Genocide, War Crimes and Crimes against humanity Presented by STUDENT NAME

Table of Contents 1. Introduction 1.1 Define the terms: a) Genocide, b)War Crimes and c) Crimes Against Humanity 2. United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG) 2.1 Weaknesses and Challenges 3. Case Study: South Sudan 3.1 Country profile 3.2 Causes of conflict 3.3 Challenges & Solutions 4. Conclusion References

1. Introduction 1.1 Define the terms: Genocide First used by Raphael Lemkin, a Jewish lawyer, in 1944 Genos (race, tribe) and cide (killing) Definition of genocide as contained in Article 2 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide : “Genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy in whole or in part, a national, ethnical racial or religious group, as such: Killing members of the group; Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.” The term « Genocide » appeared after World War II and was created by Jewish lawyer, Raphael Lemkin in 1944, in order to describe the atrocities that happened during World War II. He created the word by combining Genos and Cide, creating the meaning killing a race or tribe. The definition given by the CPPCG is the following: (read it out) So any intentional or systematic killing of people because they are part of a specific group is considered genocide. Defining the term also contributed to the establishment of a universal meaning of mass killings, which thus established a certain criteria that must be satisfied in order to prove that genocide had taken place. So by defining the term genocide, it is possible to prosecute individuals or government for genocide in court. Therefore, today genocide is considered a crime under international law regardless of « whether committed in time of peace or in time of war ».

1. Introduction War Crimes “Violations of international humanitarian law (treaty or customary law) that incur individual criminal responsibility under international law” (Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court); such as: wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, intentionally directing attacks against civilians, etc. Crimes Against Humanity “Acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population” (Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court) such as murder, extermination, torture, etc. The prohibition of certain behavior in the context of armed conflict was existent, but the concept of war crimes, and the idea that human individuals could be held responsible for actions came up in the 20th century, with the development of international humanitarian law. The term « crimes against humanity » was used for the first time in 1915, by the Allied governments (France,UK and Russia) in the context of the mass killngs of the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire. But only after 1945 (WWII) crimes against humanity was prosecuted for the first time at the International Military Tribunal in Nuremberg. Unlike war crimes and genocide, crimes against humanity have not yet been codified in a dedicated treaty of international law.

2. United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG) Approved in 1948 by the United Nations, entered into force in January 1951. Ratified by 149 countries (as of January 2018) US ratifies in 1988.

2. United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG) 2.1 Weaknesses and Challenges Table One: Genocide and the International Response Prevent Punish East Pakistan (1971) -- Burundi (1972) Cambodia (1975-1979) Nigeria (1967-1970) Guatemala (1981-1983) Iraq (1987-1989) +/-- Bosnia I (1992-1994) + Bosnia II (1994-1995) Rwanda (1994) Sudan (2003-2007*) * Rwanda: US refused to intervene. They recognized that « acts of genocide » were happening, but Christopher Warren (the then secretary of State) paid very much attention as to not say or use the term « genocide ». The US did not see any benefit in helping Rwanda and did not want to bear the costs of the intervention. The US involvement in Haiti and Bosnia, as well as incidents such as the ambush of American soldiers during a political fiasco in Somalia, did not encourage the US to help Rwanda. Bosnia: The international community and the US in this case as well, was vigilant to use the term « genocide » at first and used terms such as « ethnic cleansing » instead. They put arms embargos on the forces fighting each other. Troops were sent to Bosnia but they were not allowed to fight. However by sending groups, the international community was able to say that they were involved. This was partly because the UN was seen as a « neutral force » designed for defense and not offense. In the context of their containment policy, the US finally got involved when the Serbs were running over the UN safe zones in order to take back their arms and take hostages. + the Genocide was stopped with the use of force -- the Convention has been ignored or ineffectively used +/- the response has been mixed; *the genocide is still occurring Source: https://scholarworks.gsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1016&context=political_science_theses

