Scholar.

5. In the 1959 United Nations General Assembly debate on Tibet, China was accused of committing genocide: UN Doc A/PV.812, para. 127 (El Salvador); UN Doc A/PV.831, para. 13 (Malaya), para. 126 (Cuba); UN Doc A/PV.833, para. 8 (El Salvador), para. 28 (Netherlands). The charges were sparked by a report from the International Commission of Jurists: The Question of Tibet and the Rule of Law (Geneva, International Commission of Jurists 1959) pp. 68–71Google Scholar.

6. E.g., in June 1963, the Mongolian People's Republic requested that the United Nations General Assembly include in its provisional agenda the item: ‘The policy of genocide carried out by the government of the Republic of Iraq Against the Kurdish People’. See UN Doc A/5429 (1963).

7. See Sartre, J.-P., ‘On Genocide’, in Falk, R.A., Kolko, G. and Lifton, R.J., eds., Crimes of War (New York, Random House 1971) pp. 534–549Google Scholar. The charge is discussed by Bassiouni, M.C., ‘United States Involvement in Vietnam’, 9 Calif. Western ILJ (1919) p. 274Google Scholar.

8. Patterson, W.L., ed., We Charge Genocide! The Crime of Government Against the Negro People (New York, International Publishers 1961)Google Scholar.

9. Bassiouni, M.C., ‘Has the United States Committed Genocide Against the American Indian?’, 9 Calif. Western ILJ (1919) p. 271Google Scholar.

10. India invoked Art. IX of the 1948 Convention as a basis of jurisdiction in a claim of genocide directed against Pakistan Trial of Pakistani Prisoners of War (Pakistan v. India), Interim Protection Order of 13 July 1973, ICJ Rep. (1973) p. 328. On the case, see Leblanc, L.J., ‘The ICJ, the Genocide Convention, and the United States’, 6 Wisconsin ILJ (1987) pp. 43, 51Google Scholar; Paust, J.J. and Blaustein, A.P., ‘War Crimes Jurisdiction and Due Process: The Bangladesh Experience’, 11 Vanderbilt J Trans. L (1978) p. 1Google Scholar; Rousseau, C., ‘Chronique des faits internationaux’, 77 Revue générate de droit international public (1972) pp. 544, 862Google Scholar; Teson, F.R., Humanitarian Intervention, An Inquiry into Law and Morality (Dobbs Ferry NY, Transnational 1988) pp. 181, 187–188Google Scholar.

11. For example ‘Situation of human rights in Cambodia’, GA Res. 52/135, preamble. Cambodia held a genocide show trial of Khmer Rouge leaders Pol Pot and Ieng Sary in 1979, but under an idiosyncratic definition of the crime that more closely resembles the concept of crimes against humanity. See De Nike, H. J., Quigley, J. and Robinson, K.J., Genocide in Cambodia: Documents from the Trial of Pol Pot and Ieng Sary (Philadelphia PA, University of Pennsylvania Press 2001)Google Scholar. The Committee of Experts appointed by the Secretary-General in 1997 was reserved in its discussion of the subject, saying ‘whether the Khmer Rouge committed genocide with respect to part of the Khmer national group turns on complex interpretative issues, especially concerning the Khmer Rouge's intent with respect to its non-minority-group victims’. ‘Report of the Group of Experts for Cambodia established pursuant to General Assembly resolution 52/135’, UN Doc. A/53/850-S/1999/231, annex, para. 65.

12. GA Res. 37/123 D. The Soviet Union was the first to launch the charge: UN Doc S/15419 (1982). See also the statements of Surinam: UN Doc S/15406 (1982); Madagascar: UN Doc A/37/ 489, Annex (1982); Mongolia: UN Doc A/37/480, Annex (1982); Vietnam: UN Doc A/37/489, Annex (1992); Pakistan: UN Doc A/37/502, Annex (1992). Many States argued that the term was being misused and abused, with a view to embarrassing Israel. See e.g., UN Doc A/37/PV.108, paras. 121, 164, 171, 178 and 197.

13. Chalk, F. and Jonassohn, K., ‘The Conceptual Framework’, in Chalk, F. and Jonassohn, K., eds., The History and Sociology of Genocide (New Haven, Yale University Press 1990) pp. 3–43, at p. 11Google Scholar. Also Jonassohn, K., ‘What is Genocide?’, in Fein, H., ed., Genocide Watch (New Haven, Yale University Press 1991) pp. 17–26Google Scholar; Jonassohn, K. and Björnson, K. Solveig, Genocide and Gross Human Rights Violation (Brunswick NJ, Transaction 1998) p. 1Google Scholar.

