Connect with us

International Law

Understanding Crimes Against Humanity: Genocide, Memory And The Future

Published

on

In the aftermath of US President Donald Trump’s recent carte blanche to Turkey to destroy with impunity fragile Kurdish populations in Syria, the “civilized” world stands at the beginning of yet another unforgivable genocide. How is this possible in the allegedly law-based system of contemporary international relations? Quite literally, there can be no more important question. Accordingly, the timely essay which follows attempts a tentative and partial answer, but one presented, as plainly necessary, at an optimally conceptual level. In such extraordinarily complex matters, theory is a “net.” Only those who cast, can catch.[1]

In the third book of his philosophical romance, The New Gods, the French writer E.M. Cioran, exclaims: “With the exception of some aberrant cases, man does not incline to the good; what god would impel him to do so?” Whether or not the good is a great, unreal force, one that exists only as a ghost of the possible, one thing is certain. From the beginning, from that primal moment when the swerve toward evil first occurred, humankind has been the author of unspeakable crimes.

Most glaringly, these myriad crimes include genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity.

This is not even a contestable allegation. Consider, in  recent years, Syria, Afghanistan, South Sudan and the Congo. Recall, in the 1970s, Cambodia, and somewhat later, Rwanda, Somalia and the former Yugoslavia. Glance, today, at Turkey’s annihilationist war against the Kurds in Syria, a genocidal war given the de facto blessings of Russia’s Vladimir Putin and the open encouragement of US President Donald Trump.

There is more. War and genocide are not mutually exclusive. Sometimes, as history makes perfectly clear, war is simply the “best” means by which a particular genocide or closely-related crimes against humanity can be carried out.

Now, deeper philosophical questions need also be raised. How, we must finally inquire, has an entire species, miscarried from the start, managed to so egregiously scandalize its own creation? Are we all (or “merely” almost all) potential murderers of those who would normally live safely beside us? What about slavery, which continues, among other places, in Mali and Mauritania? Reference, too, the diamond mines of Sierra Leone and Liberia, and human child trafficking, especially in Nigeria and Benin but also in both North and South America. All these crimes are still far-reaching and “robust.”

All are still actively flourishing in our “advanced” 21st century

In such grim matters, death is pretty much the universal solvent. For as long as we can meaningfully recollect world history (a recollection currently out of favor in the US White House and at Goebbels-style Trump “rallies”), the corpse has been in conspicuous fashion. Today, in too many places, whole nations of corpses are being created.

As for the too long-inchoate “international community,” it stands by just as it always has, indifferently, for the most part coupled with a gratuitously self-righteous indignation; sheepish, yet arrogant, calculating and still lamenting its own alleged impotence.

All at once.

Why? The distressing answer must have several different levels, and also display several intersecting layers of pertinent meaning. At one level, and certainly the one most familiar to political scientists and legal scholars, the most basic problem lies in the changing embrace of Realpolitik or power politics. Following genuinely prophetic insights of the nineteenth-century German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche (the “state is the coldest of all cold monsters,” he warns in Zarathustra), the effective deification of the State has reduced millions of individuals to very tiny specks of residual insignificance. In such an upside-down world, one wherein the “self -determination” of peoplesis championed but where individual human beings are expressly minimized, executions are too often welcomed, heralded as welcome expressions of something sacred.

To prevent genocide and genocide-like crimes, States must be shorn of their presumed sacredness. Before this can happen, however, individuals must first discover alternative and attractive sources of belonging. In the final analysis, the core cause of genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity is not the glorification of any particular State, or even the corresponding cowardliness of other powerful States, but the continuing incapacity of individual human beings to draw any true and satisfying meaningsfrom within themselves.

In essence, the most genuinely underlying problem here is the universal and sinister power of theNietzschean “herd” in human affairs; a power now applied by those who would create or control a state, but at any time applicable also by other herds.

At its heart, the problem of all such grievous international criminality is one of distraught and unfulfilled individuals. Ever fearful of drawing meaning from their own inwardness, human beings will draw closer and closer to the nurturing herd, like a moth to flame. Sometimes it is the Class. Sometimes the Tribe. Sometimes the Church. Sometimes the Race. Most commonly, it is the State.

