Horizonte, MG, Brazil (CEDIN); Professor of Public and Private International Law, Sudamérica College. The present article article present The College. Belo Sudamérica Law, in International Centre Private Law and International Public the inSeptember, 2006. themastersdegree presentedastheconclusion of is basedonthefinal dissertation for of Fellow Professor Research (CEDIN); Scotland; Brazil Aberdeen, MG, of Horizonte, University Law, International in Masters * a I. Genocide nized definition of the so called crime ofthe crime crimes: genocide. socalled the of definition recog nized officially ratification international the its well with into as along came came and Genocide 1951, in of force Crime Punish the and of Prevention ment the on Convention between Yugoslavia former 1992 and1995. the in in Rwanda, in and place 1994, took that massacres the as entire such episodes recent of more the destruction until groups, the in and up religion Period ended certain habits Colonization of imposition the the where for the in passing described groups Bible, names, of killings different the under since committed been has societies the have theway emerged theyare. which from development torical his- of process the of result a is it instead ages; Unfortunately, modern the case. of horror any of act an not is genocide in tolerated be shall not that and approval society’s and State eral fthe following acts committedwithintentto of “any of consists genocide Genocide, of Crime the of Punishment and Prevention the on tion d ) Cultural genocideandtheconservativeapproachof G h hsoia cam a be had s the as heard been has claim historical The genocide of crime the history Throughout codn t Atce I f te Conven- the of II Article to According n aern at ht al hr o lib- of short fall that act aberrant and enocide is tobeconsidered aradical efinition the genocideconvention - - a Tiua fr h Fre Ygsai (Ar Yugoslavia IV) Former ticle the for Tribunal nal tional Criminal Court (Article VI). (Article tional CriminalCourt f te nentoa Ciia Tiua for Tribunal Criminal II) (Article International Rwanda statutes the other the in of as addressed such documents was international genocide that way other group”. toan- the group of Forcibly children transferring of (e) within the group; births intended toprevent conditions group tion inwhole (d)Imposingmeasures part; or in the on its physicalabout - calculatedtobring destruc life inflicting liberately (c)De the group; tomembers of or mentalharm Causing serious (b)bodily the group; members of assuch:(a) group, Killing cal, racialorreligious destroy, whole in ethni anational, inpart, or i bilat cdmc ok, a as partici also has works, among academic which brilliant Lemkin, his Raphael Polish- jurist the Jewish of thought the consider through into was brought ation was such as genocide United Nations” the to moral lawandto the spirit andaims of losses to humanity, great and which is contrary in and results mankind shocks the conscience of human groups,adenialwhich entire istence of ex the right of tional lawinvolving a denial of is of genocide Crime the Genocide, of Punishment and the Jus on Prevention Convention of the in Court Reservations in International tice the of Opinion h Gncd Cneto isie the inspired Convention Genocide The oee, h vr frt ie h term the time first very the However, Advisory the to according Moreover, 2 - Interna the of Statute Rome the and . 4 1 te nentoa Crimi International the , - “a crimeunderinterna Raquel Faria PintoCoelho* R aquel F aria 3 P into C oelho ------V.2/N.1 J uiz J an 2008
95 de /D F
ez Teoria e Cultura ora e 2 oelho C into P aria F aquel R ------14 11 10 12
“sexual mutilation, sterilization, as “sexual and that “deliberately inflicting on 13 lements tion onven C The Chamber went on to proceed a brief On the same judgement the acts enumerat Also, by “causing serious bodily harm to After briefly analysing the general defini The Trial Chamber of the International ) e the the group conditions of life calculated about to bring its physical destruction part” in (paragraph c) whole shall or imply perpetrator the struction by which not imme does in of “methods de of members kill the diately group, but which, the destruction”. physical their seek ultimately, analysis of the two final paragraphs II of of Article the Genocide Convention. By “imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group” (paragraph d) it considered acts to involve such ted ted in the territory of Rwanda throughout 1994, reached the conclusion that the list presented in Article II of the Genocide Convention was to not be deemed solely illustrative. That is, the acts therein printed followed an exhaustive which fashion, did not allow any other act to be - consid of as an act ered genocide. members of the Trial group” Chamber (paragraph was (b)), of harm the shall the not necessarily opinion be permanent that and ir remediable such Tribunal Tribunal for Rwanda, when judging Akayesu under Jean the charges Paul of genocide, against crimes humanity and violations common of to Article the III Geneva Conventions commit b tion of the crime of go genocide, further we to can notice finally its commission of elements, one or in morelisted Arti acts such as the cle II of the Genocide Convention; the to intent destroy the group in well whole as that or the act in be directed part; towards at of as groups. the protected one ed in Article II were analysed one by one. cording Ac- to it, “killing members of the groups”(paragraph (a)) shall be understood as in homi- cide committed with the intent to cause death, and not as a more general would understanding also that consider the ing as a genocidal act. non intentional kill- enocide - - - - - G the
of Once
8 9 ch approa
5 ve ati v onser C the
and
6 enocide G 7 When he prepared a resolution for the Raphael Lemkin understands that genocide He also emphasized that such crime shall Lemkin understood genocide firstly as a Therefore, according to the limited defi tural ul United Nations General Assembly (Resolu tion 96 (I) of 11 December genocide 1946) as he both defined physical destruction and struction de of a group’s cultural identity involves involves mainly the destruction of life, but view his goes further down to may say as that well genocide be committed pling of through the the group’s crip- life through sures several that mea- would not culminate in death. its people’s aim at a national group as an entity, and, when aiming on an individual, genocide shall bear the in mind the perpetrator intent to anni of hilate the national group that belongs to. such individual ty, ty, liberty, health, dignity and the ones part lives of the aimed group. of the coordinated coordinated plan to make the dations of essential the life of foun- a group perish so the lat- ter would be eliminated, that times of being war either or in times offoundations peace. he For meant essential political stitutions, and social culture, in- language, national religion, feelings, economic structure, personal securi pated in the works that Convention. led to the Genocide C again, Lemkin was embracing a cept broader con- of genocide, not which, influence unfortunately, did analysed. above the international documents nition adopted in the where Genocide only biological Convention, and physical actions to are be considered, genocide consists on the tentional in- destruction of any national, racial ethnical, or religious group, and the killing it of shall their involve members, the serious physical infliction or mental of harm, imposition of conditions of life so as to cause destruction, their measures physical to prevent births within the targeted group, as well as the transference of from one group children to another. 2
e ora ez
F
/D
Teoria e Cultura de
96
2008 an J
uiz
J V.2/N.1 V.2/N.1 ee n rhbto fmarriages” of sexes prohibition and the of as separation as well control, birth forced infliction of threats so as to lead to aforcible children toanothergroup. transfer of tolead as so threats of infliction the also but transfer, physical actual the denote only not would (e)) (paragraph group” to another group the of children transferring “forcibly f a ru ta sal e agtd o s h act the as so targeted be shall that proportion group a exact of the establishing rule a been standpoint”. orqualitative a quantitative either from the group of a significant portion of must be understood tomean the destruction the to according Chamber, Hence, leaders. figures as important such involves or group that the fraction of a part major a either the de stroy to be that shall perpetrator the noted of and intention humanity, war of against customs or crimes laws viola- the when genocide, of tions Former for Jelisic the Goran judging of Tribunal Criminal act genocidal any of actual the perpetration to prior be must in part group in or the whole destroy to intent the that fact commit crime ted mighthave been. the outrageous - geno however deemed cide, be and not would crimes, act an it other without from genocide dis- all, tinguishes of most intent, This genocide. of core that the part, in is or whole intent in the group the genocide, destroy to of crime the of element authors such asRatner.. for reference - geno a of considered being crime cide, the characterise that acts of the interpretation the for contribution great of eurd ta i, h anhlto o only of annihilation it would suffice. of the part is, that not is required, entirely group a destroy to intent the that clear makes Convention the whole part”, in “in or group aimed the destroy to as perpetrated so act the genocide considering by h Til hme o International of Chamber Trial The the to though, paid, be must Attention was Akayesu Jean-Paul of judgement The h fc i ta utl o tee a not has there now until that is fact The second the to comes it when Furthermore, dolus specialis “the phrase ‘inwhole orinpart’ oe hud eons the recognise should one , 17 19 15 18 ; 16 ad that and ; 20 n that and - -