14. Prosecutor v. Tadić (Case No. IT-94–1-AR72), Decision on the Defence Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction, 2 October 1995, paras. 71 et seq.

15. See Schabas, op. cit. n. 3, at pp. 93–98.

16. Application of the Convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro)), Requests for the Indication of Provisional Measures, 8 April 1993, 16 ICJ Rep. (1993) p. 18Google Scholar.

17. Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, UN Doc. S/RES/827 (1993), annex.

18. Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, UN Doc. S/RES/955 (1994), annex. In the preamble to the resolution, the Council ‘Express[ed] once again its grave concern at the reports indicating that genocide and other systematic, widespread and flagrant violations of international humanitarian law have been committed in Rwanda.’ There is no comparable reference to charges of genocide in the resolution establishing the Yugoslavia Tribunal.

19. E.g., Duško Tadić, BGH-Ermittlungsrichter [Federal Court of Justice, Germany], 13 February 1994, BGs 100/94; Cvjetkovic, Landesgericht Salzburg, 31 May 1995.

20. A.-G. Israel v. Eichmann, 36 ILR (1968) 5Google Scholar (District Court, Jerusalem); A.-G. Israel v. Eichmann, 36 ILR (1968) 277Google Scholar (Israel Supreme Court).

21. In addition, to the 1993 application of Bosnia and Herzegovina, see Legality of Use of Force (Yugoslavia v. Belgium et al.), Application, 29 April 1999; Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Croatia v. Yugoslavia), Application, 2 July 1999; Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (New Application 2000) (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Rwanda), Application, 10 July 2002.

22. Prosecutor v. Akayesu (Case No. ICTR-96–4-A), Judgment, 1 June 2001; Kambanda v. Prosecutor (ICTR 97–23-A), Judgment, 19 October 2000; Serushago v. Prosecutor (Case No. ICTR-98–39-A), Reasons for Judgment, 6 April 2000; Prosecutor v. Kayishema and Ruzindana (Case No. ICTR-95–1-A), Judgment (Reasons), 1 June 2001; Prosecutor v. Musema (Case No. ICTR-96–13-A), Judgment, 16 November 2001.

23. Prosecutor v. Jelisić (Case No. IT-95–10-T), Judgment, 14 December 1999, appeal dismissed: Prosecutor v. Jelisić (Case No. IT-95–10-A), Judgment, 5 July 2001; Prosecutor v. Sikirica et al. (Case No. IT-95–8-T), Judgment on Defence Motions to Acquit, 3 September 2001.

24. Prosecutor v. Krstić (Case No. IT-98–33-T), Judgment, 2 August 2001.

25. Milošević has been indicted for genocide only with respect to the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina: Prosecutor v. Milošević (Case No. IT-01 -51 -I), Indictment, 22 November 2001.

26. Chalk and Jonassohn, op. cit. n. 13, at p. 11.

27. B. Whitaker, ‘Revised and updated report on the question of the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide’, UN Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1985/6, p. 16, para. 30; Askin, K.D., War Crimes Against Women, Prosecution in International War Crimes Tribunals (The Hague, Martinus Nijhoff 1997) pp. 342–344Google Scholar

28. B. Whitaker, ibid.; Porter, J.N., ‘What is Genocide? Notes Toward a Definition’, in Porter, J.N., ed., Genocide and Human Rights, A Global Anthology (Lanham MD, University Press of America 1982) pp. 2–33, p. 8Google Scholar.

29. Lippman, M., ‘The Drafting of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide’, 3 Boston UILJ (1985) p. 62Google Scholar.

30. Ibid.

31. ‘Report of the Preparatory Committee on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court,’ UN Doc. A/51/22, Vol. I, para. 61: ‘There was a suggestion to expand the definition of the crime of genocide contained in the Convention to encompass social and political groups. This suggestion was supported by some delegations who felt that any gap in the definition should be filled. However, other delegations expressed opposition to amending the definition contained in the Convention, which was binding on all States as a matter of customary law and which had been incorporated in the implementing legislation of the numerous States parties to the Convention. The view was expressed that the amendment of existing conventions was beyond the scope of the present exercise. Concern was also expressed that providing for different definitions of the crime of genocide in the statute could result in the International Court of Justice and the international criminal court rendering conflicting decisions with respect to the same situation under the two respective instruments. It was suggested that acts such as murder that could qualify as genocide when committed against one of the groups referred to in the Convention could also constitute crimes against humanity when committed against members of other groups, including social or political groups.’ Egypt was the source of the proposal: von Hebel, H. and Robinson, D., ‘Crimes Within the Jurisdiction of the Court’, in Lee, Roy S., ed., The International Criminal Court, The Making of the Rome Statute, Issues, Negotiations, Results (The Hague, Kluwer Law International 1999) p. 89Google Scholar.

