Despite recent and increasing attention to the wrong of apartheid in international politics, some basic definitional questions remain uncertain. This article seeks to delineate the definition of apartheid in international law. Its focus is on the prohibition of apartheid binding States in custom and the obligation in Article 3 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. In both cases, the article shows that the Apartheid Convention of 1973 supplies the wrong's definition. Thereafter, the article addresses three key elements that will be central to determining an allegation of apartheid: its wrongful acts, its distinctive purpose requirement, and the issue of what constitutes a ‘racial group’. Finally, the article also draws attention to the wider importance of the prohibition of apartheid in the international legal system. International law marks with particular normative significance a set of practices entailing systematic and structural harms that need not involve violations of life or bodily integrity.

The December 1999 judgment of the ICTY in the Jelisić case is the first ruling on the merits from that court dealing with an indictment for genocide. The Trial Chamber concluded that the Prosecutor had failed to prove that genocide was committed and that consequently the accused could not be convicted as an accomplice to the crime. It went on to examine whether despite the absence of genocide on any widespread or systematic basis it was still possible for an individual, driven by genocidal intent, to commit one of the underlying crimes such as killing or causing serious bodily or mental harm. The Trial Chamber considered this a plausible hypothesis but ruled that this did not correspond to the facts of the case. Since the Jelisić ruling, the Preparatory Commission of the International Criminal Court has attempted to eliminate the lone génocidaire scenario in the Elements of Crimes. While the law remains unsettled, awaiting clarification from the Appeals Chamber, a wise prosecutorial policy would be to reserve international genocide prosecutions for serious cases involving organized and widespread crimes. Exaggerated attention to individual and isolated cases is a questionable use of valuable resources and risks diluting some of the terrible stigma now attached to the “crime of crimes.”