h gops stability on group’s relies the basically groups four those on selecting intent Convention’s Genocide the advocat that by ing matter subject the analyse to gun Akayesu as such and Jelisic, forinstance. trials guid within some arisen and has been ance years have the topic throughout the raised on contrary, discussions the several On straightforward. nor something deemed simple be to not is groups tected shall beunderstoodasitfollows: c mut f vcis eurd hl b analysed be shall on acaseby casebasis. required victims the of reason, amount that for and genocide, deemed be rock the final dissertation in which this article this relies upon.B. Sautmanatp. 196 in which bed- dissertation final the the is rock it once attention, special which subject deserves groups, towards protected directed the be of one shall at act the that is cide thecrimetoprove incourt. cult featureof diffi most the considered be to is and debates several raises element such genocide, as crime a classify to as so intent perpetrator’s the of tude laig ute ciiim n dee analysis to thefollowing chapter deeper and group criticism further religious leaving and – group racial eth group, group, nical national listed - Convention groups the protected within those with shall we deal section, only present the of purposes the For them. define pro to to attributes the the as with us so groups, vide further protected go not of did Convention row limited present a Besides ing II. groups Article four its the in towards enumerated to if only characterised is such be as genocide of crime the that G ) P enocide n kys, h Til hme hv be- have Chamber Trial the Akayesu, In - geno of crime the of element Another magni- great the of regardless Moreover, The definition of each of the four pro the of each of definition The clear makes Convention Genocide The rotected a ainl ru i dfnd s acollec as defined toshare people who perceived are is tion of group national “a C onvention
gro 23 ad ht ah f them of each that and , ups 21
R in aquel
the F aria
P into C 22 oelho ------V.2/N.1 J uiz J an 2008
97 de /D F
ez Teoria e Cultura ora e 2 oelho C into P aria F aquel R
- - the 28
of
scope
onvention limited
C
onvention C he T tion onven he C As we have noted in the previous chapter, Other international documents that also There is indeed a range of international It was not until the Genocide - Conven As one can note, protected groups and What can be done for the time being is to enocide ) T the the chapeau of Article II of the Genocide Con- vention says that any of means “genocide - fol the to destroy, intent the with committed lowing acts part,in or orracial ethnical, national, a whole in religious group” and then goes on genocide. shall constitute that actions ing the by enumerat foresee genocide do changes, not as they follow present the exact words any of the 1948 major Genocide Convention, do not add and any sort of therefore, contrast to development the or understanding even of the genocide then. crime established back of documents that prohibit are genocide, to be considered but a natural development they ofthe very first thoughts suchon crime.one By that shall recall to when aged as genocide a was merely sub-category envis of the Crimes so-called Against Humanity. It as was the categorised crime of as such. within the Nuremberg Trial persecution, being addressed tion in 1948 that genocide as acquired a specific crime autonomous significancethen and several since discussions brings us were to the main raised, focus of this which article: the their characterisation are a subject that remain controversial and the way it is solely dealt rely with on the will individual point enforcing the law. the ones that are of view of keep the discussion alive and try to implement it by the doctrine. community development of the international II- a G community. community. Besides that the adoption objective of approach the could certainly categorisationdisruptive of the individuals. lead to a enocide - - - G the
of
26 27 ch approa ve ati , and he goes on 25 v onser C the
and
a legal bond based on common citizenon common bond based - a legal with reciprocity coupled ship, of rights group An ethnic and duties. generally is defined as and culture. language a common The a group whose membersconventional share definitionhereditary the based on is traits often ofidentified racial withirrespective group of cultural, na- linguistic, tional or religious The religious factors. geographical a sharemembers groupthe one whose is region, religion,same denomination or mode of worship”24 enocide G Despite the existence of two different crite Either way, a question that one may bare Opinions vary from the adoption of objec On the same token, William Schabas To To adopt the subjective positive approach tural ul in mind is how to associate an group, individual that to is, a what makes a person group can be used to do so. and what criteria part of a comes to say that the up above helping on four each terms other’s definition end by oper ating “as four corneran areathat delimit posts a myriad ofwithin which groups covered by the Convention find protection” stating that the search for autonomous ings mean- for each of the would culminate four in enumerated the groups weakening of the sense as a whole. meration overarching - enu C means means that the perpetrator of the crime of geno- cide distinguishes a group by the characteristics he considers that belongs to hand, it. the On negative the approach other sion entails the of - exclu individuals from the the perpetrator finds group himself of membera which which he of and considers to have its own - characteris tics apart from the ones owned by the group to belong. individual/victim the which tive tive to the subject criteria, and within one the can latter findtwo different pathsto choose, that approach. or a negative a positive either is, ria defining if individual an is partthe subjective a group, approach of is deserving of greater credibility, once, the status of or national, racial ethnic group is better ering attributed the by point of consid- view of the to ones single who wish that group out from the rest of the 2
e ora ez
F
/D
Teoria e Cultura de
98
2008 an J
uiz
J V.2/N.1 V.2/N.1 b ” definedgroups it islimitedtoparticular described minorities when certain of protection contributetothe on genocideeffectively cannot other any such aspoliticaloreconomic.group therefore, the by excluding, offered protection Convention, imply of way scope exhaustive limited a a the listing in by all, groups of protected First noted. be to are weakness es other II, Article within enumerated it find may hard to bringthose people prosecutor to prosecution. national State territorial the be to authorities, are crime above the of tors an before or one. international territory occurred the has on genocide State which the of of courts the be- fore held be Conven- shall crime such the for trials to the tion, according is, that presented, mechanisms enforcement the canbe byflaw Conven - characterised great a Genocide instance, the For flaws. is tion’s analysis further for a need the triggers What peace. times of or war in of whether genocide of prohibition and the it; with connected acts of genocide; punishment of the as definition a such of establishment merits, the Convention’s the overcome on emphasis explicitly special the so-calledculturalgenocide. were giving that it, ones from the excluded as well as Convention - above the on listed groups protected of genocide took place within the Secretariat Secretariat the within place took crime genocide the to of treatment special attributing tion glance a at the works instrument. that led to such legal require might them understand to trying and Convention, Genocide the in observed be can leaving listed, thatistobe filled whenenforcingit. a gap therein groups four the of of each meaning the clear make to as so guidelines ) T s itr rs oc sae, “aconvention stated, once Drost Pieter As groups the to comes it when Moreover, - perpetra common most the as words, other In not does here pose we that criticism The lo te ovnin os o peet any present not does Convention the Also, The very first attempt to institute a conven- to institute attempt first very The that imperfections the of some just are These he D raft 29 - iain rcs, rsne i is ril I alist I which included the political one. groups of Article its in presented process, fication rati- the facilitate to confused as well be as crimes to other with genocide avoid to as so defi narrow nition a at aiming although which, draft, ther occasion. fur in discussed in- be to then as so draft was the in – cluded genocide cultural – cultural. latter and The biological physical acts: of kinds three