Despite sharing historical roots, genocide and persecution are increasingly considered two separate crimes with divergent legal elements that represent two different social wrongdoings. Genocide is a crime aimed at the destruction of groups, characterized by intent to destroy the group, whereas persecution is an offense aimed at serious discrimination against individuals, characterized by the mass or systematic character of the killing. Therefore, this paper will tackle the question of moral difference between genocide and persecution and ask why genocide can still be considered the “crime of crimes” if, contrary to persecution, it does not even require a mass-scale attack or a high number of victims. The most convincing approach argues that genocide risks more ancillary harm due to the additional intent not only
to harm current group members, but also to destroy the group itself. Genocide per se is not worse than persecution, but it is more likely to expand into massive devastation. This is the reason why even “small” genocides need to be prosecuted, punished and prevented by international law.
Table of Contents
I. INTRODUCTION
II. LEGAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN GENOCIDE AND PERSECUTION
1) Mens rea – Genocidal intent
2) Actus reus - Part of Widespread or Systematic Attack
3) Actus reus – Grounds of Discrimination
III. RELATION BETWEEN THE TWO CRIMES
1) Genocide as a species of crime against humanity (persecution)
2) Genocide and crimes against humanity (persecution) as separate crimes
IV. THE “CRIME OF CRIMES”
V. CONCLUSION
Objectives and Topics
This paper examines the legal and moral distinctions between genocide and persecution under international law. It addresses why genocide retains the status of the "crime of crimes" despite legal definitions that do not strictly require a massive scale of violence, unlike persecution, and explores the preventive function of international law regarding genocidal intent.
- Legal requirements of genocide versus crimes against humanity
- The role of discriminatory intent and specific genocidal intent
- The relationship and potential overlap between the two crimes
- The evolution of the "crime of crimes" concept
- Prevention of small-scale genocidal acts
Excerpt from the Book
1) Mens rea – Genocidal intent
A discriminative approach is a common factor for both genocide and persecution; both are crimes perpetrated against people who belong to a particular group and who are targeted because of being a member of that group. Yet the first and main distinction is that mens rea for persecution is lower than for genocide. The perpetrator of genocide must intend to destroy all or part of the protected group, while the perpetrator of a persecution need not have such intent. This genocidal intent is thus a specific intent that is separate from and goes beyond the discriminatory intent included in the crime of persecution.
Summary of Chapters
I. INTRODUCTION: The chapter introduces the definitions of genocide and persecution, noting how historical events have shaped public perception, and outlines the research objective to analyze the moral and legal differences between these two crimes.
II. LEGAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN GENOCIDE AND PERSECUTION: This section provides a detailed breakdown of the legal distinction, focusing on the specific "mens rea" (genocidal intent) and "actus reus" (widespread attack vs. specific intent) required for each crime.
III. RELATION BETWEEN THE TWO CRIMES: The chapter explores the historical and legal relationship between the two crimes, discussing whether they should be viewed as separate entities or if one is a subgroup of the other.
IV. THE “CRIME OF CRIMES”: This section investigates the moral justifications for labeling genocide as the most serious international crime and evaluates different doctrinal approaches to understanding why it is treated with such gravity.
V. CONCLUSION: The final chapter summarizes the findings, emphasizing that while the crimes are distinct, the preventive nature of international law is essential in addressing genocide before it escalates into massive devastation.
Keywords
Genocide, Persecution, International Law, Crimes Against Humanity, Mens Rea, Actus Reus, Intent, Discriminatory Intent, ICTY, ICTR, Rome Statute, Holocaust, Crime of Crimes, Human Rights, Global Justice
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core subject of this paper?
The paper explores the legal and moral delimitations between genocide and persecution, analyzing why these two categories of international crime are treated differently despite sharing historical roots.
What are the primary themes discussed?
Central themes include the distinction in mental elements (mens rea), the physical requirements (actus reus) for each crime, the evolution of legal definitions in international tribunals, and the moral status of groups versus individuals.
What is the main research question?
The paper asks why genocide is still classified as the "crime of crimes" if its legal definition does not strictly require the massive-scale destruction or high victim counts typically associated with persecution.
Which scientific methodology is applied?
The work utilizes a legal-doctrinal approach, examining international statutes (ICC, ICTY, ICTR), historical case law, and relevant scholarly debates to synthesize the relationship between genocide and persecution.
What topics are covered in the main body?
The main body breaks down the specific legal differences, investigates the relationship between the crimes (cumulative conviction versus distinct offenses), and analyzes the normative justifications for the "crime of crimes" label.
Which keywords best characterize this work?
The paper is best defined by terms such as genocide, persecution, mens rea, international criminal law, and genocidal intent.
Does the author argue that genocide is inherently worse than persecution?
The author concludes that genocide per se is not necessarily "worse" in terms of immediate damage than mass persecution, but that it is fundamentally more dangerous because it carries the intent to destroy a group entirely, making it more likely to expand into massive devastation.
What is the significance of the "inchoate" nature of genocide?
The paper highlights that because genocide is an inchoate crime, international law can and should intervene as soon as the specific intent to destroy a group manifests, rather than waiting for massive destruction to occur.
- Arbeit zitieren
- Sonja Kahl (Autor:in), 2015, Persecution and Genocide. About the Delimitation of Genocide and Persecution, München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/502387
