On Monday last week, some of the world’s leading international lawyers and cross-party UK parliamentarians sent a public letter to British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and Foreign Secretary David Cameron, urging them to support the Genocide Determination Bill that is under discussion in the UK House of Lords.
This legislation, introduced by one of the authors of this piece, David Alton, in late 2022, aims to establish an independent and impartial mechanism for preventing mass atrocities and ensuring that the UK adheres to its obligations under the 1948 Genocide Convention.
In December last year, the international community marked the Convention’s 75th anniversary. However, mass atrocities, including crimes against humanity and genocide, remain a prominent and seemingly permanent feature of our world.
Between 2000 and 2020, at least 37 countries experienced or came perilously close to experiencing mass atrocities. The impact of such crimes extends beyond the immediate harm to their victims. They also lead to massive displacement, threaten international peace and security, and contribute to the rise of authoritarianism, which heightens the risk of future atrocities.
Despite these risks, the UK and other major countries have long adhered to a flawed policy of delegating responsibility for identifying crimes against humanity to international courts and tribunals rather than taking direct action.
However, international law, especially the obligation to prevent genocide, requires that governments — not courts — regularly assess the risk of genocide and use “all means reasonably available” to prevent or stop it.
While international courts can assess wrongful actions only after they have occurred, political, economic and legal interventions by the global community are necessary well before any harm is inflicted. Consequently, governments must take the lead.
Regrettably, governments often attempt to shirk their international commitments by refusing to classify mass atrocities as “genocide.” While they argue that such determinations should be left to international courts, they decline to engage with tribunals that could help prevent, stop or punish such crimes. Worse, these governments frequently maintain full and normal relations with countries accused of committing these offenses.
The Genocide Determination Bill aims to remove this impasse. Under the proposed law, if a British foreign secretary did not acknowledge an ongoing genocide or a significant risk of one, a designated parliamentary committee could conduct its own investigation. Should the foreign secretary agree with the committee’s findings, they may take appropriate action.
Conversely, if the foreign secretary rejects the committee’s conclusions, a UK court would have the authority to issue a preliminary ruling on the existence or potential risk of genocide. Should the court affirm the occurrence or risk of genocide, the secretary would be required to outline the reasonable steps that the government intends to take and specify the referral mechanisms, such as international courts, that it plans to use.
Thus, the threat of parliamentary action would compel the government to act.
The bill also aims to establish a practical framework for the UK to meet its obligations under the Genocide Convention, facilitating the prevention and punishment of such crimes through concrete policy measures without constraining foreign policy.
It is important to note that this bill is not tied to any particular situation or conflict. Given that labeling a mass atrocity as genocide or a crime against humanity is often politically and legally contentious, the bill authorizes an impartial, independent and apolitical determination by a UK court when all other options have been exhausted.
By making preliminary determinations, UK courts can act as safeguards against inaction, apathy and impunity, thereby reaffirming the idea that core international crimes are prohibited regardless of who commits them.
Rather than introduce new international laws, the bill aims to enforce existing ones by ensuring meaningful action even when governments fail to respond.
While much more can be done, acknowledging the existing legal and political realities is a crucial first step. Without this bill or a similar measure, political expediency would continue to prevail and mass atrocities would be likely to become even more widespread.
The liberal rules-based global order is arguably facing its most perilous moment since the end of World War II, as long-established international laws are increasingly challenged and frequently violated. Against this backdrop, the Genocide Determination Bill provides the UK government with a historic opportunity to align its policies with the UK’s commitments and stated values, thereby setting an example for other governments to follow.
David Alton, a crossbench member of the UK House of Lords, is the primary sponsor and lead advocate of the Genocide Determination Bill. Helena Kennedy, a member of the UK House of Lords, is director of the International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute. Aarif Abraham, a barrister at Doughty Street Chambers in London, is founder of the human-rights non-governmental organization Accountability Unit.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
The return of US president-elect Donald Trump to the White House has injected a new wave of anxiety across the Taiwan Strait. For Taiwan, an island whose very survival depends on the delicate and strategic support from the US, Trump’s election victory raises a cascade of questions and fears about what lies ahead. His approach to international relations — grounded in transactional and unpredictable policies — poses unique risks to Taiwan’s stability, economic prosperity and geopolitical standing. Trump’s first term left a complicated legacy in the region. On the one hand, his administration ramped up arms sales to Taiwan and sanctioned
The Taiwanese have proven to be resilient in the face of disasters and they have resisted continuing attempts to subordinate Taiwan to the People’s Republic of China (PRC). Nonetheless, the Taiwanese can and should do more to become even more resilient and to be better prepared for resistance should the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) try to annex Taiwan. President William Lai (賴清德) argues that the Taiwanese should determine their own fate. This position continues the Democratic Progressive Party’s (DPP) tradition of opposing the CCP’s annexation of Taiwan. Lai challenges the CCP’s narrative by stating that Taiwan is not subordinate to the
US president-elect Donald Trump is to return to the White House in January, but his second term would surely be different from the first. His Cabinet would not include former US secretary of state Mike Pompeo and former US national security adviser John Bolton, both outspoken supporters of Taiwan. Trump is expected to implement a transactionalist approach to Taiwan, including measures such as demanding that Taiwan pay a high “protection fee” or requiring that Taiwan’s military spending amount to at least 10 percent of its GDP. However, if the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) invades Taiwan, it is doubtful that Trump would dispatch
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) has been dubbed Taiwan’s “sacred mountain.” In the past few years, it has invested in the construction of fabs in the US, Japan and Europe, and has long been a world-leading super enterprise — a source of pride for Taiwanese. However, many erroneous news reports, some part of cognitive warfare campaigns, have appeared online, intentionally spreading the false idea that TSMC is not really a Taiwanese company. It is true that TSMC depositary receipts can be purchased on the US securities market, and the proportion of foreign investment in the company is high. However, this reflects the
RSS