32. Penal Code (France), JO 23 July 1992, Art. 211–1. See also the Belgian proposal to the International Law Commission: ‘Comments and observations of governments on the draft Code of Crimes Against the Peace and Security of Mankind adopted on first reading by the International law Commission at its Forty-third Session’, UN Doc. A/CN.4/448, pp. 35–36.

33. Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act, S.C. 2000, c. 24, s. 4(2).

34. Ibid., s. 4(4).

35. Penal Code of 1982 [Portugal], Art. 189.

36. Decree-Law No. 48/95 of 15 March 1995. The provision is now Art. 239 of the Penal Code.

37. Prosecutor v. Akayesu (Case No. ICTR-96–4-T), Judgment, 2 September 1998. Other judges of the Tribunal have not endorsed this expansive interpretation, classifying the Tutsi as an ‘ethnic group’ within the literal definition of genocide: Prosecutor v. Kayishema and Ruzindana (Case No. ICTR-95–1-T), Judgment, 21 May 1999, para. 94.

38. Nevertheless, the Tribunal employed the ‘ethnic’ classification in applying the concept of ‘crimes against humanity’, finding Akayesu guilty of a ‘widespread or systematic attack on the civilian population on ethnic grounds’: Prosecutor v. Akayesu, ibid., para. 652.

39. Ibid., para. 515. But note that the same Trial Chamber, in a subsequent decision, Prosecutor v. Rutaganda (Case No. ICTR-96–3-T), Judgment, 6 December 1999, seemed to hedge its remarks somewhat: ‘It appears from a reading of the travaux préparatoires of the Genocide Convention that certain groups, such as political and economic groups have been excluded from the protected groups, because they are considered to be ‘mobile groups’ which one joins through individual, political commitment. That would seem to suggest a contrario that the Convention was presumably intended to cover relatively stable and permanent groups.’ (reference omitted). Also Prosecutor v. musema (ICTR-96–13-T), Judgment, 27 January 2000, para. 162.

40. Prosecutor v. Krstić, supra n. 24, para. 555 (references omitted).

41. Ibid., para. 556.

42. For a criticism of the approach of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda to the protected groups, see W.A. Schabas, ‘L'affaire Akayesu’, in K. Boustany and D. Dormoy, eds., Génocide (s) (Brussels, Éditions Bruylant, Éditions de l'Université de Bruxelles 1999) pp. 111–130; Schabas, W.A., ‘Prosecutor v. Akayesu, Commentary’, in Klip, A. and Sluiter, G., eds., Annotated Leading Cases of International Criminal Tribunals, The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda 1994–1999, Vol. 2 (Antwerp, Intersentia 2001) pp. 539–554Google Scholar. See also Amann, D.M., ‘Prosecutor v. Akayesu’, 93 AJIL (1999) p. 195CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

43. Prosecutor v. Rutaganda, supra n. 39, para. 57.

44. Prosecutor v. Kayishema and Ruzindana, supra n. 37, para. 98.

45. Prosecutor v. Jelisić, supra n. 23, para. 70.

46. Prosecutor v. Krstić, supra n. 24, para. 557.

47. van der Stoel, M., ‘Prevention of Minority Conflicts’, in Sohn, L.B., ed., The CSCE and the Turbulent New Europe (Washington, Friedrich-Naumann-Stiftung 1993) pp. 147–154, at p. 148Google Scholar. His comment was inspired by United States Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart who said the same thing about pornography: Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 US 184, 197 (1963).

48. For an example, see Wexler, L. Sadat and Paust, J., ‘Preamble, Parts 1 & 2’, 13ter Nouvelles études pénales (1998) p. 5Google Scholar.

49. According to a 1947 State Department internal memorandum prepared for those involved in negotiations on the draft Genocide Convention, ‘The possibility exists that sporadic outbreaks against the Negro population in the United States may be brought to the attention of the United Nations, since the treaty, if ratified, would place this offence in the realm of international jurisdiction and remove the ‘safeguard’ of article 2(7) of the Charter. However, since the offence will not exist unless part of an overall plan to destroy a human group, and since the Federal Government would under the treaty acquire jurisdiction over such offences, no possibility can be foreseen of the United States being held in violation of the treaty’: ‘U.S. Commentary on Secretariat Draft Convention on Genocide, Memorandum, Sept. 10, 1947, Gross and Rusk to Lovett’, National Archives, United States of America, 501. BD-Genocide, 1945–49. See also Leblanc, L.J., ‘The Intent to Destroy Groups in the Genocide Convention’, 78 AJIL (1984) p. 370, at p. 377CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

50. United States of America, Hearing Before a Subcommittee Committee of the Committee on Foreign Relations, United States Senate, Jan. 23, 1950 (Washington, US Government Printing Office 1950) p. 12Google Scholar. According to A.J. Schweppe of the American Bar Association, Rusk ‘mispoke’, because the Convention clearly contemplates destruction of a group ‘in part’: ibid., 24 January 1950, p. 201. Discussed in Leblanc, ibid., p. 373.

