Information Issued by the Association of Jewish Refugees in Great Britain
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Vol. XVIII No. 1 January, 1963 INFORMATION ISSUED BY THE ASSOCIATION OF JEWISH REFUGEES IN GREAT BRITAIN a FAIRFAX MANSIONS, FINCHLEY RD. (corner Fairfax Rd.), London, N.W.3 Off let and Consulting Houn: Telephone : MAIda Vale 9096.'7 (General Ofhce and Welfare for the Aged) Monday to Tluirsday 10 a.m.—1 p.m. 3—6 p.m. MAIda Vale 4449 (Employment Agency, annually licensed by the L.C.C.. and Social Services Dept.) fridaf 10 ajn.-1 p.m. Or. Rudolf R. Levy against any reference to international jurisdiction, and those who—as did Great Britain, France and Holland—sponsored the appeal to an ii}temational court, whether the Intemational Court of Justice PROTECTION AGAINST GROUP ATROCITIES or a special international high court for deating with acts of genocide. The latter took their stand on the fact that genocide could rarely be com The Genocide Convention mitted without the participation and tolerance of the State and therefore it would be, as the repre In connection with the neo-Nazi occurrences acceptance of rules applied first only among sentative of the Philippines formulated it, para Sir Barnett Janner, M.P., President of the Board of several nations and gradually becoming recognised doxical to leave punishment to the same State. Deputies, initiated a debate in the House of principles of international law." On the other hand, it may safely be assumed that Commons some time ago on the question of Great To avoid difficulties arising from the interpreta those who oppose international jurisdiction on Britain's accession to the Genocide Convention, tion of a general concept, a list of acts was given this matter would also not accept the jurisdiction the international agreement against group murder, in Article 2 which fall within the meaning of of a high court of this kind. Exertions for the in the course of which thc Government representa genocide if they are committed with the purpose of establishment of an international criminal high tive stated that " the difiBcuIties involved are such destroying a national, ethnic, racial or religious court have been fruitless up to the present. There that the United Kingdom should not accede to it". group in its entirety or in part. The following fore, this 6th Article of the Convention diminishes What then is the purport of the Genocide Con- come within this category : killing members of the practical significance of the Genocide Con J^ntion and for what reasons was the British the group, causing serious bodily or mental harm vention. Government moved to refrain from acceding to to members of the group, deliberately inflicting this international convention ? on the group conditions of life calculated to bring According to Article 9, merely disputes The Second World War influenced profoundly about its physical destruction in whole or in part, between the Contracting Parties relating to the development and features of international imposing measures intended to prevent births the interpretation, application or fulfilment of the criminal law. Where plain martial law is concemed within the group, forcibly transferring children of Convention, including those relating to the there were already international treaties and rules the group to another group. responsibility of the State for genocide, are to ot common law. On the other hand, efforts to come before the International Court of Justice. According to Article 8 appeal may be made to treat crimes against humanity as acts particularly Punishable Acta subject to criminal law are of more recent date, the competent bodies of the United Nations for experiences during the Nazi period led to the " According to Article 3 of the Convention the appropriate measures for the prevention and sup making of genocide, or group murder, an act following acts are penal : genocide, conspiracy to pression of acts of genocide. particularly subject to criminal law. commit genocide, direct and public incitement to However, the article which gave rise to the v.-haracteristic of genocide is that the offender commit genocidci, attempt to commit genocide, refusal of the British Govemment to accede to the les to destroy a social group as such and that by complicity in genocide. On this Article the British Convention is Article No. 7, which states that ind' ^j''*"'s single persons suffer injury, not as and Polish representatives declared expressly : " genocide shall not be considered as political suV • ^'^" ''"' ^ members of a group, whereby " Incitement is punishable generally regardless of crimes for the purpose of extradition" and the "Ojective group hatred is the impelling factor. the results." Contracting Parties bind themselves in these cases di«^ "different species of group destruction may be Under Article 4 persons who commit genocide " to grant extradition in accordance with their J ""guished : physical group murder consi^s in or any of the acts mentioned in Article 3 shall be laws and treaties in force". ne physical destruction of the group. Biological punished " whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public oflficials or private s oup murder consists in destroying the power to IMbate In House of Commons propagate, by prevention of birth or by child individuals". This gave rise naturally to a dis eportation. Finally, there is cultural genocide, cussion of the appeal made by an offender on the As was explained in the House of Commons by .P^'^ting the ruin of the group's cultural founda- grounds of orders received from superiors, which Mr. Peter Thomas, the Joint Under-Secretary of T fv,- '^"S"3g^' religion and cultural traditions, played so great a part in war crime cases. Opinions State for Foreign Affairs, in reference to this fio J belongs, too, group destruction by disrup- were divided on this. Nehemiah Robinson's view article, the decisive question is : " Would it be deportation, etc., in so far as the aim of is that intent implies initiative, and therefore necessary, if the United Kingdom decided to such measures is to prevent the survival of the ordinarily it would seem that no intent could be group, become a party to the Convention, to amend the ascribed to persons merely fulfilling superior Extradition Act, 1870, to provide that an offence orders, however " superior orders would not be a of genocide should not be regarded as an offence Resdirtion of United Nations justification in those cases where the guilty party of a political character and by so doing to limit the was not only a tool of his superior, but partici traditional right of this country to grant political in '^^ Plenary Session of the United Nations stated pated in the ' conspiracy to commit genocide ' ". ;P a resolution of December llth, 1946, that The contracting parties bind themselves, so far asylum ? " As against this. Sir Barnett Janner ( "^"^^eide is a crime under international law, con- as their constitutions permit, to enact the necessary declared : "There is no question about its being a anP *° ^^^ ^P'"t and aims of the United Nations legislation to give effect to the provisions of the crime. If it is a crime and is so acknowledged to na condemned by the civilised world " and on present Convention. On the part of the Norwegian, be and condemned accordingly, how can thc "ecember 9th, 1948, it adopted the Convention Government be heard to say that if the crime of Canadian and Australian Govemments this Article genocide is committed, there is a political reason ,"?iiocide unanimously anci without abstentions. was interpreted to mean that additional legislation for avoiding extradition ? I do not understand BrV K **''""' noting that even at that time the is requisite only in States where thc existing this argument." and he asks the House : " How ritish delegate made a statement regarding a criminal law is inadequate for the prosecution of can we expect those 65 nations—including our own ^ssible reservation "concerning the right of all the acts subject to punishment in the Conven closest allies and friends and intimate connections of th ^ asylum and the need of a future study tion. Otherwise the Convention contains no —to regard us with anything but disrespect when Ian, Convention in so far as British criminal express obligation for " uniformed legislation". We do not accept what they have accepted, and * was concemed ". That was 14 years ago. To date only very few States have deemed it what their legal authorities obviously have told „ tn the Convention, which describes genocide as a necessary to supplement their criminal laws them is in order, but, instead, make some kind of niitf!,!!)^- ""^^er intemational law, whether com- accordingly, viz.: Israel, the German Federal legal excuse ? " cont '•" '™^ °^ peace or in time of war", fhe Republic and Denmark. py^.'^cting parties bind themselves to prevent and The crucial weakness of the Convention lies And though in its statement the British Govern Art-'1 '*^'^ "'""^ (Article 1). The discussion on this obviously in the provision conceming legal pro ment allays fears by saying that "the perpetrator sent included its lesal validity, and the repre- cedure that determines which court is competent to could and would be punished under the ordinary to"^''ves of Great Britain and the United States handle charees of genocide. In Article 6 it is criminal law ". the statements made by the Home ^^ the view that resolutions of the Plenary said that criminal procedure shall be conducted Secretary. Mr. H. Brooke, on the occasion of the "..^'on were by no means mandatory, but were " bv a competent tribunal of the State in the proceedings against Colin Jordan have shown only n, "JP'y declaratory statements" In his Com- territory of which the act was committed ", or " by too plainly that law and legal practice by no means ^ ntar\' on this Convention Nehemiah Robinson sue'' intemational penal tribunal as mav have adequately cover actions which are the subject of •mem^"- "^'^e basic position is whether this state- iiirisdiction with respect to those Contracting the Genocide Convention and that recent occur crim J'^Plies that genocide is an intemational Parties which shall have acepted its jurisdiction ".