Whatever the particular claims of the moment, the herd may spawn hatreds and excesses that make focused mass murder more or less welcome. Fostering a soundless but persistent refrain of “us” versus “them,” it can systematically prevent each affected person from becoming fully human – that is, governed by considerations of compassion and empathy – and can encourage each impacted person to cheerfully celebrate the wanton death of “outsiders.

 Small matter, always, that the victim population, wherever it may exist, is constructed of flesh and blood itself. Since the murderous herd-based perpetrator has wittingly chosen to renounce self, he has already become impervious to reason, responding only to the irresistibly strong emotional advantages of “belonging,” and also,  as sometime corollary, to the ecstatic promise of power over death.

Always, in human affairs, there is no greater power in world politics than the power of immortality.

Always, there can be no more compelling promise.

Indeed, against this incomparable power, even nuclear weapons are inherently impotent.

Each of us contains at least the possibility of becoming more fully human, a positive prospect that could reduce destructive loyalties to the herd and thus prevent genocide and related crimes.  But it is only by actively nurturing this essential possibility that we can ever realistically hope even to endure.

The central task to creating freedom from genocide is to discover the true way back to ourselves; otherwise, we can only continue to fly with the exterminatory ideals of a delirious collectivism, with a herd-life of conformance and fear that must ultimately make defilements normal. Understood in terms of the contemporary prevention of genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity, this key task calls forth an immediate obligation to look beyond ordinary collective politics to the sanctity of individual persons. Philosophically, the vital center of any such desperately needed obligation can be found especially in philosophers Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Freud, Hesse, Jaspers, and Jung. In the more specifically American genre, we should think admiringly of Emerson, Thoreau and the American Transcendentalists.

But let us be candid. In the virulently anti-intellectual Trump Era, no one thinks seriously about classical American thought –  not even in the best universities, which remain collectively silent in the face of current US-president assisted crimes against humanity.

Living can be a process of continuous rebirth, but once under the captivity of predatory states or certain smaller groups, most humans will readily choose to die before they are fully born. Although we can evolve into compassionate persons only by first mustering carefully considered acts of defiance against the herd, this mass (a term preferred over “herd” by seminal Swiss psychologist Carl G. Jung) retards personhood by its consuming demands for obedience. Because these generally inflexible demands carry an arsenal of punishments and rewards that may seem impossible to defy, affected individuals are often ground into cogs, literally and metaphorically.

While few will even acknowledge such a disturbing fragmentation of life, a too-willing servitude to the herd may make mass killing or genocide acceptable.

Actually, it’s an old story.

Left unchallenged by those selectively few individuals who have already become empathic persons, many national leaders will remain what they have always been – that is, hyenas making verses among the tombs. Ever ready to prey upon the weak in the interests of some purportedly aggrieved populace, these ubiquitous predators can continue to carry out their nefarious crusades only because they are sustained by an inert and willing mass.

To prevent genocide and genocide-like crimes against humanity, the ultimate task must be to migrate from the violence-based Kingdom of the Herd to the individual-based Kingdom of the Self. In this utterly critical movement, however, the individual must also want to live in the second kingdom. This critical desire is the single most difficult part of the needed migration because the Kingdom of the Herd boasts its own utterly immense attractions.

The terminal risks of continuing to live within this murderous kingdom may become sufficiently apparent only when it is already too-late; that is, when the residual possibilities of a meaningful migration no longer exist.


[1] This convenient metaphor is drawn from the German poet, Novalis. Earlier, it had been embraced by philosopher of science Karl R. Popper, as epigraph to his The Logic of Scientific Discovery (1959).

