Never Again? Rwanda and the Paradox of the Law

The concept of genocide was defined legally for the first time in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 9 December 1948. According to Article II of this convention, genocide means “any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such:

a) Killing members of the group;

b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

To be noted: “measures to prevent births”, such as forced sterilisation, can therefore be legally considered an act constituting genocide — provided that the deliberate intention to destroy a targeted group can be proven. It is this dimension of genocidal intent that makes it difficult to legally recognise forced sterilisation as genocide, even if it technically meets the criteria defined by the Convention

Genocides officially recognised by the UN

• The Holocaust (Shoah)(1941–1945), recognised via UN General Assembly Resolution 96 (I) in 1946, which led to the 1948 Genocide Convention
• Genocide against the Tutsi(Rwanda, 1994), recognised by UN Security Council Resolutions 955 and 978 (1994); International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) established
• Srebrenica Genocide(Bosnia, 1995), recognised by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and the International Court of Justice (2007 ruling)

Genocides recognised by other international or national bodies

• Herero and Nama Genocide (German Southwest Africa, 1904–1908), recognised by Germany (2021)
• Assyrian and Pontic Greek Genocides (1914–1923), recognised by some national parliaments
• Armenian Genocide (1915–1917), recognised by many national parliaments (France, Germany, Canada, etc.)
• Holodomor (Ukraine famine) (1932–1933), recognised by Ukraine and several countries
• Cambodian Genocide (1975–1979), recognised by the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC)
• Anfal Campaign against Kurds (Iraq, 1988), recognised by several national courts
• Darfur Genocide(Sudan, 2003–present), prosecuted by the International Criminal Court; UN uses “crimes against humanity”

Genocides not officially recognised but widely documented by historians

• Destruction of Indigenous Peoples of the Americas (16th–20th centuries), considered genocidal by many historians
• Cultural genocide of Indigenous Peoples (Canada, Australia, etc.), recognised as “cultural genocide” or “systemic assimilation”, not as genocide in the UN’s legal sense
• Massacre of the Aché People (Paraguay, 1960s–1970s), documented by NGOs and historians

Currently under UN investigation (status pending)

• Gaza / Occupied Palestinian Territories, acts described by UN experts as “genocidal”
• Rohingya in Myanmar, UN Independent Investigative Mechanism; case before the International Court of Justice
• Tigray (Ethiopia), joint UN–Ethiopian Human Rights Commission investigations
• Ukraine, UN Commission of Inquiry examining possible incitement to genocide
• Uyghurs in China (Xinjiang), ongoing UN human rights investigations

Genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity are among the most serious international crimes, as defined by the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1948), the Geneva Conventions (1949) and their Protocols, and the Rome Statute (1998), which established the International Criminal Court (ICC). They are considered non-prescriptible: complaints can be filed even decades later.

Where can complaints be filed?

– Before the International Criminal Court (ICC), which is the main international court

The ICC can try cases of genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and crimes of aggression. Cases can be referred to it in three ways: by a State Party to the Rome Statute (123 States today), by the ICC Prosecutor, who can take up a case on his own initiative after authorisation by the judges, or by the UN Security Council (even for non-member States, e.g. Darfur, Libya).

Can an individual file a complaint? Yes, but in the form of a communication to the Office of the Prosecutor (OTP). The ICC is not a direct complaint jurisdiction like a national court: an individual can submit a case, but only the Prosecutor decides whether to open an investigation.

There are significant limitations to the ICC. It only tries individuals, not states. It only has jurisdiction if the crime took place on the territory of a state party, if the perpetrator is a national of a state party, or if the Security Council refers the case. Finally, some geopolitically important States do not recognise the ICC (the United States, Russia, China, Israel, etc.).

– Before a national court

Many States now allow complaints for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, even if the crimes were committed abroad and by foreigners. This is known as universal jurisdiction. Examples of countries that regularly use it include France, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, Sweden, Canada (partially) and Spain (more limited since 2014). The specific conditions vary from country to country, but generally require the presence of the suspect on the territory (often required), a complaint from victims or NGOs, and national prosecutors who open investigations themselves. This mechanism is increasingly active (trials of Syrian torturers, Rwandan soldiers, etc.).

– Before the International Court of Justice (ICJ)

The ICJ does not judge individuals, but can be called upon in disputes between States, particularly for accusations of genocide (e.g. Gambia v. Myanmar; South Africa v. Israel), violations of the Geneva Conventions via State responsibility, and disputes over the interpretation of international treaties. It is important to note that private individuals cannot bring cases before the ICJ. Only states can do so.

The courts for Rwanda and Kosovo

Complaints cannot be brought before these courts. They are ad hoc international criminal tribunals with jurisdiction to try individuals responsible for serious crimes (genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes).

The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) was established in 1994 by the UN Security Council to try those responsible for the genocide of the Tutsis and crimes against humanity committed in Rwanda.

The Special Tribunal for Kosovo (Kosovo Chambers) was established in 2015, based in The Hague, to try crimes committed by the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) between 1998 and 2000.

There may be indirect interactions with the ICJ, for example when the ICJ examines the responsibility of a State for acts that also constitute crimes tried by a criminal tribunal (e.g. the Bosnia v. Serbia case on the Srebrenica genocide).

The 1948 United Nations Genocide Convention imposes a legal obligation on all signatory states to prevent and punish genocide. This obligation is known as erga omnes, which means that it is owed to the entire international community and not only to the state where the crime is taking place. Thus, even a country not directly involved must intervene to the extent of its capabilities, in particular through diplomatic, economic, legal or humanitarian means. In concrete terms, this may take the form of economic sanctions, diplomatic pressure, suspension of arms sales, humanitarian aid, cooperation with the courts, or speaking out at the UN.

This obligation applies to all States Parties (153 today), regardless of their geography or political interests. It does not depend on the filing of a complaint with the International Court of Justice (ICJ): the complaint is simply one legal mechanism among others, but the obligation to act exists outside of any proceedings.

Finally, it is an obligation of means, not of results: powerful States must do more, while less influential States may limit themselves to actions proportionate to their capabilities.

NB. A State may only intervene militarily to stop genocide if it has authorisation from the Security Council or a recognised collective mandate. No State may invoke genocide to justify a military attack on its own. For example, Russia attempted to justify its invasion of Ukraine in 2022 by invoking the prevention of genocide, but the ICJ rejected this argument.

The legal status of the Holodomor as genocide remains a matter of international debate. According to the 1948 United Nations Genocide Convention, genocide refers to acts committed “with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such.”

Scholars and the Ukrainian state argue that the famine fits this definition, citing Soviet policies that intentionally targeted the Ukrainian peasantry, culture, and political autonomy. Evidence includes:

• Forced grain requisitions far beyond subsistence levels
• Border closures preventing peasants from fleeing famine zones
• Suppression of Ukrainian language, institutions, and elites
• A disproportionate death toll among Ukrainians compared to other Soviet republics

As of 2025, more than 30 countries — including Canada, Ukraine, Poland, the Baltic states, and recently Germany — officially recognise the Holodomor as a genocide. However, neither the United Nations nor the International Criminal Court has issued a binding legal ruling, and Russia maintains that the famine was a broader Soviet tragedy, not a targeted ethnic crime.