involve to genocide considered genocide, he is, term that the of conception wider a pro manency. per of characteristic the en- retain should group visaged the magnitude such a of in convention included be to order in him, to according position once, group, above his the of held inclusion the against occasion, the in experts consulted three the of one Conven - Lemkin, the scope. tion’s of short falling up ended groups rus o eev te rtcin f the tural genocide. cul- of of inclusion the protection as well as the Convention, deserve the to of issue groups the addressed it vari - subjects, among ous and, established, Commit then Hoc was Ad tee An Council. Social Economicand the through place took cussions dis- the of continuation the (II) 180 olution cific criminalbehaviour. crime spe a as a it contemplate to as or humanity genocide against consider to whether relied on discussed issue main the where subject, the on session second its held Committee, (Le gal) Sixth the through Assembly, General the physical to limited and biologicalgenocide. scope Convention’s leaving excluded, the be to rather genocide would of they type that such clear made France as well as States go United the draft, not the on menting com- did When opinions. draft contrary strong Convention’s without the in cide lso o utrl eoie tee ee posi - were there genocide, cultural of clusion In spite of that, Raphael Lemkin advocated Lemkin Raphael that, of spite In political the developed, works the As y olwn te eea Asml Res- Assembly General the following By 1947, December to September from Then, - geno cultural of inclusion the However, ept srn ojcin twrs h in- the towards objections strong Despite 31 31 34
33 32 R aquel F aria P into 30 C oelho ------V.2/N.1 J uiz J an 2008
99 de /D F
ez Teoria e Cultura ora e 2 oelho C into P aria F aquel R - - - - Within 42 40 ”. 41 43
tion onven C The protected group issue has been ob- Moreover, Moreover, when Raphael Lemkin first Following Lemkin’s thoughts, cultural According According to it, in the “a common criterion In adopting the above-mentioned point of ject of discussion academic within writing national and legislation, cases, such where, as in Akayesu, an attempt the to Genocide Convention clarify meant what by protected exactly groups, the Trial Chamber came clusion that to those the groups con- should not be limit ed to the ones listed, instead, any stable groupshould deserve that kind of protection. tant groups are still found Genocide to fall Convention’s scope, outside the such as cal, economic and social groups. - politi defined the crime of genocidebook “Axis Rule in in Occupied Europe”, 1944 he in his also wished to include a cultural kind of which, according genocide, to him, would consist in deliberate the destruction of way of a life, group’s that rapid and aimed at the com- “drastic methods cultural is, acts performed disappearance plete of through cultural, moral and the re lifeligious of a group of human beings genocide was strongly discussed drafts of through the the Convention. It was to ed be in includ its Article III, which would take lowing the fol- shape, as in intent to destroyact committed with the lan- the prohibiting “any deliberate religionguage, or culture of a national, racial or religiousgroup on groundsof national racial or origin or religiousbelief Prohibiting1. as: such ofuse the oflanguage the group the in daily inter- printing and circulaor the - or in schools, course four types offour types groupsprotected Con- Genocide by the groups in such membership that is vention would normally to be seem - mem by its not challengeable by birth, in a to it automatically, belong who bers, irremediable and often continuous ”. manner view the real intention drafters of would be the met. Convention’s Nonetheless, impor his work he stated that the attempt the to foundation destroy of the life of well groups would involve as the annihilation and social of institutions of the culture, language political and national feelings. enocide G the
of
36 ch approa
37 ve ati 39 v onser 35 C the
enocide and
G ural enocide The Genocide Convention itself was G 38 ult By specifying which groups deserve to be As noted before, the drafters of the - Conven The consideration of the draft taken by the Furthermore, when it came to the Sixth The discussion relied mostly on the three tural ) C ul protected under the Genocide deliberately Convention excluded it other groups that sent a repre- great deal of genocide victims, and then again, it did not go without major criticism. tion tion have showed a clear intention to list tected the groups pro- in an exhaustive way, and, there although had been efforts towards fashion, article same. the II has remained a non-exhaustive Sixth Committee was completed on days the of early December 1948, and the tion draft resolu- and the draft convention opted. were then ad- Committee, Committee, an article-by-article place analysis took and several one questions of were the raised. conclusions, they the As decided punishable to acts limit to physical kinds and of biological genocide and by cultural genocide form the draft. doing so, excluded kinds of genocide – physical, that biological should and cultural be latter - being the included the most central controversial, issue. In and, the occasion the therefore, United States and France presented strong disagreement wards to- cultural genocide, but, in spite the of remaining that, States proach adopted a towards positive cultural subsequently adopted. ap- was approach genocide, and such c tive tive manifestations such as the The Soviet Union. Soviets presented “Basic a Principles of document a cide” entitled Convention endorsing the on coverage of- Geno cultural geno- the Convention. cide by C adopted afterwards by fifty-six votes toand, none, since then there have ing at been its efforts further development., aim- as we serve can within the ob- draft Code of Crimes Against the Peace and Security of statute (the Mankind, Rome the statute), as ICC well as ICTR and the ICTY statutes. both the 2
e ora ez
F
/D
Teoria e Cultura de
2008
an 100 J
uiz
J V.2/N.1 V.2/N.1 agae i te rs, ulc sebis and assemblies andstateauthorities.before courts public press, the own in their languages of use the facilitate as well as tions, institu religious or cultural have schools, to own right their the minorities allow as so draft, Rights Human of Declaration Universal the in renounce their language, religion orculture” theirlanguage, religion renounce cause them to as would to suchconditions group ; the group objects of institutions and orother cultural worship of museums, schools, historical monuments, places libraries the use of, or preventing 2. Destroying, the group; publications inthe language of tion of sary measures soasto prevent and punishit. sary neces - the provide nor crime a cul - as genocide take tural not could These charters. and rations decla- above-mentioned the of the those of with aims latter the confusing of Convention result a the be would than other documents in cide that rights, human rely solelyonitsmoralforce. of declaration the im- in those plicit than binding more far are tablished es therein obligations the as genocide cultural with dealing on way effective more much a be need foraconventiononphysical genocide physical genocide; yet no one disputed the act of against any as ensuring his protection terpreted person,which might bein- securityof and liberty “ it the individual’sproclaimed laration righttolife, to According group. a ofcultural of features protection not affective the would for declaration suffice rights human the understood it that once proceed, not should ment a into even minorities. forthe protectioncharter of or rights human of declaration the in included if dealt better be would genocide cultural anationasphysical extermination of the life cultural genocide which of could be as destructive itcovered if onlybefullyeffective vention would remarked Convention, the in III article of inclusion the on discussion - geno cultural include to will the Obviously, would Genocide on Convention the fact, In argu- such opinion Union’s Soviet the In the that opinion the of were countries Certain with proposed also was genocide Cultural the during Poland, from Katz-Suchy Mr. .Sbetn ebr fa 3. Subjecting members of that “the genocide con- 49 46 ”. 47 48 . 44 ”. 