LOUIS RENÉ BERES (Ph.D., Princeton, 1971) is Emeritus Professor of International Law at Purdue. His twelfth and most recent book is Surviving Amid Chaos: Israel's Nuclear Strategy (2016) (2nd ed., 2018) https://paw.princeton.edu/new-books/surviving-amid-chaos-israel%E2%80%99s-nuclear-strategy Some of his principal strategic writings have appeared in Harvard National Security Journal (Harvard Law School); International Security (Harvard University); Yale Global Online (Yale University); Oxford University Press (Oxford University); Oxford Yearbook of International Law (Oxford University Press); Parameters: Journal of the US Army War College (Pentagon); Special Warfare (Pentagon); Modern War Institute (Pentagon); The War Room (Pentagon); World Politics (Princeton); INSS (The Institute for National Security Studies)(Tel Aviv); Israel Defense (Tel Aviv); BESA Perspectives (Israel); International Journal of Intelligence and Counterintelligence; The Atlantic; The New York Times and the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.

Continue Reading
Comments

International Law

Upholding Dharma by Mob lynching?

Published

on

By

Label any Muslim a cow smuggler, accuse him of carrying beef and then lynch in the name of protecting religion. These premeditated barbaric acts seem to have become the order of the day. According to “Hate Crime Watch”, around 90% of religious hate crimes have occurred after the change of Central government in India in 2014. Although Muslims are victims in 60% of incidents, people from all religious faiths have suffered hate crimes.

India’s constitution promises its citizens justice, liberty and equality, but the shattering of social life through mob violence triggers an inescapable sense of powerlessness among its citizens. After the 2015 gruesome Dadri lynching, Mohammad Azam was lynched in July 2018 by a mob in Karnataka after a series of WhatsApp messages had warned locals that child kidnappers were on the loose. The mob assumed that Azam, who worked for Google, and his friends were co-conspirators and lynched him. In 2019, Tabrej Ansari became the first victim of the gruesome hate crime in the second term of the current regime led by proponents of Hindutva. He was lynched by a mob that forced him to chant Hindu religious slogans. In June this year, three people were lynched on suspicion of cattle smuggling in Tripura.

It needs to be recalled that lynching was used to terrorize black community for generations in the United States; blacks were lynched on dubious and false criminal accusations but this was put to an end through NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Coloured People). In a similar fashion today, there is a growing perception that mob lynching happens with disturbing regularity in India to terrorize not only minorities but also dissenters in the name of religion and culture.

Violence against those who dissent is sought to be rationalized as nationalistic. The killings of Mohammad Akhlaq, Govind Pansare, M M Kalburgi, Narendra Dabolkar and Gauri Lankesh were masterminded by religious bigots masquerading as nationalists. In fact, the recent murder of George Floyd at the hand of a racially bigoted policeman in the United States, and custodial torture and death of a father-son duo in Tamil Nadu are hate crimes which are blots on the conscience of democratic societies.

Contemporary India has witnessed a surge in right-wing Hindu extremism, and crimes committed in the name of Love Jihad, beef eating, child kidnapping, cow slaughter and anti-Muslim fake news are aimed at normalizing this disturbing phenomenon. This right-wing propaganda usually spreads like a wildfire on the internet, particularly on the so-called Whatsapp University where it has become quite common to see pictures and videos of dead cows lying in a puddle of blood. It has been noticed that such videos and images on social media platforms are always of questionable veracity whose primary purpose is to incite fear, anger and violence. Very often, the text accompanying the videos appeals that everyone should spread it as much as possible in order for it to reach at the highest political executives. When this damaging and dangerous content is continuously circulated, the resulting fear in the minds of majority community gets converted into hatred toward the minority community.

These are nothing but politically motivated polarizing tactics and diatribes which only feed off pre-existing demeaning stereotypes of minorities. Technology has become an enabler of violence for various political and cultural reasons. There are many parties and stakeholders involved in these hate crimes but victims are only innocent people and invariably from vulnerable socio-economic groups. But the most shameful is the attitude of India’s politicians and police officials who justify these crimes, garland the lynchers, deny it ever happened or shrug off their responsibility by preferring to watch as mute spectators. Even delayed or muted condemnation of communal violence, by those in positions of power, only signal tolerance of such activity. Unfortunately, both the mob violence and the official response to it are symbolic of the Indian state’s rising incompetence in countering religious intolerance.

