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 gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then
RSS