45 the dec- 50 - - - ihn ainl eilto, .. as n educa worship. on tion andprotectionof laws i.e. legislation, national within foreseen been had it that or minorities; of tion protec the to relating other one the by i.e conventions, covered cul already of were genocide factors tural certain Convention that the either in advocated genocide cultural of sion beingabsentduringthevote.13 delegations abstentions, 4 with dis- 16, to votes Committee 25 by cussions Sixth Assembly General of the result a as excluded was it Convention, the in addressed subject a be should genocide tural cie ne itrainl a ta hd to be prevented andpunished. had that law international under crime of a level the to genocide took go resolution which (I), the 96 would of requirements the charter against the protection in or declaration minorities rights human the in also advocated that the actual protection needed needed could be obtained fromhumanrights. protection actual He the such. that as advocated treated also be not could therefore group, and a of destruction physical the con- with nection no had to genocide cultural III According representative, Convention.its Article Genocide exclude the to from reasons two presented and the extermination of a group’s culture shall shall culture group’s a society,also imply potentially in its “de- structure”. of re-structure extermination the and and construct actively cul- ture people one’s is, that foundation, very its core, properly recognized within the not Genocide Convention. was culture people’s one of cance signifi the and been, have should it as addressed would one have action. facilitated international including Convention, the by in that genocide is cultural reality The law. criminal - internation under al penalised crimes the of frame work general the both in even within or found legislation national be also can genocide stitute con- that acts several once useless, be on to genocide convention whole the consider well as might h oe wo ee otay o h inclu the to contrary were who ones The cul not or whether discussions long After genocide cultural include to Moreover, The United States of America, for instance, instance, for America, of States United The In fact, a group’s culture represents its very very its represents culture group’s a fact, In not was genocide cultural that, of spite In one arguments, those with agrees one If R aquel 51 53 F 55 aria 54 P into 56 C 52 oelho ------V.2/N.1 J uiz J 101 an 2008
de /D F
ez Teoria e Cultura ora e 2 oelho C into P aria F aquel R - - - 64 the chiefthe 63 . He went on 62 ”. He concluded by
tion onven C “the abolition ofabolition “the restric language, a group’s According to the Pakistani delegation, On the same occasion, the Czechoslovak The USSR delegate made clear its opinion physical physical genocide would means only by which represent the the end – would – be reached. In cultural other words, genocide “ motive of rage to destroy a blind the was genocide and verythe values the ideas, soul of a national, racial or religious group,than its physical rather stroy stroy a group in whole or in part’, and that the “Nurembergdestructhe that had shown verdicts - tion ofculture the of certain groupsconsti- might tute a method of destroying those groups”. representative, Mr. Zourek, the disappearance of has groups can stated be either to due that physical extermination or destruction due of to its forcible characteristics. distinctive He and went permanent his further thoughts with to examples illustrate ofcide perpetrated by cultural the Nazis upon geno- Czechs and Slovaks, saying that disappearance systematic for the to paveway the acts were “those designed of nation as an independentCzechoslovak the national entity”, and that accompanied by had been a thoroughattempt to Nazi “ such activity destroy everything remindmight that people the ofprepareand to past nationalits for way the complete germanification noting that those acts of cultural genocide had had the exact same motives as those of the called so physical genocide, that is, a racial, national or religious group. destroy the intent to in the Sixth Committee on one that group’s culture the is destruction also a mitting way genocide, of once it com- is the intent to “de ment of a group. According to David sian, Nerses it takes place through various as ways such tions upon its traditional practices and ways, the the and ways, traditional practices its upon tions destructionof religiousinstitutions and objects, persecution ofthe clergy and attacks members, and intellectuals” on academics saying that it literary, and cultural activitiesare is restrictedor characterised when treasures,national outlawedlibraries, when and “artistic, and art artefacts, galleries museums, archives, are or confiscated.” destroyed enocide - - - G the
57 of
59 61 . 60 ch approa ve ati 58 v onser C the
“the cultural bond was one ofcultural bond was “the the and
enocide G In fact, cultural genocide goes further than By the same token, the Ad Hoc Commit- Such Such cultural destruction which took place As an example one can mention the Bos- One people’s culture represents its very The cultural symbols of a community are tural ul the destruction of physical or biological ele most important factors among those which unit- most important which factors among those ed a national grouptrue so that it and that was to wipe out a human group, as such, possible was allow- while by destroyingcultural heritage, its individualing the of members group the to sur- destruction vive. ofphysical The individualswas form only not the possible of not it was genocide; condition ofthe indispensable that crime” tee on the draft of has the noted Genocide that convention in Bosnia holds a strong link with the system atic persecution and expulsion ofreligious communities, ethnic once and ethnic groups culturally are defined, they canthe disappearance of be eliminated their culture, by disguise the existence of removal. their physical nian war where there was plenty be of called what can deliberate targeting destruction and of consequent cultural, symbols religious such as and the historic National Library (Around 1.5 million books were destroyed, single the incident largest of history), book the burning Regional in Archives, of the modern Academy Music, the National among others. and national museums, Gallery, several local core, core, and the not international turn its back to the community seriousness of the does sub- ject. The UNESCO’s draft declaration ternational on In- Destruction of for Cultural instance, Heritage, recognises that consists cultural in the heritage cultural identity and hesion, social co- and that shall imply its in consequences on intentional human as in human rights. dignity as well destruction tion tion of the advocated, group. there is As a Raphael groups need once Lemkin they to cannot has do protect without cultural the provides. culture their that and moral unity” “spirit the the materialisation, the representation such of and its it destruction as implies in the destruc C 2
e ora ez
F
/D
Teoria e Cultura de
2008
an 102 J
uiz
J V.2/N.1 V.2/N.1 of genocide within its preamble its Assembly within genocide form of that General mentioned it once the 96(I), Resolution in act with to way a disagreements for is acts Convention the the by from bidden genocide cultural of sion man groups” by these hu- and other contributions represented cultural of losses the in form to humanity great genocide that recognized resolution not todothesameforculturalgenocide physical genocidecrimeand asa totreat reason be against indivisible. It would all genocide were cultural genocide and physical ly linked together; close existence. Thus the end andmeanswere of a group is the most obvious method, but one is the most obvious a group of that stated Chamber well as within thecaselaw thatfollowed. but seen, have we as discussions, draft the within only not analysed been have cul – and tural biological physical, - genocide stitute destroyed.” soul to be butallows its very the group of body the genocide preserves of understanding present manner. Putanotherway,irremediable and the fundamental a in suffers identity its collective kept physically andbiologically as intacteven biologicalbe and can manifestations, agroup Nersessian limiting genocidetoitsphysical “by David that harm, noted physical suf any without annihilated fering be may group a that suf had without fered anyphysical harm. living remain members although annihilated its be well as might group that a recognized it of children ” “forciblytransferring to anothergroup the group the genocide of act an as included Committee the when that note will carefully,he (e) II group. Article reads one a If of destruction actual condition the was for non qua means physical of use that the established specifically never II in Article the presented its by definition the destruction once physical Convention, to restricted be oevr te su o h at ta con- that acts the of issue the Moreover, exclu the that is ignored be cannot What understanding same exact the Following not should genocide of concept the fact, In n h Ksi jdeet te CY Trial ICTY the judgement, Krstic the In 67 . 69 66 “the physical destruction ”. 68 . That is, such is, That . 65 “results in “results sine ------ing understood ‘in its more general;sense”. ing understood‘initsmore the latter be- life’, fully innational participating ‘ from an individual al anyactwhich prevented adopted it acts, as genocid- that viewed interpretation “a broader material or physical restricted to solely being coverage literal Convention’s community”. the of the remainder as anentitydistinctfrom the group extinctionof the in eventual resulting identity and its culture of eradication purposeful through agroup destroying of may also conceive . agroup” tural basesof the cul- socialand/or all actsdesigned todestroy butcovered the group not the physical of destruction is persecution of crime the that consider to as so established opinion general a theICTYStatute). 6(c)of secution. (article ofper shall thecrime one resembles genocide approach, that find broad such adopting By is, group. a that of destruction Europe,of forms all as genocide Occupied in Rule Lem Axis in kin’s conceived was it as Genocide of tion cide shall take place only when it comes together together comes it when only place take shall cide for stage preparatory the physical orbiologicalgenocide. a represents often - geno cide cultural that fact the on relied inclusion its pro argument main the that notices one III, II theConvention. of Article in enumerated define groups to protected cultural as the so also, considered and, are characteristics intent, the specific of establishment genocidal the on out considerations helped have under Cultural genocide. Convention’s of the standing within role sidiary more the its limited approach prevailed. Convention, including the in by version cultural genocide of understanding 1985. in vio- Africa rights South human in the lation on Group report Working Experts Hoc of Ad the mentioning by codn t te ra Cabr tee is there Chamber, Trial the to According no- the follows statement Chamber’s The - geno of kind such that recognized Lippman article on discussions the analysing When sub- a plays genocide cultural Nowadays, broader a towards efforts the all Despite on went Chamber the token, same the By 70 75 72 R aquel F 73 aria 76 ept the Despite 74 P into “limited to C 71 oelho - - - V.2/N.1 J uiz J 103 an 2008