In recent years, the alarming idea that the ‘nation’ belongs only to the majoritarian community has made global strides as many countries like Poland, Hungary, Brazil and Turkey have come under its sway. Even many long-established democracies, including the United States, are feeling the pressure of this authoritarian tendency. The emergence of Hindu nationalist ideology in India, which is seen as replacing Indian civic nationalism, promotes the notion of a unique national culture grounded in Hindu cultural supremacy. The proponents of Hindu right-wing extremism are trying to radicalize their children and youth with ultra-conservative and fictional thoughts which often re-assert historical prejudices and ungrounded hatred toward Muslims.  

One may be wrong, but cynical indifference shown by the middle class citizens tends to breed servitude and perpetuate complacency. When the victim of mob violence dies a death, shockingly there is no remorse from the crowd. Only the victim’s family remembers the event even as the societal silence is spine chilling. Actually, one should not ignore the performance aspect to mob lynching. Those indulging in mob lynching or public beatings ensure that their acts are recorded and then the potential circulation of such videos is targeted to send a strong message of the majoritarian men terrorizing minority men into humiliation and subjugation.

The dominant mainstream assumptions that cattle slaughter and beef trade directly concerns only Muslims, Dalits, Adivasis and Christians is also far from reality. Unfortunately, framing of the debates around bovine trade along communal lines has been sustained by provincial media which acts as an echo chamber to propagate Islamophobia. It has also been observed that the messages of hate get intensified after any terror attack, and instigate people to act against specific communities, primarily Muslims.

In July 2018, a landmark judgment given by the Supreme Court had condemned the incidents of mob lynching and cow vigilantism as ‘horrendous act of mobocracy’, asking the government to enact strict law to counter them. Nevertheless, in spite of comprehensive guidelines and anti-lynching laws in some states such as Rajasthan, Manipur and West Bengal, the mob violence continues unabated. In many states where the right-wings groups feel emboldened such as Assam, Uttar Pradesh and Karnataka, there is widespread feeling that the enactment of stringent cattle preservation legislation has further exacerbated such crimes. Those who think that the lynch squad is a thing of the past are wrong.

Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) do not have specific provision dealing with the mob lynching because this was never seen as a crime in India. It is similar to terrorism for which we have the most stringent laws. But mob lynching causes more than just a death; it kills the spirit and substance of democracy. We are told that Hindus and Muslims share the same DNA in India. How can the cold-blooded lynching of one’s brethren make one a hero rather than a murderer? How can a policeman’s lynching and alleged cattle lifter’s lynching possess different form of bestiality? In fact, the time has come to brand mob lynching as ‘domestic terrorism’ and a serious threat to India’s internal security.

Does glory to Lord Rama be restored through unruly mob justice? Does the path to righteousness come through killing innocent people in the name of Cow? Does circulation of derogatory and hateful projection of Muslims bring glory to Hindus? Are those calling publicly for violence against Muslims and Christians are real friends of the Indian State and government? Is not hate crime the prelude to genocide? These uncomfortable questions shake the core of India’s multi-religious and pluralist democracy. India’s timeless civilization has unflinchingly celebrated the foundational principles of humanity such as non-violence, tolerance, peaceful-coexistence and ‘Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam’ which is one of the most important moral values engraved in the heart of every Indian. These eternal principles come under violent assault whenever a mob kills an innocent Indian.

Continue Reading

International Law

International Criminal Court and thousands of ignored complaints

Published

on

©ICC-CPI

The civil war in Donbass has been going on for more than seven years now. It broke out in 2014, following Kiev’s decision to launch a military operation against the local militia in Donbass, who did not accept the Maidan coup that had happened in February of that same year. More than 10,000 civilians were killed in the conflict.

Correspondent of the French newspaper L’Humanité Vadim Kamenka, French historian Vincent Boulet, as well as a MEP and a member of the Spanish Communist Party Willie Meyer took part in the international conference “Topical Issues of Human Rights Violations in Donbass.”

Moderating the conference, organized by the Society of Friends of L’Humanité in Russia (the French leftist newspaper’s Russian office), was the head of the interregional public organization “For Democracy and Human Rights” Maxim Vilkov.