2. United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG) 2.1 Weaknesses and Challenges UN Security Council: Opposite opinions Countries’ willingness to intervene Lack of enforcement mechanisms Preventive action needs to be improved 1. UN Security Council: If two countries’ opinions oppose each other, they can use their veto to prevent the interaction in a country. 2. If a country judges that they don’t have any profits from intervening in a country, they might just try to avoid responsibility, such as it happened in the case of Rwanda, Cambodia and others. Geopolitical reasons also sometimes prevent countries to intervene. 3. If the Genocide Convention had enforcement mechanisms that forced countries to interact during a genocide, then probably a lot of genocides could have stopped earlier or even prevented. However, forthe time being, the Genocide Convention has no enforcement clause which forces country to intervene, and there are no repercussions for countries, which ignore their obligation to interact. 4. As you could see in the graph before, there have been more incidents where the perpetrators of the genocide were punished than incidents where the genocide has been prevented. The goal of the Convention however is to prevent genocide from happening, so that is one of the biggest challenges and criticisms the Convention has been facing.

3. Case Study: South Sudan 3.1 Country profile Genocide, ethnic cleansing happening in South Sudan since the civil war broke out in 2013 50,000 people have been killed 2.3 million people have been displaced Famine was declared in February 2017 (FAO) May 2017: President Kiir announces unilateral ceasefire and launches a national dialogue

3. Case Study: South Sudan 3.2 Causes of conflict 2011: Gained Independence from mostly Muslim Sudan Contains more than 60 ethnic groups. Two largest groups: Dinka vs. Nuer US and international community withdrew after independence. Tensions intensify: Riek Machar heavily criticizes Salva Kiir’s government policies 2013: Civil war breaks out Hate speech encourages violence against civilians  Political conflict turns into ethnic conflict South Sudan gained independance from the North in 2011 after fighting it for decades in a civil war. South Sudan contains more than 60 ethnic groups, which allied their forces in order to fight the North, but since they’ve gained independence, they have no reason for unity anymore. The two largest ethnic groups are the Dinka and the Nuer. The president, Salva Kiir, is a Dinka and as a sign of unison, he elected Riek Machar, a Nuer, as Vice-President. However the tensions between both groups remained, and on top of that, the US, which had fought for years for South Sudan’s independence, and the international community retreated from the country. As Riek Machar starts to heavily criticize Salva Kiir’s government, tensions intensify and civil war breaks out in December 2013, because of a rumor saying that Riek planned a coup d’état on Kiir’s government. Both camps encourage hate speech, which encourages violence against civilians, and turns the political conflict into an ethnic conflict.

3. Case Study: South Sudan 3.3 Challenges & Solutions Competition for resources Intervention of neighbouring countries (Sudan, Uganda) Flow of weapons into the region, from Chinese national weapons manufacturer NORINCO UN is asking for immediate intervention, but no sign of cooperation US imposes an unilateral arms embargo: more symbolic than useful US is pushing for a UN arms embargo  unlikely to pass UN Security Council Current peace talks between Salva Kiir and Riek Machar  finally an end to the civil war Peace talks: on Friday, 22nd June, both leaders met, but peace talks seemed to have failed as Southern leader Kiir refuses to work with Machar again. However, both sides have met again on Tuesday to talk again, maybe peace? Even though in 2016, they agreed once on a peace treaty which didn’t last long. Will it last this time?

4. Conclusion CPPCG still needs improvement for more effectiveness Ignorance and unwillingness to intervene extend conflicts Intervention of the international community is slow or ineffective

Any questions or comments? Thank you for listening!

References http://endgenocide.org/learn/what-is-genocide/ http://www.preventgenocide.org/law/convention/text.htm https://www.britannica.com/topic/genocide#ref283848 https://scholarworks.gsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1016&context=political_science_theses https://www.vox.com/world/2016/12/8/13817072/south-sudan-crisis-explained-ethnic-cleansing-genocide http://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/war-crimes.html https://paanluelwel.com/2017/04/23/the-politics-of-genocide-and-the-failure-to-protect-human-rights-in-south- sudan/ https://www.economist.com/middle-east-and-africa/2016/12/10/the-chaos-in-south-sudan-keeps-getting-worse http://www.fao.org/emergencies/countries/detail/en/c/147627 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-14019202 https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/02/02/time-ripe-un-arms-embargo-south-sudan https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2018/06/22/world/africa/ap-af-south-sudan-civil-war.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/south-sudans-rival-leaders-set-to-meet-again-in- sudan/2018/06/25/8ac7c2de-7859-11e8-ac4e-421ef7165923_story.html?utm_term=.02d90b776382