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
They did it again. For the whole world to see: an image of a Taiwan flag crushed by an industrial press, and the horrifying warning that “it’s closer than you think.” All with the seal of authenticity that only a reputable international media outlet can give. The Economist turned what looks like a pastiche of a poster for a grim horror movie into a truth everyone can digest, accept, and use to support exactly the opinion China wants you to have: It is over and done, Taiwan is doomed. Four years after inaccurately naming Taiwan the most dangerous place on
Wherever one looks, the United States is ceding ground to China. From foreign aid to foreign trade, and from reorganizations to organizational guidance, the Trump administration has embarked on a stunning effort to hobble itself in grappling with what his own secretary of state calls “the most potent and dangerous near-peer adversary this nation has ever confronted.” The problems start at the Department of State. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has asserted that “it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power” and that the world has returned to multipolarity, with “multi-great powers in different parts of the
President William Lai (賴清德) recently attended an event in Taipei marking the end of World War II in Europe, emphasizing in his speech: “Using force to invade another country is an unjust act and will ultimately fail.” In just a few words, he captured the core values of the postwar international order and reminded us again: History is not just for reflection, but serves as a warning for the present. From a broad historical perspective, his statement carries weight. For centuries, international relations operated under the law of the jungle — where the strong dominated and the weak were constrained. That
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
RSS