de /D F
ez Teoria e Cultura ora e 2 oelho C into P aria F aquel R - - - 86 83 87 The Dalai Lama
85 “The situation is that tionally whether or inten unintentionally cultural a genocide sort is happening of bet. in And if Ti- losing independence is ac- ceptable, on the contrary losing culture, one’s accepting the our destruction spirituality, of of Tibetan Buddhism, is unthinkable” 84 tion onven C The immigration process of quite a large To To advocate the inclusion of cultural geno- The magnitude of cultural genocide can The present scenario in Tibet involves a Most of all, the history shows that the cul Cultural genocide does not lack impor number number of Chinese individuals into place Tibet so took as to make it difficult forthe rise, Tibetans’ to break their unity, to spread Chinese cide not only in any the Convention, international but instrument within dress that the subject would as it ad- be deserves, an may elementary cause seem to fight to for, specially if one remains in the theoretical domain. only be fully understood an by actual situation the where analysis one’s people is of culture being destroyed, and, propose for for this chapter a that brief analysis reason, of the situation that Tibet finds itself we in. great forced assimilation of mainstream its culture into communist through several acts such Chinese as of the monasteries, a destruction public school society system where Chinese propaganda, language prevail, as well as the moving and of a great - num culture ofber territory. Tibetan into Chinese the destructionthe of of cathedral the Rheims. III – TIBET ture or the religion of certain groups are as eye opening and disturbing as crimes genocide. of physical tance, and its exclusion range is of surrounded very by on serious a how implications, some especially extreme the state annihilation actions of towards certain characterized. culture are to be enocide - - - - - G the
of
Opinion 77 78 ch approa
80 ve ati 79 82 v onser C the
and
81 enocide G Yet Yet in no way should one accept the denial When analysing the composition of the Moreover, Moreover, one can note that the - Conven Nonetheless, Nonetheless, we can still identify the crim- Of course, one cannot ignore that the tural ul of addressing the question of protection against the destruction of a particular culture. tification The for jus- doing so rely can ments, severalin but argu- mainly in the the acts present-day perpetrated by history: the tural or religious Nazis life of against their aimed - cul groups such as the burning of the synagogues and Jewish braries; li- also, within the burning of first the University World of War, Louvain as well the as United Nations of the a 1940s, slight one sparkle may of have understanding denial towards of the cultural genocide ally being criminalized, internation- as the against it countries were mainly the that ones that voted in the past acted in a way that raise charges against them. such an inclusion would sal Declaration of Human national Rights, Covenant the on Inter Economic, Cultural Rights, Social the Charter and of Union, etc. the European tion’s tion’s drafters acknowledged the legitimacy ofcultural genocide and suggested that ject the shall - sub be addressed by documents, as other it international happened within the Univer inalization of cultural genocide as part of cus world world has changed a lot of since the the ratification Convention in are 1948, far nonetheless, from we reaching genocide. prohibiting cultural an additional protocol tomary international law, that is, tion the of prohibi cultural genocide States is are do not not binding have the and obligation ecute to its pros perpetrators, but it violation still of represents international a law and can sidered binding in some States. be con- with with the intent of group, that physically is, there destroy is a a of need certain of physical a and conjunction cultural destruction. C which which is shared by to William whom Schabas, acts of to consider impossible “ it seems according if crimes punishable as cultural genocide are they ”. genocide unrelated or biological to physical 2
e ora ez
F
/D
Teoria e Cultura de
2008
an 104 J
uiz
J V.2/N.1 V.2/N.1 rto o hns idvdas o ie, family planning, aswell aspolitical repression. Tibet, to individuals Chinese of gration mi- above-mentioned the on focused are fore, l acoe i Catr , ril I f the of Charter I UN Article I, Chapter in anchored ily l Rslto 1723(XVI) Resolution bly Assem- General of Nations United situation The Tibet. particular the considering by rpgna ihn ie, n, hrfr, move Tibetan’stowards culture. the extinction of therefore, and, Tibet, within propaganda n h gvrmn o hn t alw the allow to China latter to exercise such right. of government called the and on Tibetans to applies right above source of threat of separation, and, therefore, therefore, and, a separation, religion they have of adopted policies soasto suppress it. and threat culture of Tibet’s source in see thorities its towards heading total annihilation. affected, has gradually Tibet this been of throughout identity cultural and, the decades, occupation, five over for poses othersthanreligiousones. pur for used being are or destroyed been monasteries have 6,000 reli- around routine and undertake activities, gious to entitled longer no the Dalai Lama. from the Tibetans as alienate to well efforts as so-called monasteries, activities, in of regulation participate the to freedom the cern away fromTibetan’s culture. citizens its tear to been as so have Tibet within prostitution, promoted and use drug and as such vices, language; of sorts various that said and been had there religion government mainly Chinese involves the by perpetrated acts eemn ter oiia, oil eooi and cultural status. economic social, political, their freely to determine Tibetans of right the shrink to been trying has government Chinese the is, that ans, Tibet the for determination self of right the of ie hs n at en cuid y China by occupied been fact in has Tibet are Tibetans leaders, Émigré to According con- mostly would religion on focus The the of focus the culture, to comes it When there genocide, cultural of charges The The Dalai Lama finds that the Chinese au- Chinese the that finds Lama Dalai The h rgt f sl-eemnto primar self-determination of right The denial the all, of most imply, policies Such 91 94 hs en pcal recognised specially been has , 90 95 96 oe ta the that noted 92 89 88 93 - - - - tdudriigo Tibetan’s deliber culture. of ated undermining the in subordination; people and its assimilation in aimed it contrary, the to indi- viduals; its of annihilation physical the never was the intentisobserved. discriminatory as long as and heritage, cultural its as such people, one’s af- of by features abstract group more a fecting of the destruction physical without actual place takes genocide cultural ter, a–t hs h aia fTibet. na –toLhasathecapitalof Chi- of west the in - Golmud connect railway will that a of construction the is, within that Tibetans, genocide cultural of fear been strong has raising one government, Chinese the by ed - geno which be to according can II(d), Article act in found such by and government, imposed Chinese Tibetans the among births limi - of been tations has there once genocide, Tibet cultural in as happening is what recognized to find hard not shall one still destruction, physical out ain hn h qey rgnts rm Chi- protocol(IP)address.nese internet a from originates query the when mation infor certain provide not does search Google major engine the legislation, Chinese with ply limita- the Tibet’s data. tion of through so done also - has gov ernment Chinese the and perpetrated means, be various through can it genocide, physical than and Turkestan Easter Innes Mongolia. in process, happened it annihilation like just cultural mentioned the on spike sudden a op- means becomes also which railway erational, such moment Chi- the from and greatly increase would territory, Tibet to own migration nese their mi- a within be to nority considered already are they once o itr u faue o ieas lf thatthe life deemsoffensive.Chinese government ofTibetans’ features out filter to agreed has Google is, that culture, Tibetan’s to h an betv f Cia oad Tibet towards China of objective main The Even for those that disregard genocide with- genocide disregard that those for Even chap previous the in noted have we As t s iey nw ta i odr o com- to order in that known widely is It obvious less much is genocide cultural As threat, a as railway this consider Tibetans perpetrat actions the among Furthermore, ht eoe ee cerr hn t comes it when clearer even becomes That 98 R aquel F aria 99 97 P 100 101 into C oelho - - - - V.2/N.1 J uiz J 105 an 2008
