THE POSSIBLE LEGAL EFFECTS AND PERILS OF ENLARGING THE DEFINITION OF GENOCIDE THROUGH NATIONAL NORMS
THE POSSIBLE LEGAL EFFECTS AND PERILS OF ENLARGING THE DEFINITION OF GENOCIDE THROUGH NATIONAL NORMS

Summary/Abstract: At an international level, the definition of genocide remained virtually the same since 1948. Even though proposals to enlarge this definition have been made throughout the years, most of the states refused to accept such a modification. At the end of World War II, the majority of the states accepted that the definition of the crime of genocide should only include four protected groups: national, ethnical, racial and religious. The idea that social and political groups should also be included was rejected. During the years, especially in the 1990s and in the early 2000s, the proposal to include other groups was submitted again. This time, there were several countries, including France and the Baltic States in Europe, which used a more exhaustive national norm. However, the proposal was again rejected. Having succinctly reviewed the reasons behind these controversial repeated choices, this paper will proceed to present the examples of several national definitions which include other types of groups. These norms will be analyzed from two points of view: the national historical reasons specific for each country and the legal effects of these legislative solutions. In the end, the possible implications of the enlarged national definitions will be analyzed, especially in light of the fundamental guarantees of a criminal trial governed by the European Convention of Human Rights.

• Details
• Contents