The conference was also attended by the deputy foreign minister of the Lugansk People’s Republic Anna Soroka, human rights activist Yelena Shishkina, director of the Society of Friends of L’Humanité Olesya Orlenko, and head of Donetsk National University’s department of political science Artyom Bobrovsky.

The participants discussed numerous cases of human rights violations by the Ukrainian security forces and paramilitary units in the course of the civil war in Donbass. The left-minded European participants paid special attention to the fact that none of the 6,000 complaints about the actions of Ukrainian security officials and nationalists had actually been taken up by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).

Small wonder too, since the atrocities committed in Donbass immediately bring to mind the Spanish Civil War of the 1930s when leftwing antifascists from across the world fought supporters of fascists and Nazis. Let’s not forget that even DW (foreign agent) admits that the share of neo-fascists in Kiev’s Azov regiment is very significant.

The participants called upon the ECHR to pay attention to the non-investigation of crimes committed in Donbass.

Human rights activists and public figures from Russia, France and the unrecognized republics of Donbass called on European international human rights organizations to pay attention to the failure to investigate crimes committed during the armed conflict in Ukraine. This is stated in the statement, which was sent to European international organizations after the conference.

The statement also calls attention to obstacles created to prevent citizens from filing applications to investigate crimes, as well as to attempts to ignore pertinent complaints from international bodies.

The latter, according to the authors of the statement, is especially important since “10,650 applications have so far been submitted to the ECHR concerning violations of citizens’ rights during the civil armed conflict in Ukraine. Of these, 8,000 come from Crimea and Donbass, including 7,000 from Donbass alone. Moreover, 6,000 are complaints made against Ukraine proper. However, during the past seven years, not a single complaint pertaining to the conflict in Donbass has been considered.”

Human rights activists called on the ECHR and the International Criminal Court (ICC) “to ensure that the crimes committed in Donbass are investigated in full compliance with the ECHR and ICC charter, as well as to bring pressure to bear on the political leadership of Ukraine to fulfill its obligations to protect the rights of its citizens.”

Continue Reading

International Law

Crime of Ecocide: Greening the International Criminal Law

Published

on

In June 2021, an Independent Expert Panel under the aegis of Stop Ecocide Foundation presented a newly-drafted definition for the crime of ‘ecocide.’ The Panel consisting of 12 international lawyers proposed that the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) should be amended to include ecocide as the fifth international crime along with the crime of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression. The inclusion of the crime of ecocide in the Statute will entitle ICC to investigate, prosecute, and try individuals accused of causing grave harm to the environment.

The term ecocide comprises the Greek word ‘oikos,’ meaning house or environment, and ‘cide,’ meaning an act of killing. Premised upon the term ‘genocide,’ ecocide means the significant destruction of the natural environment by human actions. In 1970, it was first used by Arthur Galston, an American biologist, at the Conference on War and National Responsibility in Washington DC. The term was further quoted by the Swedish Prime Minister Olof Palme in his opening speech at the 1972 United Nations Conference on the Human Environment (UNCHE) in Stockholm. Since then, multiple efforts were made to include ecocide within international law. Interestingly, it was adopted as an additional crime in the early drafts of the Rome Statute; however, later, it was dropped due to the lack of an adequate definition. If succeeded this time, it will be a significant victory for the environment since none of the existing international criminal laws secures it as an end-in-itself.

Definition of the crime of ecocide

The Panel has defined the crime of ecocide as, “For the purpose of this Statute, “ecocide” means unlawful or wanton acts committed with knowledge that there is a substantial likelihood of severe and either widespread or long-term damage to the environment being caused by those acts.

The definition comprises two thresholds that should be fulfilled to constitute a crime of ecocide. Firstly, there should exist a substantial likelihood that the ‘acts’ (including omissions) will cause severe and either widespread or long-term damage to the environment. In other words, along with the damages causing severe harm to the elements of the environment, such damages must have an impact on a wider geographical location or for an unreasonably longer duration.