51. Two Executive Sessions of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Historical Series 370 (1976). These views were not new to Lemkin, who had written, in 1947, that the definition of genocide was subordinated to the intent ‘to destroy or to cripple permanently a human group’. See Lemkin, R., ‘Genocide as a Crime in International Law’, 41 AJIL (1947) p. 145, at p. 147Google Scholar.

52. ‘Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its forty-eighth session, 6 May-26 July 1996’, UN Doc. A/51/10, p. 126. Also ‘Report of the Commission to the General Assembly on the work of its forty-first session’, UN Doc A/CN.4/SER.A/1989/Add.l (Part 2), p. 102, para. (6).

53. Lemkin had proposed the text of an ‘understanding’ that he invited the United States to file at the time of ratification: ‘[o]n the understanding that the Convention applies only to actions undertaken on a mass scale and not to individual acts even if some of these acts are committed in the course of riots or local disturbances’. Two Executive Sessions of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Historical Series 370 (1976).

54. Genocide Convention Implementation Act of 1987, sec. 1093(8).

55. ‘Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its forty-eighth session, 6 May-26 July 1996’, UN Doc. A/51/10, p. 125.

56. Robinson, N., The Genocide Convention: A Commentary (New York, Institute of Jewish Affairs 1960) p. 63Google Scholar.

57. ‘Draft Statute for the International Criminal Court. Part. 2. Jurisdiction, Admissibility and Applicable Law’, UN Doc. A/AC.249/1998/CRP.8, p. 2, n. 1.

58. Prosecutor v. Kayishema and Ruzindana, supra n. 37, para. 97. Cited in Prosecutor v. Bagilishema (Case No. ICTR-95–1A-T), Judgment, 7 June 2001, para. 64; Prosecutor v. Krstić, supra n. 24, para. 586.

59. Prosecutor v. Jelisić (Case No. IT-95–10-T), Judgment, 19 October 1999; also Prosecutor v. Bagilishema, supra n. 58, para. 64.

60. Prosecutor v. Sikirica et al., supra n. 23, para. 65.

61. Prosecutor v. Krstić, supra n. 24, para. 590. See also ‘Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its forty-eighth session, 6 May-26 July 1996’, UN Doc. A/51/10, p. 88.

62. Prosecutor v. Sikirica et al., supra n. 23, para. 89.

63. Whitaker, loc. cit. n. 27, at p. 16, para. 29.

64. ‘Final Report of the Commission of Experts’, UN Doc. S/1994/674, para. 94.

65. Prosecutor v. Karadžsić and Mladić (Case Nos. IT-95–18-R61, IT-95–5-R61), Transcript of hearing of 27 June 1996, p. 15. The Prosecutor (Eric Ostberg) noted that he relied on the Whitaker report (see loc. cit. n. 27). Also Prosecutor v. Jelisić and Cesić (Case No. IT-95–10-I), Indictment, 21 July 1995, para. 17; Prosecutor v. Jelisić and Cesić (Case No. IT-95–10-I), Amended Indictment, 12 May 1998, para. 16; Prosecutor v. Jelisić and Cesić (Case No. IT-95–10-I), Second Amended Indictment, 19 October 1998, para. 14.

66. Prosecutor v. Jelesić, supra n. 23, para. 82.

67. Ibid., para. 93.

68. Prosecutor v. Sikirica et al., supra n. 23, para. 80.

69. ‘Final Report of the Commission of Experts’, UN Doc. S/1994/674, para. 94.

70. Prosecutor v. Jelisić, supra n. 23, para. 93.

71. Prosecutor v. Sikirica et al., supra n. 23, para. 80.

72. Prosecutor v. Krstić, supra n. 24, para. 595.

73. Ibid., para. 592.

74. Bassiouni, M.C., ‘The Commission of Experts Established Pursuant to Security Council Resolution 780: Investigating Violations of International Humanitarian Law in the Former Yugoslavia’, 5 Crim. LF (1994) pp. 279, at pp. 323–324Google Scholar.

