The hybrid term genocide was modeled by Raphael Lemkin and used for the first time in his book “Axis Rule in Occupied Europe: Laws of Occupation - Analysis of Government - Proposals for Redress” (1944) and sought to describe the cruelties and mass murdering committed by the Nazis in the Second World War. Lemkin, a Polish lawyer who himself was persecuted by the Nazi system, thereby created “a new term and a new conception for […] the destruction of a nation or of an ethnic group” (Lemkin, 1944, p. 79). A term that henceforward was used in order to depict the “crime of crimes” (Schabas, 2008a, p. 4), crimes that could not have been named before.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Analytical framework
2.1. The CNN effect
2.2. The policy-media interaction model
3. Historical analysis
3.1. The drafting of the Convention
4. The failures of the Genocide Convention
4.1. Genocide in Rwanda
4.2. Genocide in Darfur
5. Conclusion
Research Objectives and Themes
This paper investigates the effectiveness of the UN Genocide Convention in preventing mass atrocities, specifically questioning whether the international community's commitment to the treaty is merely a collection of "empty words." By analyzing the historical context of the Convention's drafting and comparing it to the cases of Rwanda and Darfur, the research evaluates the interplay between national interests, media influence, and international legal responsibility.
- The origins and legal limitations of the Genocide Convention.
- The impact of national sovereignty and political bargaining on international law.
- The role of the media in shaping foreign policy during humanitarian crises.
- Comparative analysis of UN interventions in Rwanda and Darfur.
- The influence of superpowers, particularly the United States, on genocide prevention.
Excerpt from the Book
3.1. The drafting of the Convention
The drafting process of the CPPCG included several factors shaping the final version of the document. First of all, William Schabas points out that the Convention was drafted under enormous time pressure and very hastily (2000). After the General Assembly of the UN had officially requested the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) of the UN “to undertake the necessary studies, with a view to the drawing up a convention on the crime of genocide” (United Nations, 1946), it took only four months for the ECOSOC to adopt Resolution E/325. This Resolution instructed the Secretary-General to undertake all necessary means to draw up a draft convention (United Nation, 1947a). The Secretary-General was eager to present results and handed in the first draft of the Convention on June 26, 1947.
Interestingly, the first ECOSOC draft is not only longer than the final version of the Convention but it also contains a much broader definition of the crime of genocide. The first draft by the ECOSOC includes inter alia a definition of genocide that entails the persecution of “linguistic […] or political groups” (United Nations, 1947b), which has been excluded from the final version of the CPPCG adopted in 1948. This observation cannot only be explained and justified by the speed of drafting and adopting the Convention. Here, a second feature of the drafting process becomes obvious.
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: Outlines the origins of the term "genocide" and establishes the research goal of evaluating the effectiveness of the CPPCG in light of historical failures.
2. Analytical framework: Introduces theoretical models, specifically the "CNN effect" and the "policy-media interaction model," to analyze how media influences political decisions during humanitarian crises.
3. Historical analysis: Examines the drafting process of the Convention, highlighting how time pressure and competing national interests led to a narrower definition of genocide.
4. The failures of the Genocide Convention: Investigates the Rwandan and Darfur genocides to demonstrate how signatory states prioritize national interests over the legal obligation to prevent mass atrocities.
5. Conclusion: Summarizes findings, affirming that the international community often prefers empty rhetoric, and advocates for a stronger, independent monitoring body for the Convention.
Keywords
Genocide, UN Genocide Convention, CPPCG, Rwanda, Darfur, CNN effect, Policy-media interaction model, Humanitarian crisis, International law, Foreign policy, United Nations, National interests, Prevention, Intervention, Raphael Lemkin.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core subject of this paper?
The paper examines the effectiveness of the UN Genocide Convention (CPPCG) and whether it has truly succeeded in preventing genocide since its inception in 1948.
What are the central thematic fields covered?
The study covers international law, the historical drafting of the UN Convention, humanitarian intervention, and the role of global media in foreign policy.
What is the primary research question?
The paper seeks to determine if the accusation that the international community prefers "empty words" over substantive action in response to genocide is legitimate and justifiable.
Which scientific methodology is employed?
The author uses a historical and case-study-based analytical approach, applying theoretical models like the CNN effect and the policy-media interaction model to historical events.
What does the main body address?
It covers the drafting history of the CPPCG, followed by a comparative analysis of the failures of the UN to prevent genocide in Rwanda and Darfur.
Which keywords characterize this work?
Key terms include Genocide, CPPCG, UN intervention, national interests, and the CNN effect.
Why were political and cultural groups excluded from the final CPPCG definition?
They were removed due to intense pressure from certain member states, particularly the Soviet Union, who feared such provisions would invite political interference in domestic affairs.
How does the "CNN effect" relate to the failure of intervention in these genocides?
The study argues that while media can influence policy, its effect is limited by "policy certainty"; in the cases of Rwanda and Darfur, national interests were already fixed, rendering media-driven public pressure ineffective.
What role did the United States play in the failures described?
The U.S. frequently prioritized its own foreign policy agenda—such as avoiding costly missions after the failed Somalia intervention or focusing on the war in Iraq—over its obligations under the Genocide Convention.
- Quote paper
- Tobias Henze (Author), 2011, The UN genocide convention , Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.hausarbeiten.de/document/208947