de /D F
ez Teoria e Cultura ora e 2 oelho C into P aria F aquel R - - - 104
tion onven C The arguments against cultural genocide Throughout the process of drawing a - con As one can easily observe, the discussions On the other hand, eastern European coun- But the discussions on cultural genocide did Although cultural genocide might not be rely mostly on grounds of the lack ofdestruction physical of a group, which can be consid- berg berg Trials where it was treated crimes as one against of humanity, the then of from Raphael Lemkin where the the actual term work geno- cide originated, until the draft genocide work convention towards on a the late led forties, to which the Convention on Punishment the of Prevention the and Crime ofapproved on 9 December Genocide, 1948 and coming being into 1951. on 12 January force vention on the above topic various arguments have taken place, over whether or not political groups should be included in Article II as of one the protected groups, and whether genocide genocide should be considered at all. cultural relied on a political countries bedrock, as were the mainly western of against cultural genocide, the and they inclusion that in were the the past ones relied upon the their imposition of way of life one. period, as noted in chapter throughout the colonization tries, such as Poland, that in the greatly past from suffered actions that amounted to cultural genocide perpetrated by the ones that Nazis, favoured the were inclusion of the such crime in the Genocide Convention. not stop in the Genocide to Convention’s the draft, contrary, it went on within the inter national community and even tional within interna tribunals’ - decisions, such and as the the ICTR. ICTY Nonetheless, cultural is genocide still not considered genocide by most of the scholars nor has been included in any international document. sort of considered as heinous as the physical tion destruc of a group, it still represents a real dangerfor human groups, which leads to the need ofits designation as a crime in and, international therefore, be law, suppressed by a quite effec international system. tive enocide - G the
of
103 . 102 ch approa ve ati v onser C the
and
enocide G From From the colonisation period until the - pres Moreover, Moreover, there are the people who - advo Although it ended up not being included Various examples demonstrate the need to Of course that the birth control issue that The problem has to be dealt as its magni- By By the same token, the Dalai Lama has found tural ul ent ent days genocide has been an issue that has been dealt in several ways. First within the - Nurem cate the inaccuracy ofclaim in the Tibet, and cultural that point genocide ofbe respected. Still, view the should five decades of Chinese migration, disrespect culture for and way of Tibetan’s life religion, a must simple not result bee of seen the as natural changes and humanity. of time on the final Convention III ofon genocide, the draft Article recognized cultural genocide as intent the “any act committed with deliberate religion to destroylanguage, the or cultureof a national, racial or religiousgroup on grounds of national or racial origin or religious belief” prohibit cultural genocide within tional legal an document - as interna- noted on the ous - previ chapter - and because of the struggleTibet has that been going through the past five de takes takes place in Tibet does not rely on an unani- mous point of view, that once strongly there deny are the scholars genocidal Chinese act. such intent within tude requires, not with any complacency sort nor of with radicalism. simple What recognition is that needed is a thecontinue people to can be and victimised will not in its necessarily own territory through of disappearance the by mostly but culture. its physical destruction, cades, cades, seeing its very soul, slowly its in the identity, hands fading of the not turn his face to the opposite direction. Chinese, one must that that the measures imposed by China forced included strict family a planning rules so as land. own in their a minority Tibetans the to make IV – CONCLUSION cide cide can also rely on to preventtended acts births group the within ”. measures “imposing in- C 2
e ora ez
F
/D
Teoria e Cultura de
2008
an 106 J
uiz
J V.2/N.1 V.2/N.1 t ol sml nt o ihu is sii and “spirit its moral unity”. without do and not such, simply as could it it of commu- materialisation a the are of nity symbols cultural the that, than Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group thegroup Forcibly children of transferring (e) group; the within Impo - births prevent (d) to intended part; measures in sing or whole in tobring destruction physical lifecalculated its of about Deliberately (c) conditions group group; the the on of inflicting members to harm bodily mental serious Causing or (b) group; the of such: members as Killing group, (a) religious or racial ethnical, national, or a whole part, in in destroy, to intent with committed acts following the of any means Genocide 2. (…) 1. ICTR the Of II. Article 1 Notes itself. society imply the shall of latter de-structure the the destroy to and culture destruction the apeople. involve culturalfeaturesof wellof as means may the so part, do or to whole in group sole a to destroy the intent the not Once group. a are annihilate to ways acts biological or physical viewtoadopt. pointof ered aquitenarrow eto o udmna hmn ihs o those who mostneedit. to pro rights the human deny fundamental to of is tection those ignore his- to and throughout tory clear are examples The cide. - geno cultural against protection of lack the to to able annihilate thelatter. considered indeed is group that of life religion and moral cultural, of trace any vanish to as so used methods drastic charac through cultural teristics group’s a of destruction erate by short, vanishing itsculturalheritage. persecuting in intellectuals, and practices, members clergy objects, traditional and institutions restricting religious and lan- its guage destroying by is, that members, its kill- ing actually without group human a out wipe oit i srcue uo oes people one’s upon structured is Society that article this through clear made was It ne gi, e hud o coe u eyes our close not should we again, Once delib- the that understand can one that By to possible is it before, noted have we As 106 108 107 105 More - - 3 nentoa Ciia Tiua fr wna Te Prose The Rwanda. for Tribunal Criminal International 13 (1998) para 500/501 ICTR-96-4-T No. Case Prose Akayesu. –Paul The Jean v. Rwanda. cutor for Tribunal Criminal International 12 (1998) at para499 ICTR-96-4-T No. Case Prose Akayesu. –Paul The Jean v. Rwanda. cutor for Tribunal Criminal International 11 10 Ratneratp.29 GenocideConvention The IIof 9 Article 8 Brivati atp. 4 Last accessed30August 2007atp. 3 at Available 2007. Polity, http://www.democratiya.com/review.asp?reviews_id=95 Genocide?” is “What Brivati. B. 7 6 Ratneratp/26/27 Edition. Second Legacy”. Oxford University Press. 2001atp. 26/27 Nuremberg Abrams. the - Internatio J Beyond in and Law. Atrocities Ratner nal S. Rights y Human in for cited “Accountability Lemkin, Raphael . 5 tional CriminalLaw”. OxfordUniversity Press. 2001 - “Interna Kittichaisaree. K. in quoted 23 at 15 1951, Rep. ICJ 4 Forcibly toanothergroup thegroup measures children of transferring (e) Imposing group; the within births prevent to (d) intended part; in or whole physical in its destruction about bring to calculated life of the conditions on group inflicting Deliberately harm mental (c) or group; bodily the serious of Causing members to (b) members group; Killing the of (a) such: as ethni group, national, religious a or racial part, cal, in or whole in destroy, committed to acts intent following with the of any means “genocide” tute, Sta- this of purpose the For Statute: Rome the of VI Article 3 ano to ther group group the of children transferring the forcibly (e) within group; births prevent to intended measures imposing part; (d) in or whole in destruction physical its about lifecalcula bring of to ted conditions group the (c) on inflicting group; deliberately the of members to harm mental or causing religious bodily (b) serious or group; the racial of ethnical, members killing national, (a) such: as a group, part, destroy, in to or intent whole with in committed acts following the means Genocide of 2. (…) any 1. statute: ICTY the of IV Artcile 2 R aquel F aria P into C oelho ------V.2/N.1 J uiz J 107 an 2008
de /D F
ez Teoria e Cultura ora e 2 oelho C into P aria F aquel R