75. Prosecutor v. Karadžić and Mladić (Case Nos. IT-95–18-R61, IT-95–5-R61), Transcript of hearing of 27 June 1996, supra n. 65, p. 25.

76. Prosecutor v. Jelisić, supra n. 23, para. 83.

77. Prosecutor v. Krstić, supra n. 24, para. 590. Also Prosecutor v. Sikirica et al., supra n. 23, para. 68.

78. Nikolai Jorgić, Bundesverfassungsgericht [Federal Constitutional Court], Fourth Chamber, Second Senate, 12 December 2000, 2 BvR 1290/99, para. 23; Novislav Djajić, Bayerisches Oberstes Landesgericht, 23 May 1997, 3 St 20/96; excerpted in Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (1998) p. 392Google Scholar. See Safferling, C.J.M., ‘Public Prosecutor v. Djajic’, 92 AJIL (1998) p. 528CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

79. Robinson, op. cit. n. 56, p. 63.

80. GA Res. 37/123 D.

81. UN Doc A/37/PV.108, para. 151.

82. See Prosecutor v. Jelisić, supra n. 23, para. 83. Also Cassese, A., Violence and Law in the Modern Age (Princeton, New Jersey Princeton University Press 1988) pp. 82–84Google Scholar; Cassese, A., ‘La Communauté internationale et le génocide’, in Le droit international au service de la paix, de la justice et du développement, Mélanges Michel Virally (Paris, Pedone 1991) pp. 183–194, pp. 191–192Google Scholar. Four of six members of an international commission, chaired by Sean MacBride and established to investigate the massacre, concluded that the ‘deliberate destruction of the national and cultural rights and identity of the Palestinian people amount[ed] to genocide’: cited in Malone, L.A., ‘Sharon v. Time, The Criminal Responsibility Under International Law for Civilian Massacres’, 3 Palestine YIL (1986) p. 41, at p. 70, fn. 169Google Scholar. Also Mallison, W.T. and Mallison, S.V., The Palestine Problem in International Law and World Order (London, Longman 1986) pp. 387–440Google Scholar.

83. Prosecutor v. Akayesu, supra n. 37, paras. 121, 226, 227, 245, 268.

84. Ibid., paras. 226, 227, 238, 245, 246, 272, 296.

85. Prosecutor v. Kambanda (Case No. ICTR 97–23-S), Judgment and Sentence, para. 16. Also Prosecutor v. Kayishema and Ruzindana, supra n. 37, para. 91; Prosecutor v. Rutaganda, supra n. 39, para. 59.

86. Prosecutor v. Jelisić, supra n. 23, para. 108.

87. Prosecutor v. Jelisić, supra n. 23, Prosecution's Appeal Brief (Redacted Version), para. 4.22. Also Prosecutor v. Sikirica et al., supra n. 23, para. 142.

88. Prosecutor v. Jelisić (Case No. IT-95–10-A), Judgment, 5 July 2001, para. 51.

89. Ibid., para. 45.

90. See Prosecutor v. Kayishema and Ruzindana, supra n. 22, para. 151.

91. DPP v. Beard, [ 1920] AC 479 (HL).

92. Prosecutor v. Sikirica et al., supra n. 23, para. 60.

93. Prosecutor v. Krstić, supra n. 24, para. 622.

94. Ibid., para. 624.

95. Ibid., para. 605.

96. Prosecutor v. Akayesu, supra n. 37, para. 689: ‘Although the evidence supports a finding that a superior/subordinate relationship existed between the Accused and the Interahamwe who were at the bureau communal, the Tribunal notes that there is no allegation in the Indictment that the Interahamwe, who are referred to as ‘armed local militia,’ were subordinates of the Accused. This relationship is a fundamental element of the criminal offence set forth in Article 6(3)’.

97. Prosecutor v. Bagilishema, supra n. 58.

98. Prosecutor v. Serushago (Case No. ICTR-98–39-S), Sentence, 5 February 1999.

99. Prosecutor v. Kambanda, supra n. 85.

100. Prosecutor v. Kayishema and Ruzindana, supra n. 37, para. 473.

101. Prosecutor v. Musema, supra n. 39, para. 894; also paras. 899, 905, 914, 924.

102. United States of America v. Yamashita, (1948) 4 LRTWC 1, pp. 36–37; In re Yamashita, 327 US 1 (1945).

103. GA Res. 217 A (III), UN Doc A/810. But the minority rights clause in the draft declaration was dropped and did not appear in the final version: Schabas, W.A., ‘Les droits des minorités: Une déclaration inachevée’, in Déclaration universelle des droits de l'homme 1948–98, Avenir d'un idéal commun (Paris, La Documentation française 1999) pp. 223–242Google Scholar.

