Ganda Falls on Fertile Grounds of Our Mental Landscapes, the Insights In
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Inciting Genocide with Words
INCITING GENOCIDE WITH WORDS Richard Ashby Wilson* INTRODUCTION ................................................. 278 I. EARLY JURISPRUDENCE: AVOIDING EXPLICIT CAUSATION ............................................ 282 II. DIRECT AND PUBLIC INCITEMENT TO COMMIT GENOCIDE AT THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL TRIBUNAL FOR RWANDA ............................... 287 A. Explicit Causality Analysis in Akayesu . 287 B. The Nahimana Trial Chamber’s Incoherent Jurisprudence ....................................... 289 C. Confusion at the Nahimana Appeals Chamber . 292 D. Causation: Compensating for Absence of Specific Intent? ............................................. 295 E. Consequences of the ICTR’s Causality Jurisprudence . 298 III. THE “GHOST OF CAUSATION” IN INTERNATIONAL SPEECH CRIMES ........................................ 299 A. Benesch’s “Likelihood of Genocide” . 300 B. Revisiting Cause and Effect in Rwanda . 301 C. Application of the Benesch Factors in General . 302 IV. RESOLVING THE CONFUSION: ICG AND AUSTIN’S THEORY OF SPEECH ACTS .............................. 304 A. Austin’s Speech Act Theory and Legal Scholarship . 305 B. Austin’s Speech Act Theory . 306 C. Application to ICG and Other Inchoate Crimes . 308 V. SPEECH AND CAUSATION IN COMPLETED CRIMES . 314 CONCLUSION ................................................... 319 * Gladstein Chair of Human Rights, Professor of Law and Anthropology and Founding Director of the Human Rights Institute at the University of Connecticut. BSc., Ph.D. London School of Economics and Political Science. I am grateful to Kerry Bystrom, Eleni Coundouriotis, Predrag Dojˇcinovi´c, Gregory Gordon, Jordan Kiper, Thomas Morawetz, Suzy Killmister and Nishith Prakash, and to seminar and conference participants at Harvard University School of Law, the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, the University of Connecticut Humanitarianism Studies Research Group, the University of Michigan Department of History, the University of Virginia Law School, and the 2012 Law and Society Association Annual Meeting. -
Fixing the Law Governing the Relationship Between Hate Speech and Mass Violence
FIXING THE LAW GOVERNING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN HATE SPEECH AND MASS VIOLENCE CLE Credit: 1.0 Thursday, June 14, 2018 3:45 p.m. - 4:45 p.m. Bluegrass Ballroom II Lexington Convention Center Lexington, Kentucky A NOTE CONCERNING THE PROGRAM MATERIALS The materials included in this Kentucky Bar Association Continuing Legal Education handbook are intended to provide current and accurate information about the subject matter covered. No representation or warranty is made concerning the application of the legal or other principles discussed by the instructors to any specific fact situation, nor is any prediction made concerning how any particular judge or jury will interpret or apply such principles. The proper interpretation or application of the principles discussed is a matter for the considered judgment of the individual legal practitioner. The faculty and staff of this Kentucky Bar Association CLE program disclaim liability therefore. Attorneys using these materials, or information otherwise conveyed during the program, in dealing with a specific legal matter have a duty to research original and current sources of authority. Printed by: Evolution Creative Solutions 7107 Shona Drive Cincinnati, Ohio 45237 Kentucky Bar Association TABLE OF CONTENTS The Presenter .................................................................................................................. i Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1 Setting the Stage ................................................................................................ -
1 Susan Benesch the New Law Of
Susan Benesch The New Law of Incitement to Genocide: A Critique and a Proposal April 2009 First, I wish to thank the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum and the Sudikoff Foundation for this thought-provoking symposium. I. Introduction Law has just begun to tug at the link between speech and atrocity, by punishing for incitement to genocide. Courts and tribunals have tried several important cases in the past two decades, but have not yet defined the crime clearly. To err in either direction is dangerous: an overly broad definition would restrain free speech, and an overly narrow one could contribute nothing to genocide prevention. At the symposium I offered a framework for identifying incitement to genocide, for use by courts and for early-warning efforts. I will outline the framework in this essay as well. It is a daunting task to define the crime precisely. Speech is part of intricate social processes that lead to genocide, and which are not clearly understood. Also, speech is a right as well as a crime. More than it is punished, speech is protected by law – for good reasons and nowhere more assiduously than in the United States. Yet it can be hard to distinguish expressions of ethnic pride or ardent political speech, on the one hand, from hate speech and incitement to violence on the other – especially where violence and group hatred are already commonplace. In other words, a crime and a cherished right are so closely related that it can be difficult to draw a line between them. After World War II, the Nuremberg tribunal tried two cases on speech, against Julius Streicher, a newspaper editor, and Hans Fritzsche, a radio broadcasting official.1 Then came a gap of more than 50 years, until the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, or ICTR, handed down the world’s first conviction for incitement to genocide in 1998. -
