AUTHOR(S)
Norman K. Swazo

abstract
For proof of genocide, the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1948) stipulates that a manifested or reasonably inferred intent (mens rea, dolus specialis) to destroy a group as such is essential. In the absence of proof of intent, any atrocities committed in armed conflict can be deemed, at most, crimes against humanity or war crimes. Despite technological enhancements of military operations that have altered the destructive capacity of armed forces, the criterion of intent remains a high bar to speedy judicial review and judgment in both the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the International Criminal Court (ICC). In consequence, wanton death and destruction continue unabated in armed conflicts. Furthermore, all too often there is no mitigating intervention authorized by the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) in situations of alleged genocide, usually because of the exercise of the veto from a permanent member (the USA, Russian Federation, China, the UK, and France). The question arises, therefore, whether it is not past time to revise the Convention for the express purpose of eliminating the criterion of intent entirely. Eliminating the criterion of mens rea would allow petitioners to the Courts to submit only the evidence of genocidal acts (actus reus). It is argued here that this revision is in the interest of international peace and security and, thereby, international justice, i.e., a new jus gentium (law of nations, law of peoples).

DOI
https://doi.org/10.47126/nsjpgs.v2i1.01