104. UN Doc. A/C.6/SR.83.

105. Raphael Lemkin himself, in the book that initially proposed the term ‘genocide’, attached great importance to its cultural aspects. See Lemkin, R., Axis Rule in Occupied Europe, Analysis of Government, Proposals for Redress (Washington, Carnegie Endowment for World Peace 1944) pp. 84–85Google Scholar.

106. UN Doc E/447, pp. 5–13.

107. UN Doc A/C.6/242.

108. UN Doc A/C.6/SR.82 (Vallindas, Greece).

109. Kjuradj Kusljić, Bayerisches Oberstes Landesgericht, 15 December 1999, 6 St 1/99, appeal dismissed: Kjuradj Kusljić, Bundesgerichtshof [Federal Court of Justice], 21 February 2001, BGH 3 Str 244/00.

110. Nikolai Jorgić, supra n. 78, para. (III)(4)(a)(aa).

111. Cited in Prosecutor v. Krstić, supra n. 24, para. 580.

112. Apparently, the expression ‘ethnic cleansing’ first appeared in 1981 in Yugoslav media accounts of the establishment of ‘ethnically clean territories’ in Kosovo. Petrović, D., ‘Ethnic Cleansing — An Attempt at Methodology’, 5 EJIL (1994) p. 342, p. 343CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

113. Application of the Convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro)), Further requests for the Indication of Provisional Measures, 13 September 1993, (1993) ICJ Rep. p. 325, Separate Reasons of Judge ad hoc Lauterpacht, p. 431, para. 69.

114. ‘The Situation of Human Rights in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia’, CHR Res. 1992/ S-l/1, preamble.

115. ‘Forced Population Transfer’, S-CHR Res. 1998/27.

116. See for example De Zayas, A., ‘International Law and Mass Population Transfers’, 16 Harvard ILJ (1975) p. 207Google Scholar; De Zayas, A., Nemesis at Potsdam; The Expulsion of the Germans from the East (Lincoln NE, University of Nebraska Press 1989)Google Scholar; Von Braun, Freiherr, ‘Germany's Eastern Border and Mass Expulsions’, 58 AJIL (1964) pp. 747CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

117. United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, Historical Atlas of the Holocaust (New York NY, Macmillan 1996) pp. 25–27Google Scholar.

118. A.-G. Israel v. Eichmann (1968) 36 ILR 5 (District Court, Jerusalem), para. 80.

119. Ibid., para. 244(1–3); also paras. 186–187.

120. Prosecutor v. Jelisić, supra n. 23, para. 98.

121. Ibid., para. 100.

122. Ibid., para. 48. The Appeals Chamber's obiter dictum was followed in Prosecutor v. Sikirica et al., supra n. 23, para. 62.

123. Prosecutor v. Kunarac et al. (Case No. IT-96–23 & IT-96–23/1-A), Judgment, 12 June 2002, fn. 114.

124. UN Doc E/AC.25/SR.4, pp. 3–6. Also Kadić v. Karadžić, 70 F.3d 232 (2nd Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 64 USLW 3832 (18 June 1996).

125. Lemkin, op. cit. n. 105, at p. 79.

126. Prosecutor v. Kayishema and Ruzindana, supra n. 37, para. 94.

127. Ibid., para. 276.

128. Guatemala: Memory of Silence, Report of the Commission for Historical Clarification, Conclusions and Recommendations, ‘Conclusions,’ para. 120, <http://www.hrdata.aaas.org/ceh/report/english/toc.html> (consulted 14 January 2003).

129. A.-G. Israel v. Eichmann, supra n. 118, para. 195.

130. ‘Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its forty-eighth session, 6 May-26 July 1996’, UN Doc. A/51/10, p. 90.

131. See for example, ‘Proposal by Algeria, Bahrain, Comoros, Djibouti, Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Morocco, Oman, Palestine, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the Sudan, the Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates and Yemen, Comments on the proposal submitted by the United States of America concerning terminology and the crime of genocide’, UN Doc. PCNICC/1999/WGEC/DP.4, p. 4.

132. ‘Report of the Preparatory Commission for the International Criminal Court, Addendum, Finalised draft text of the Elements of Crimes,’ UN Doc. PCNICC/2000/INF/3/Add.2.

133. Ibid., p. 5.

134. ‘Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court’, UN Doc. A/CONF. 183/9, Art. 30(3).

135. ‘Report of the Preparatory Commission for the International Criminal Court, Addendum, Finalised draft text of the Elements of Crimes’, supra n. 132, p. 6.