Inciting Genocide with Words
Michigan Journal of International Law Volume 36 Issue 2 2015 Inciting Genocide with Words Richard A. Wilson University of Connecticut School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjil Part of the Criminal Law Commons, Human Rights Law Commons, International Law Commons, and the Organizations Law Commons Recommended Citation Richard A. Wilson, Inciting Genocide with Words, 36 MICH. J. INT'L L. 277 (2015). Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjil/vol36/iss2/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Michigan Journal of International Law at University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Michigan Journal of International Law by an authorized editor of University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. INCITING GENOCIDE WITH WORDS Richard Ashby Wilson* INTRODUCTION ................................................. 278 I. EARLY JURISPRUDENCE: AVOIDING EXPLICIT CAUSATION ............................................ 282 II. DIRECT AND PUBLIC INCITEMENT TO COMMIT GENOCIDE AT THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL TRIBUNAL FOR RWANDA ............................... 287 A. Explicit Causality Analysis in Akayesu .............. 287 B. The Nahimana Trial Chamber’s Incoherent Jurisprudence ....................................... 289 C. Confusion at the Nahimana Appeals Chamber ....... 292 D. Causation: Compensating for Absence of Specific Intent? ............................................. 295 E. Consequences of the ICTR’s Causality Jurisprudence . 298 III. THE “GHOST OF CAUSATION” IN INTERNATIONAL SPEECH CRIMES ........................................ 299 A. Benesch’s “Likelihood of Genocide” ................ 300 B. Revisiting Cause and Effect in Rwanda .............. 301 C. Application of the Benesch Factors in General ....... 302 IV. RESOLVING THE CONFUSION: ICG AND AUSTIN’S THEORY OF SPEECH ACTS ............................. -
Incitement and Hate Language, Hate Education and Their Role in Promotion of Violent Conflict and Atrocity Crimes – an Epidemiologic Perspective
Incitement and Hate Language, Hate Education and their Role in Promotion of Violent Conflict and Atrocity Crimes – an Epidemiologic Perspective Yael Stein MD and Elihu D Richter MD MPH Genocide Prevention Program Hebrew University-Hadassah School of Public Health, Jerusalem, Israel and The Jerusalem Center for Genocide Prevention (JC4GP.org) “Death and life are in the power of the tongue” Proverbs 18:21 “Wars are not fought for territory, but for words. Man's deadliest weapon is language. He is susceptible to being hypnotized by slogans as he is to infectious diseases. And where there is an epidemic, the group mind takes over.” Arthur Koestler “Auschwitz was built not with stones, but words." Abraham Joshua Heschel Introduction This monograph on incitement to violence, terror and genocide is intended for policymakers, genocide scholars, and experts in conflict resolution ethics, human rights, social psychology, and anthropology. The core section of the document presents and discusses epidemiologic models of incitement and hate language as hazardous exposures (analogous to microbial or toxic exposures), increasing the risk of genocidal violence. The decision to look at epidemiologic models for grappling with the phenomenon of incitement requires some explanation. Unfortunately neither the understanding of the dynamics of incitement nor the adoption of politics which seek its elimination have advanced very far in recent years. As a result, international diplomacy has not made the problem of incitement a priority. While the question of incitement to genocide appears in 1 international treaties, like the Genocide Convention, the legal community has only addressed this issue sporadically. And yet, a careful examination of the role of incitement in the outbreak and spread of violence is incontrovertible. -
Accusation in a Mirror Kenneth L
Loyola University Chicago Law Journal Volume 43 Article 5 Issue 2 Winter 2012 2012 Accusation in a Mirror Kenneth L. Marcus The Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law Follow this and additional works at: http://lawecommons.luc.edu/luclj Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Kenneth L. Marcus, Accusation in a Mirror, 43 Loy. U. Chi. L. J. 357 (2012). Available at: http://lawecommons.luc.edu/luclj/vol43/iss2/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by LAW eCommons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Loyola University Chicago Law Journal by an authorized administrator of LAW eCommons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Accusation in a Mirror Kenneth L. Marcus* I. INTRODUCTION One of the most astonishing discoveries in the history of genocide studies was the Note Relative a la Propagande d'Expansion et de Recrutement (the "Note"), a mimeographed document found in Butare prefecture in the wake of the Rwandan genocide. The Note, which draws from Goebbels, Lenin, and others, is a manual of the rhetorical methods that could be used to inflame ordinary people to attack their countrymen.' For jurists attempting to interpret or apply the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (the "Genocide Convention") 2 and related statutes, 3 this * President, The Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law: senior research associate, Institute for Jewish & Community Research. Former Staff Director, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (2004 2008). B.A., Williams College, 1988; J.D., University of California at Berkeley, 1991.