tion onven C Schabas p. 60 p. Schabas 35 Schabas at p. 61 citing the UN Doc. A/622 and p. 62 citing E/AC.25/2 UN Doc. E/AC.25/7 p 63 citing UN Doc. 36 Schabas 37 Schabas at p. 66 citing UN Doc. E/AC.25/SR.10, at. 5, and at p.1 E/AC.25/SR.15, UN Doc. 73 at p. 38 Schabas A/C.6/SR.132 79 citing UN Doc. at p. 39 Schabas at p.80/81 40 Schabas 41 Akayesu 42 Akayesu 43 Draft Convention on the Crimes 27 E/447(1947) at p. Doc. of at 6-7, U.N. COR, 5th Sess., Genocide, U.N. ES- 44 P. Condappa. “Cultural Genocide na; in Destroying Bosnia Heritage, Hezegovi- Destroying http://metamedia.stanford.edu/projects/CulturesofCon- Identity”. Available at tact/admin/download.html?attachid=14883 Last accessed 30 2007 August 45 B. Sautman. “Cultural Genocide and Tibet” (2003) 38 Tex. Int’l L.J. 173 at p.182 citing the Summary Record of Meetings, U.N. ESCOR, 7th Sess., Supp. No. 6, U.N. Doc E/1/SR.175- 225 (1948) & Summary Record of the of Fourtheenth Meeting the Ad Hoc Committee (1948) E/AC.25/SR.14 on Doc. U.N. 14th mtg., Sess., Genocide, U.N. ESCOR, 6th A/810 (1948) Doc. at 842, U.N. 3rd Sess., GAOR, 46 U.N 10 47 Sautman at p. 48 Summary Record of Official Meetings, Records U.N. 6th General Committee., Assembly 3d Session., Meeting. Continuation Eighthy-Third of the consideration of the vention draft on genocide con- [E/794]: report of the Economic and So- cial Council [a/633] at 194 49 Summary Record of Official Meetings, Records U.N. 6th General Committee., Assembly 3d Session., Meeting. Continuation Eighthy-Third of the consideration of the vention draft on genocide con- [E/794]: report of the Economic and So- enocide - - G the
of
ch approa ve ati v onser C the
and
enocide G tural ul 34 Schabas p. 58, citing the UN Doc. A/A.6/39 -42 and 33 Schabas at p. 57 citing A/401 UN Doc. Doc. A/401/Add.3. and Un 32 Schabas at p. 53, citing the UN Doc. E/447 53, citing the UN Doc. at p. 32 Schabas 31 Schabas at p. 53, citing the UN Doc. E/447 53, citing the UN Doc. at p. 31 Schabas 30 Schabas at p.53 citing the UN Doc. E/447 citing the UN Doc. at p.53 30 Schabas 29 P. N. Drost, “The Crime of State”, Vol. 2, 122/123 1959 at p. Sijthoff. Genocide, den: A. W. Ley 28 Jelisic at para 70 28 Jelisic 27 Kittichaisaree at p 70/71 27 Kittichaisaree 26 Schabas at p. 112 at p. 26 Schabas 25 Schabas at p. 111 at p. 25 Schabas 24 Akayesu at para 102 24 Akayesu 23 Akayesu at para 101 23 Akayesu 22 Ratner at p. 36 22 Ratner at p. 21 Ratner at p. 39 21 Ratner at p. 20 International Criminal Tribunal of the The former Prosecutor Yugoslavia. v. Goran Jelisic. Case No. IT-95-10 14 (1999) at para.81 19 Ratner at p. 38 19 Ratner at p. at p. 73 citing Kayishema and Ruzindana at p. 18 K. Kittichaisaree. “International 2001 Press. University Criminal Law”. Oxford 17 Ratner at p. 35/36 17 Ratner at p. 16 Akayesu at para 509 16 Akayesu 14 International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. The Prose at para 507 15 Akayesu cutor v. Jean –Paul Akayesu. Case No. ICTR-96-4-T para 502 (1998) cutor v. Jean –Paul Akayesu. Case No. ICTR-96-4-T para 505 (1998) C 2
e ora ez
F
/D
Teoria e Cultura de
2008
an 108 J
uiz
J V.2/N.1 V.2/N.1 nomic andSocial Council[a/633]at203 Eco- the of report [E/794]: genocide on convention draft the of consideration the 3dSession., of Continuation Meeting. Committee., Eighthy-Third 6th Records Official Assembly ral Gene U.N. Meetings, of Record Summary member” a was al individu the which of group the protecting to would tantamount that be protected, were choice his of school the attend to and religion own his fundamental practice to individual’s language, own the his use to If right rights. human of sphere within the came protection Such the protection. needed of which members group the for expression and thought primarily of was it freedom then group, a of culture the preserve to were object the ex- If used, free language the the whatever to thought, rights of pression its protect to the or in choice opinion its its express of to important language group more a was of right it the protect whether to asking for grounds were fact “there representative: in American the of words the In 55 cial Council[a/633]at196 So- and Economic the of report con- [E/794]: genocide draft on vention the of consideration the of Eighthy-Third Continuation Meeting. 3d Session., Assembly Committee., General U.N. 6th Records Meetings, Official of Record Summary 54 cial Council[a/633]at206 So- and Economic the of report con- [E/794]: genocide draft on vention the of consideration the of Eighthy-Third Continuation Meeting. 3d Session., Assembly Committee., General U.N. 6th Records Meetings, Official of Record Summary 53 cial Council[a/633]at194 So- and Economic the of report con- [E/794]: genocide draft on vention the of consideration the of Eighthy-Third Continuation Meeting. 3d Session., Assembly Committee., General U.N. 6th Records Meetings, Official of Record Summary 52 cial Council[a/633]at194 So- and Economic the of report con- [E/794]: genocide draft on vention the of consideration the of Eighthy-Third Continuation Meeting. 3dSession., Assembly Committee., General U.N. 6th Records Meetings, Official of Record Summary 51 representative China Tai, at p. 198 Tsien Mr. and . Economic [a/633] the Council of Social report [E/794]: genocide con- on draft vention the of consideration the of Eighthy-Third Continuation Meeting. 3dSession., Assembly Committee., General U.N. 6th Records Meetings, Official of Record Summary 50 cial Council[a/633]at205 - - vention on genocide [E/794]: report of the Economic and So- and Economic the of report [E/794]: con- genocide on draft vention the of consideration the of Eighthy-Third Continuation Meeting. 3dSession., Committee., 6th Records Official Assembly General U.N. Meetings, of Record Summary the in Perozo Pérez Mr representative Venezuelan the of Opinion 67 cial Council[a/633]at193 So- and Economic the of report [E/794]: con- genocide on draft vention the of consideration the of Eighthy-Third Continuation Meeting. 3dSession., Assembly Committee., General 6th U.N. Records Meetings, Official of Record Summary 66 cial Council[a/633]at205/206 So- and Economic the of report [E/794]: con- genocide on draft vention the of consideration the of Eighthy-Third Continuation Meeting. 3dSession., Assembly Committee., General 6th U.N. Records Meetings, Official of Record Summary 65 cial Council[a/633]at206 So- and Economic the of report [E/794]: con- genocide on draft vention the of consideration the of Eighthy-Third Continuation Meeting. 3dSession., Assembly Committee., General 6th U.N. Records Meetings, Official of Record Summary 64 html Lastaccessed24July 2007 org/resources/publications/dialigue/2_12/section_1/5139. http://www.cceia. at Available Rights’ 2005. 22, ‘Cultural April 2005) Dialogue: “(Spring Rights Human Law. In- Under ternational Genocide Cultural “Rethinking Nersessian. D. 63 ESCOR, U.N. Genocide, 6th Sess., 5thmtg., U.N. on Doc. E/AC25?SR.5(1948) Committee Hoc Ad the of ting Mee Fifth the of record Summary citing 10 p. at Sautman 62 61 P. Condappaatp. 12 60 P. Condappaatp. 8/9 59 P. Condappaatp. 5 58 Lemkin,AxisRule inOccupiedEurope, at90-95 57 P. Condappaatp. 4 cial Council[a/633]at196 So- and Economic the of report [E/794]: con- genocide on draft vention the of consideration the of Eighthy-Third Continuation Meeting. 3dSession., Assembly Committee., General 6th U.N. Records Meetings, Official of Record Summary 56 R aquel F aria P into C oelho - V.2/N.1 J uiz J 109 an 2008
de /D F
ez Teoria e Cultura ora e 2 oelho C into P aria F aquel R - - national national co-
tion onven C liament (Oct. 24, (last visited Sept. 23, 2002) ve/2001/10/24_1.html 2001), at - http://www.tibet.ca/wtnarchi 95 Charter of the United Principles. Nations. Article 1. Chapter The Purposes I. of Purposes the United and 1. Nations are: To maintain international peace end: to and take effective collective security, measures for and the prevention and to thatremoval of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity justice with and the international principles law, of adjustment or ternational disputes settlement or of situations which might in- lead to of a breach the peace; 2. To develop based on friendly respect for relations the principle of among equal nations rights and self-deter mination of peoples, and to to take strengthen other universal appropriate peace; measures 3. To achieve inter 83 B. Sautman. “Cultural Genocide and Tibet” (2003) 38 Tex. 12 at p. 173 Int’l L.J. 84 Summary Record of Official Meetings, Records U.N. 6th General Committee., Assembly 3d Session.,Meeting. Continuation Eighthy-Third of the consideration of the vention on draft genocide con- [E/794]: report of the Economic and So- 196 cial Council [a/633] at 85 Summary Record of Official Meetings, Records U.N. 6th General Committee., Assembly 3d Session.,Meeting. Continuation Eighthy-Third of the consideration of the vention on draft genocide con- [E/794]: report of the Economic and So- 196 cial Council [a/633] at 13 at p. Sautman 86 B. 87 Cultural Genocide. 2007 Accessed 04 August Last com/cultgenocide.htm Available at http://www.historywiz. 88 Cultural Genocide. 2007 Accessed 04 August Last com/cultgenocide.htm Available at http://www.historywiz. 197 at p. Sautman 89 B. 207/208 at p. Sautman 90 B. 207/208 at p. Sautman 91 B. 210 at p. Sautman 92 B. 211/212 at p. Sautman 93 B. 94 B. Sautman at p. 197 ech citing the of Dalai His Lama in Holiness his the Spe- Dalai Lama to the European Par enocide G the
of
ch approa ve ati v onser C the
and