136. UN Doc. E/AC.25/SR.9, p. 7.

137. Pinochet had been charged, inter alia, with genocide. The genocide provision in the Spanish penal code differs somewhat from that of the Convention, although the reasoning of the Spanish judges indicates reliance on more than an idiosyncratic definition of the crime. Case 173/98, Penal Chamber, Madrid, 5 November 1998. See Wilson, R.J., ‘Prosecuting Pinochet in Spain’, 6 Human Rights Brief (2000) Issue 3, pp. 3–4Google Scholar.

138. R. v. Bartle, ex parte Pinochet, Divisional Court, Queen's Bench Division, 28 October 1998, (1998) 37 ILM 1302, paras. 65, 68.

139. R. v. Bow Street Stipendiary Magistrate and others, ex parte Pinochet Ugarte, [1998] 4 All ER 897, [1998] 3 WLR 1456 (HL), pp. 911–912 (All ER).

140. R. v. Bow Street Stipendiary Magistrate and others, ex parte Pinochet Ugarte (Amnesty International and others intervening) (No. 3), [1999] 2 All ER 97, [1999] 2 WLR 825 (HL), pp. 189–190 (All ER).

141. Ibid.

142. Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Belgium), Judgment, 14 February 2002, para. 51.

143. Ibid., para. 58.

144. Ibid., para. 61.

145. UN Doc. A/BUR/50.

146. UN Doc. A/C.6/86.

147. UN Doc. E/447, pp. 5–13, art. VII. Also UN Doc. E/AC.25/8.

148. UN Doc. E/623, Art. V; also UN Doc. E/AC.25/SR.8, p. 11; UN Doc. A/C.6/SR.100.

149. UN Doc. A/C.6/SR.100.

150. ‘Basic Principles of a Convention on Genocide’, UN Doc. E/AC.25/7, Principle IX.

151. UN Doc. E/AC.25/SR.7, pp. 3–4.

152. Ibid., p. 9.

153. UN Doc. A/C.6/SR.100.

154. A.-G. Israel v. Eichmann, supra n. 118, paras. 20–38; A.-G. Israel v. Eichmann, (1968) 36 ILR 277 (Israel Supreme Court), para. 12; Application of the Convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro)), Further requests for the Indication of Provisional Measures, 13 September 1993, ICJ Rep. (1993) p. 325Google Scholar, Separate Reasons of Judge ad hoc Lauterpacht; Prosecutor v. Tadić, supra n. 14, para. 62; Nikola Jorgić, supra n. 78.

155. E.g., Meron, T., ‘International Criminalisation of Internal Atrocities’, 89 AJIL (1995) pp. 554, at p. 569CrossRefGoogle Scholar; International Law Association, Committee on International Human Rights Law and Practice, ‘Final Report on the Exercise of Universal Jurisdiction in Respect of Gross Human Rights Offences’, 2000, p. 5.

156. Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 {Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Belgium), Judgment, 15 February 2002. See especially Separate opinion of President Gilbert Guillaume, pp. 5–6; Individual opinion of Francisco Rezek; Declaration of Raymond Ranjeva.

157. ‘Report on the situation of human rights in Rwanda submitted by the Special Representative, Mr. M. Moussalli, pursuant to Commission resolution 1999/20’, UN Doc. E/CN.4/2000/41, para. 136. See also Schabas, W.A., ‘The Rwanda Case: Sometimes it's Impossible’, in Bassiouni, M.C., ed., Post-Conflict Justice (Ardsley NY, Transnational 2002) pp. 499–522Google Scholar. Also Drumbl, M.A., ‘Punishment, Postgenocide: From Guilt to Shame to Civis in Rwanda’, 75 NY Univ. LR (2000) pp. 1221–1326Google Scholar.

158. Ibid., para. 137.

159. Sretko Damjanović and Borislav Herak were sentenced to death on 12 March 1993 for genocide by the District Military Court {Okruzni Vojni Sud) of Bosnia and Herzegovina, sitting in Sarajevo, pursuant to Article 141 of the Criminal Law of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia which was incorporated into the laws of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1992. The verdict was upheld on 30 July 1993 by the Supreme Court (Vrhovni Sud), and on 29 December 1993, by a differently constituted Supreme Court sitting in third instance. See Damjanović v. Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina (Case No. CH/96/30), 5 September 1997, Decisions on Admissibility and Merits 1996–1997, p. 147.

160. Vucković, Supreme Court of Kosovo, 31 August 2001, AP. 156/2001. The brief submitted by the International Public Prosecutor, Michael Hartmann, to the Supreme Court took the view that there was insufficient evidence of genocidal intent and that the initial conviction could not stand: ‘Opinion on appeals of genocide conviction of Miroslav Vuckovic’, Office of the Public Prosecutor of Kosovo, 30 August 2001.

