Genocide Convention

     The U.N. General Assembly adopted the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in 1948. The United States was one of the signatories but did not ratify it until 1988, and then with reservations. Robert Gard said these were minor, but in fact the first of them is very important. It says; "Before any dispute to which the United States is a party may be submitted to the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice, the specific consent of the United States is required in each case." Since this is a treaty, it presumably means approval by the U.S. Senate. Thus while the U.S. administration wages war without the consent of Congress, this reservation provides it with a means of escaping the application of the convention.
     The first quarter 1999 issue of the IPI Report, now edited by the University of Missouri School of Journalism, carries an article "U.S. Sides with Foes" telling how the United States was one of the seven countries which voted against the establishment of the International Criminal Court. This means that the U.S., like Israel, does not recognize it. Other western countries were among those voting for the court. The conclusion the world drew was that the U.S. and Israel want to evade its operation.

Ronald Hilton - 04/09/99

More on Genocide Convention

     The legal aspects of the Kosovo war are baffling. Robert Gard, who has had a distinguished military and academic career, writes:
     "I agree that the reservation requiring our concurrence is important, because it signals our reluctance to subject the US to international law that we are happy to apply to others. In this regard, it is outrageous that we declined to sign the ICC convention in Rome, particularly after provisions were added giving competent national courts the first option to try cases.
     However, in the case of the genocide convention, I'm reasonably confident that the chances of the U.S.'s commiting that crime is near zero; and our reservation in no way exempts us from the responsibility to pevent/punish that crime. As I read the definition of genocide in the convention, it seems to me there's no doubt that it applies in Kosovo."
     My comment: I agree that the U.S. refusal to sign the ICC convention is "outrageous." Edith Coliver asks why I mentioned Israel as also refusing to sign. The answer is that Israel is an ally of the U.S., while the five other non-signers are not. The Arab countries accuse Israel of genocide.
     As for the genocide convention, consult an excellent article in The Economist (4/3/99). The only specialist quoted who says that our action in Kosovo is legally justified is law professor Christopher Greenwood of the London School of Economics, and most of his colleagues disagree with him. He argues correctly that international law is evolving; current international law is a (not an) ass by siding with Milosevich.
     Consequently, to assume that the U.S. is incapable of committing genocide would be questioned by many in the world, wrongly I think. That legally, the U.S. acts as though it were above the law does not help. Moreover, there is a dispute between the NATO (principally U.S.) armed forces and civilian aid groups like Médicins sans Frontières, who argue that under international law, they, and not the military, are in charge of aid distribution. This argument came to a head when the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, Ms. Sadako Ogata, visited Macedonia. She was taken on a tour of the camps by military personnel, not by aid officials, who claimed it was legally their job. This may have been simply military arrogance, but, more probably, it was to show that she was there as a guest of NATO, which had deliberately kept the U.N. out of the military operation over the objections of many.

More on the Kosovo Genocide Convention


     Robert Gard writes:
     "I believe the US signed the Genocide Convention "with reservations." I'm not familiar with the substance of the "reservations," but I have the impression that they are not significant."
     My comment: Actually, the situation is not that clear. In fact, it is very complicated. It is discussed by Louis Henkin in The American Journal of International Law (April 1995), published by the American Society of International Law. The U.S. did not "implement" the Genocide Convention of 1948 until 1988, but implement does not mean implement. That had to wait for ratification in 1994. It is still not clear how the U.S. would actually behave.
     The documents are long and bewildering. Among the adjectives used to describe the reservations are "specious", "meretricious", and "hypocritical". Presumably the Hague court is engendering a new generation of genocide specialists. The implications go beyond the European scene, since they will have bearing on the Pinochet case and Cambodia, to give just two examples.

Ronald Hilton - 04/10/99