On Monday last week, some of the world’s leading international lawyers and cross-party UK parliamentarians sent a public letter to British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and Foreign Secretary David Cameron, urging them to support the Genocide Determination Bill that is under discussion in the UK House of Lords.
This legislation, introduced by one of the authors of this piece, David Alton, in late 2022, aims to establish an independent and impartial mechanism for preventing mass atrocities and ensuring that the UK adheres to its obligations under the 1948 Genocide Convention.
In December last year, the international community marked the Convention’s 75th anniversary. However, mass atrocities, including crimes against humanity and genocide, remain a prominent and seemingly permanent feature of our world.
Between 2000 and 2020, at least 37 countries experienced or came perilously close to experiencing mass atrocities. The impact of such crimes extends beyond the immediate harm to their victims. They also lead to massive displacement, threaten international peace and security, and contribute to the rise of authoritarianism, which heightens the risk of future atrocities.
Despite these risks, the UK and other major countries have long adhered to a flawed policy of delegating responsibility for identifying crimes against humanity to international courts and tribunals rather than taking direct action.
However, international law, especially the obligation to prevent genocide, requires that governments — not courts — regularly assess the risk of genocide and use “all means reasonably available” to prevent or stop it.
While international courts can assess wrongful actions only after they have occurred, political, economic and legal interventions by the global community are necessary well before any harm is inflicted. Consequently, governments must take the lead.
Regrettably, governments often attempt to shirk their international commitments by refusing to classify mass atrocities as “genocide.” While they argue that such determinations should be left to international courts, they decline to engage with tribunals that could help prevent, stop or punish such crimes. Worse, these governments frequently maintain full and normal relations with countries accused of committing these offenses.
The Genocide Determination Bill aims to remove this impasse. Under the proposed law, if a British foreign secretary did not acknowledge an ongoing genocide or a significant risk of one, a designated parliamentary committee could conduct its own investigation. Should the foreign secretary agree with the committee’s findings, they may take appropriate action.
Conversely, if the foreign secretary rejects the committee’s conclusions, a UK court would have the authority to issue a preliminary ruling on the existence or potential risk of genocide. Should the court affirm the occurrence or risk of genocide, the secretary would be required to outline the reasonable steps that the government intends to take and specify the referral mechanisms, such as international courts, that it plans to use.
Thus, the threat of parliamentary action would compel the government to act.
The bill also aims to establish a practical framework for the UK to meet its obligations under the Genocide Convention, facilitating the prevention and punishment of such crimes through concrete policy measures without constraining foreign policy.
It is important to note that this bill is not tied to any particular situation or conflict. Given that labeling a mass atrocity as genocide or a crime against humanity is often politically and legally contentious, the bill authorizes an impartial, independent and apolitical determination by a UK court when all other options have been exhausted.
By making preliminary determinations, UK courts can act as safeguards against inaction, apathy and impunity, thereby reaffirming the idea that core international crimes are prohibited regardless of who commits them.
Rather than introduce new international laws, the bill aims to enforce existing ones by ensuring meaningful action even when governments fail to respond.
While much more can be done, acknowledging the existing legal and political realities is a crucial first step. Without this bill or a similar measure, political expediency would continue to prevail and mass atrocities would be likely to become even more widespread.
The liberal rules-based global order is arguably facing its most perilous moment since the end of World War II, as long-established international laws are increasingly challenged and frequently violated. Against this backdrop, the Genocide Determination Bill provides the UK government with a historic opportunity to align its policies with the UK’s commitments and stated values, thereby setting an example for other governments to follow.
David Alton, a crossbench member of the UK House of Lords, is the primary sponsor and lead advocate of the Genocide Determination Bill. Helena Kennedy, a member of the UK House of Lords, is director of the International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute. Aarif Abraham, a barrister at Doughty Street Chambers in London, is founder of the human-rights non-governmental organization Accountability Unit.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
The White House’s decision to take a 9.9 percent stake in Intel Corp is looking like very shrewd business indeed. Since the government bought in at US$20.47 a share last August, the US chipmaker’s surging stock price has delivered the US a US$43 billion return. One of the reasons the investment has so far proved so sound is that the White House has made sure of it. According to The Wall Street Journal, Howard personally pushed deals on Intel’s behalf with some of the most lucrative clients imaginable. They include Nvidia Corp, the company at the heart of the AI
A single photograph can cut through a lot of noise, but it can also be used to misrepresent the truth. At the very least, it can concentrate the mind on something that requires further investigation. On Monday last week, Ma Ying-jeou Foundation CEO Tai Hsia-ling (戴遐齡) and former National Security Council secretary-general King Pu-tsung (金溥聰) held a news conference in which they showed a photograph of former foundation CEO Hsiao Hsu-tsen (蕭旭岑), now Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) deputy chairman. In the image Hsiao is seated next to Xiamen Taiwan Businessmen Association chairman Han Ying-huan (韓螢煥). The two men were holding
I first met Professor Ray Jiing (井迎瑞) as a film and documentary student at Shih Hsin University’s (SHU) Department of Radio Television and Film in 1988. The following year, he went on to become the director of the Chinese Taipei Film Archive — forerunner of the Taiwan Film and Audiovisual Institute (TFAI). Over his eight-year tenure, Jiing rescued and restored over 200 classic Taiwanese films. In 1997, he established the Graduate Institute of Studies in Documentary and Film Archiving at Tainan National University of the Arts (TNNUA), and I joined the program in his third cohort of students. Beyond a
President William Lai Ching-te’s (賴清德) May 20 second-anniversary address was not just a routine policy review; it was damage control. US President Donald Trump’s remarks — that he did not want to see anyone move toward independence and that the delivery of a major Taiwan arms package could depend on the progress of US-China relations — unsettled Taiwan’s public and created an opening for opposition parties to question whether Taiwan was being treated as a bargaining chip in Washington’s dealings with Beijing. Lai’s speech was designed to close that opening. The address covered the expected ground: sovereignty, cross-strait relations, defense spending,
RSS