161. Available at <http://www.icrc.org/ihl-nat.nsf/> (consulted 3 January 2003). On 25 June 1997, the Osijek District Court convicted a Serb of genocide for participation in acts of ‘ethnic cleansing’ in the village of Branjina during the war in 1991. ‘M.H.’ was involved, with other local Serbs, in a local administration following occupation by the Yugoslav National Army. A number of criminal acts were imputed to him, but no killings. These included introducing identity cards, forcing Croats to join the Serb paramilitary units under threat of expulsion from the village if they refused, imposition of a curfew, destruction of property, forced labour, detention, taking of hostages, ‘arming the gypsies and encouraging them to shoot against the Croat houses’, looting and expulsion. He was sentenced to five years imprisonment for genocide pursuant to Article 119 of the Basic Criminal Law of the Republic of Croatia. The Court said that to establish genocide, it would be enough to establish that he committed only one act against a single victim, to the extent that his intent was to partly or entirely annihilate a protected group. It noted that M.H. participated in the realisation of plans to create a Greater Serbia, and to ethnically cleanse the village of Branjina.

162. Becker, E., ‘U.S. Spearheading Effort to Bring Pol Pot to Trial’, New York Times (23 06 1997) p. AlGoogle Scholar; ‘Editorial: A Trial for Pol Pot’, New York Times (24 06 1997) p. A18Google Scholar; DePalma, A., ‘Canadians Surprised by Proposal to Extradite Pol Pot’, New York Times (24 06 1997) p. A10Google Scholar; Crossette, B., ‘Beijing Says it Won't Go Along with Creation of Pol Pot Tribunal’, New York Times (25 06 1997) p. A6Google Scholar; ‘U.S. To Press for Pol Pot Trial’, New York Times (30 07 1997) p. A10Google Scholar.

163. See Mugesera et al. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2001] 4 FC 421 (TD). Also Schabas, W.A., ‘L'affaire Mugesera’, (1996) 7 Revue universelle des droits de l'homme 193Google Scholar; Schabas, W.A., ‘Mugesera v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration’, 93 AJIL (1999) p. 529CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

164. Niyonteze, Military Court of Appeal 1A, 26 May 2000; Niyonteze, Military Court of Cassation, 27 April 2001. See Reydams, L., ‘International Decisions, Niyonteze v. Public Prosecutor’, 96 AJIL (2002) p. 231CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Switzerland acceded to the Convention on 7 September 2000. Note that Switzerland has also cooperated with the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda in transferring genocide suspects for trial in Arusha: Prosecutor v. Musema, supra n. 39, paras. 17–18; Musema, Tribunal federal [Federal court], 28 April 1997, 1A.36/1997, ATF 123 II 175. Transcripts of interviews conducted by Swiss juges d'instruction were used as evidence before the International Tribunal for Rwanda: Prosecutor v. Musema, ibid., paras. 91–92.

165. See Gillet, E., ‘Le génocide devant la justice’, Les temps modernes, No. 583 (07–08 1995) at p. 228Google Scholar. See also Brussels Court of Appeal (Ch. mis. acc.), 17 May 1995, Journal des Tribunaux (1995) p. 542Google Scholar.

166. Nikolai Jorgić, Oberlandesgericht Düisseldorf [Higher Regional Court, Dusseldorf], 26 September 1997, IV- 26/96, appeal dismissed: Nikolai Jorgić, Bundesgerichtshof [Federal Court of Justice], 30 April 1999, 3 StR 215/98F.

167. Ibid.

168. See Werle, G. and Jessberger, F., ‘International Criminal Justice is Coming Home: The New German Code of Crimes Against International Law’, 13 Criminal LF (2002) pp. 191–223Google Scholar; Jessberger, F., ‘Prosecuting International Crimes in Domestic Courts: A Look Back Ahead’, 12 Finnish YIL (2001) pp. 281–304Google Scholar.

169. Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act, S.C. 2000, c. 24.

170. The Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia has already had occasion to rule that it has no hierarchical relationship with the International Court of Justice. Prosecutor v. Delalić et al. (Case No. IT-96–21-A), Judgment, 20 February 2001, para. 24. Also Prosecutor v. Kvocka el al. (Case No. IT-98–30/1-AR73.5), Decision on Interlocutory Appeal by the Accused Zoran Zigić against the Decision of Trial Chamber I dated 5 December 2000, 25 May 2001. But see Semanza v. Prosecutor (Case No. ICTR-97–20-A), Decision, 31 May 2000, Separate Opinion of Judge Shahabuddeen, para. 32.