It is appreciable that the Panel has widened the scope of the definition by incorporating spatial and temporal dimensions to its meaning. However, they have changed their position adopted in the previous legal instruments to employ a mix of conjunctive and disjunctive formulations in the definition. In addition to its severe nature, such harm could be either widespread or long-term to constitute a crime of ecocide. Thus, any severe and widespread activity, such as chopping down huge rainforests, could be attributed to ecocide. Similarly, any severe activity whose consequences prevail for a longer duration, for example, causing the extinction of a plant or animal species, could also amount to the crime of ecocide.

Instant reading of the first threshold indicates that the ecocide definition might include day-to-day human activities that contribute to greenhouse gas emissions and other environmental damages. It raises a question – Whether humans are environmental criminals? Though, it might be true that most human actions, directly or indirectly, are continuously degrading the ecosystem around us. However, the definition of ecocide is primarily concerned with the large polluters whose irresponsible activities at a massive level are a threat to the environment. Thus, to narrow down the ambit of the definition and identify criminal activities precisely, the Panel added a second threshold, that is, the ‘acts’ causing damage to the environment must be unlawful or wanton.

It means, only when the actions are either prohibited under national or international laws or indicate a reckless disregard for excessive destruction of the environment in achieving social and economic benefits will they amount to the crime of ecocide. The second threshold hints towards an anthropocentric approach of the definition and protects a range of human activities deemed necessary, desirable, and legitimate for human welfare. To determine the lawfulness of the acts, the actions should be seen with their potential social and economic values. The ecocide definition relies upon the principle of sustainable development to balance environmental destruction with human development and prohibits all destructive activities that outweigh their social and economic benefits. It also means that the definition places a ‘limited’ environmental harm outside the scope of the definition, which cannot be avoided for achieving social welfare that includes housing developments or establishing transport links.

The proposed definition is more concerned with the massive instances of environmental damages. It does not consider small ‘necessary’ ecological harms caused by day-to-day human activities. However, it is equally essential these negligible-looking destructive contributions of humans, made in their individual capacity, should not go unnoticed. These small contributions combined with each other also significantly impact the environment in the form of climate change, biodiversity loss, and other hazards. Thus, the reckless human lifestyle is a significant issue and needs to be regulated through some international code of conduct, if not as ecocide.

Undoubtedly, the proposed ecocide definition is a remarkable effort that should be appreciated for multiple reasons. First of all, the release of this definition indicates that the time has come to start penalizing environmental offenders and create deterrence so that such destructive activities can be minimized. It establishes the responsibility and accountability of big corporate houses and political leaders whose regular investments are causing substantial harm to the environment. Moreover, this definition founds its bases upon many core principles and concepts of public international law, international environmental law, international humanitarian law, and international criminal law. For instance, the principle of no transboundary harm, sustainable development, proportionality, and necessity are aptly referred to in the ecocide definition. Moreover, it also provides a sufficiently broad definition of the term ‘environment’ to primarily include any damage committed towards the earth, its biosphere, cryosphere, lithosphere, hydrosphere, atmosphere, and outer space.

Way Forward

Though the ecocide definition is a significant development, it still has to go a long way to be included in the list of international crimes. For this purpose, any of the 123 member states to the Rome Statute can officially submit the definition to the UN Secretary-General. The proposal has to be accepted for further consideration by the majority of the members through voting. Further, the text will be subjected to debates and deliberations and must be passed by a two-thirds majority of the members. Moreover, the member states need to ratify or accept the proposed text. Only after one year of such ratification or acceptance ICC may exercise its jurisdiction over the crimes of ecocide committed afterward. This entire process can take many years or even decades to get completed. It is also possible that the structure of the current definition might change in due course of its acceptance.

Today, it is unclear that whether this definition will succeed in amending the Rome Statute or not, but what can be said with certainty is that this definition will play a crucial role in building awareness and discourse around ecocide among the governments, corporate houses, professionals, and masses across the globe. With the pressing needs of humans and prevailing threats to the environment, it is the right time that the actions of the offenders should be regulated through the prism of international criminal law.

Continue Reading

Publications

Latest

Trending