enocide G tural ul 82 D. Nersessian 82 D. http://www.texacotoxico.org/eng/index.php?option=com_ content&task=view&id=292&Itemid=116&PHPSESSID= 579b2a7e9ac8fa1556d0d75922aee372 Last accessed 30 August 2007 81 Corte Superior de Analysis: Justicia Maria Nueva Aguinda Loja, y Ecuador. Otros Legal at ration. Available vs Chevrontexaco Corpo - 80 J. Morsink at p. 47 Morsink at p. 80 J. 79 Schabas at p. 187 at p. 79 Schabas 78 M. Lippman, “The 1948 and Convention Punishment of on the the Crime Prevention of Genocide: Later” Forty-Five Years (1999), 8 TEMP. INT’L & COMP. L. J. 184 1, and Sautman at p. 38 at p.77 77 J. Morsink at p. 21 Morsink at p. 77 J. 76 D. Nersessian 76 D. 75 International Criminal Tribunal of the formerThe Prosecutor Yugoslavia. v. Radislav Krstic. Case no. IT-98-33-T (2001) 575) at Para 74 Violations of Human Rights of in Southern the Africa: Ad Report Hoc Working 1985, paras 56 and 57 28 January CN.4/1985/14, Group of Experts, UN Doc. E/ 73 Krstic at para 575 72 Krstic at para 575 71 International Criminal Tribunal of the formerThe Prosecutor Yugoslavia. v. Radislav Krstic. Case no. IT-98-33-T (2001) at para 574 70 United Nations General Assembly Resolution 96 Assembly Resolution 70 United Nations General 69 Summary Record of Official Meetings, Records U.N. 6th General Committee., Assembly 3d Session., Meeting. Continuation Eighthy-Third of the consideration of the vention draft on genocide con- [E/794]: report of the Economic and So- 193 cial Council [a/633] at 68 D. Nersessian 68 D. cial Council [a/633] at 195 cial Council C 2
e ora ez
F
/D
Teoria e Cultura de
2008
an 110 J
uiz
J V.2/N.1 V.2/N.1 0 http://www.cultdeadcow.com/cDc_files/cDc-0409.php. 101 Last accessed8August 2007 100 http://www.cultdeadcow.com/cDc_files/cDc-0409.php. 99 T. Dargyal http://www.savetibet.org/ at news/newsitem.php?id=983. Lastaccessed8August 2007 Available 2006. 30th, May genoci de”. cultural Tibetan the and “Bombardier Dargyal.. T. 98 http://www.heartibet.org/selfdetermination. html. Lastaccessed23August 2007 at People. Tibetan the on Available Self-Determination Tibet! Hear 97 the presentresolution of purposes the achieving towards appropriate, as efforts, ble possi- all make will States Member that hope the Expresses 3) self-determination; to ri- right their human including freedoms, fundamental and their ghts of people Tibetan the deprive which practices of cessation the for call its law; renews Solemnly 2) of rule the on the based order for world peaceful essential a of is evolution Rights the Human of of and Nations Declaration United Universal the of Charter the of principles forthe respect that conviction its Reaffirms 1) peoples, tween in- of tension andembittering relations be- creasing international effect deplorable the have and nations, and self-determination peoples of of principle the of including Declaration Universal Rights, the Human and Nations United the of Char ter the in out set freedoms and violate rights events human fundamental these that Considering countries, neighboring the to refugees as Tibetan people, of exodus large-scale Tibetan the by the evidenced on inflicted have events hardships these severe which the traditio- anxiety deep have with they Noting enjoyed, which nally life religious dis- and the cultural of tinctive suppression the and people human Tibetan fundamental the the of rights of events violation of the including continuation Tibet, the in at concerned Gravely Tibet, of question the on 1959 October 21 of (XVI) 1353 Recalling resolution Assembly,its General The 1961. York, New Tibet. (XVI) on 1723 Resolution Assembly General Nations United 96 of actions the these common ends. nations inthe attainment of harmonizing for centre a be To 4. and religion; or language, sex, race, to as distinction without all for freedoms fundamental for and promoting rights human in for respect and encouraging and character, humanitarian economic, or an cultural, of social, problems international solving in operation - - f Eprs U Dc EC./951, 28 E/CN.4/1985/14, Doc. January 1985 UN Southern Experts, in of Group Working Hoc Rights Ad the of Human Report Africa: of Violations Resolution 96 Assembly General Nations United Resolution 1723 (XVI)onTibet.NewYork, 1961. Assembly General Nations United the United NationsCharter for Tribunal Yugoslaviaformer Statute Criminal International Rwanda for Statute Tribunal Criminal International Statute CriminalCourt International Genocide theCrimeof of Punishment and Prevention the on Convention L BIBLIOGRAPHY f Gncd, .. SO, t Ssin t -, .. Doc. U.N. 6-7, at Session E/447(1947) at27 5th ESCOR, U.N. Genocide, Crimes of the on Convention Draft the on Lemkin Raphael 108 E/ Doc. U.N. 2-3, Genocide, at on mtg., AC25?SR.5(1948)) andD. 5th Nersessian Committee Sess., Hoc 6th Ad ESCOR, the U.N. the of record of Summary Meeting citing by Fifth 10 p. at Sautman B. 107 106 Lemkin,AxisRule inOccupiedEurope, at90-95 105 P. Condappaatp. 4 13, 1987, WL3175091 Sept. PRESS, and “Alive ASSOCIATED Issue Lama, Tibet Dalai the Says Kicking” citing 203 p. at Sautman B. 104 103 (B. Sautmanatp. 202 102 B. Sautmanatp. 196 Last accessed8August 2007 a ws : R aquel F aria P into C oelho
V.2/N.1 J uiz J 111 an 2008
de /D F
ez Teoria e Cultura ora e 2 oelho C into P aria F aquel R : urces eso R
tion onven C lectronic E B. Brivati. “What is Genocide?” Available Polity, 2007. at review.asp?reviews_id=95 Last http://www.democratiya.com/ 2007 August accessed 30 P. Condappa. “Cultural Genocide Hezegovina; in Destroying Bosnia Heritage, Identity”. Destroying Available stanford.edu/projects/CulturesofContact/ at admin/download.html?attachid=14883 http://metamedia. 2007 accessed 30 August Last Corte Superior Ecuador. de Legal y Justicia Analysis: Otros Nueva at Available Maria Loja, vs Aguinda http://www.texacotoxico.org/eng/index. Chevrontexaco php?option=com_content&task=view&id Corporation. =292&Itemid=116&PHPSESSID=579b2a7 e9ac8fa1556d0d75922aee372 Last accessed 30 2007 August Cultural Genocide. www.historywiz.com/cultgenocide.htm Available 2007 Accessed 04 August at Last http:// J. Docker. “ Genocide and Colonialism” Raphael Lemkin’s History Paper for of United States Museum, Holocaust Memorial Center Studies. for Washington DC, Advanced at 26 Available February Holocaust 2004. http://www.ushmm.org/conscience/ analysis/details.php?content=2004-02-26 2007 Last accessed 29 May J. L. A. http://www.dhnet.org.br/direitos/anthist/ Filho,. “Genocídio”. nuremberg/genocidio_oquee.htm Available at 2007 Last accessed 30 August J. J. Morsink. “Cultural Genocide, the Declaration, Universal and Minority Rights” 1009 Q. Hum. Rts. (1999), 21 B. Sautman. “Cultural 173 Int’l L.J. (2003) 38 Tex. Genocide and Tibet” enocide G the
of
ch approa ve ati v onser C the
and
: enocide : G : tural ooks ases rticles ul M. Lippman, “The 1948 Prevention and Convention Punishment on of the Genocide: the Crime Forty-Five of Years 1, 38 L. J. INT’L & COMP. Later” TEMP. (1999), 8 A United Nations Official Records ofSession of the Third the General Assembly, Part I. Legal Questions. Sixth Committee. Summary Record of Meetings. 21 1948 Paris. de Chaillot, 1948. Palais September – 10 December W. W. Schabas.. “Genocide in International the Law: crimes of 2000 crimes”. Press. Cambridge University S. S. Ratner and J Human Abrams. “Accountability Rights for Law. Beyond the Atrocities Nuremberg Legacy”. Second 2001 Press. Edition. Oxford University in International M. Levene.“Genocide M. in Levene.“Genocide the Age of the Nation- State, Volume 1: The meaning . of Published Genocide” Limited. 2005 by I. B. Tauris & Company, K. Kittichaisaree. 2001 Press. Oxford University Law”. “International Criminal A. L. Hinton, , “Genocide: An Anthropological Reader”, Introduction in 2001. London. Blackwell A,L. Hinton (eds.) P. P. N. Drost, “The 1959 Sijthoff. A. W. Leyden: Genocide, Crime of State”, Vol. 2, B International Criminal Tribunal of the Yugoslavia. former The Prosecutor 14 (1999) IT-95-10 Case No. v. Goran Jelisic. International Criminal Tribunal of the Yugoslavia. former The Prosecutor v. Radislav (2001) Krstic. IT-98-33-T Case no. C International Criminal Tribunal The for Prosecutor v. Rwanda. Jean (1998) ICTR-96-4-T No. –Paul Akayesu. Case C 2
e ora ez
F
/D
Teoria e Cultura de
2008
an 112 J
uiz
J V.2/N.1 V.2/N.1 . ai. Te itr Pae Gncd in Genocide Place. 20 the History “The Gavin. P. . aga. “obrir n te Tibetan 30 the May and genocide”. cultural “Bombardier Dargyal.. T. 2007 July http://www. 24 accessed Last at 12/section_1/5139.html Available 2005) 2005. cceia.org/resources/publications/dialigue/2_ “(Spring Rights 22, Rights’ Human April ‘Cultural Law. Dialogue: International Under Genocide Cultural “Rethinking Nersessian. D. 14 August 2007 accessed Last Lemkin”. . heroes/lemkin-raphael.htm http://www.wagingpeace.org/ “Raphael menu/programs/youth-outreach/peace- at Lukasiewicz. Available A. H. 23 http://www.heartibet. August 2007 accessed Last at org/selfdetermination.html. Available People. Tibetan the on Self-Determination Tibet! Hear Last accessed30August 2007 historyplace.com/worldhistory/genocide/ cDc-0409.php. Lastaccessed8August 2007 http://www.cultdeadcow.com/cDc_files/ http://www.savetibet.org/news/newsitem. php?id=983. Lastaccessed8August 2007 at th etr” Aalbe t http://www. at Available Century”. th 20. Available 2006. , R aquel F aria P into C oelho V.2/N.1 J uiz J 113 an 2008
de /D F
ez Teoria e Cultura ora e 2