{
  "id": "RL32605",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "RL32605",
  "active": false,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 100187,
      "date": "2004-09-14",
      "retrieved": "2016-04-07T20:09:01.809827",
      "title": "Genocide: Legal Precedent Surrounding the Definition of the Crime",
      "summary": "The current situation in Darfur, Sudan, and the surrounding debate over whether the Sudanese\ngovernment's actions constitute genocide or ethnic cleansing provides the impetus for this report.\nThis report presents a brief historical background on the U.N. Convention on the Prevention and\nPunishment of the Crime of Genocide (Genocide Convention), its ratification and implementation\nby the United States, and its incorporation into the Rome Statute creating an International Criminal\nCourt (ICC). Decisions from the International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY)\nand Rwanda (ICTR) are analyzed to help determine when charges of genocide have been found to\nbe legitimate.\n  For legal purposes, genocide is a highly specific offense, and to be liable for it an actor must\ncommit certain acts against a designated group with an intent to  destroy  the group, in\nwhole or in\npart. Accordingly, a number of serious human rights atrocities, such as the mass extermination of\na civilian population, might not constitute genocidal acts in certain circumstances, though they may\nnevertheless constitute war crimes or crimes against humanity.\n  The mental and physical elements of the crime of genocide each present their own analytical\nrequirements. This is primarily due to the crime's highly sensitive subject matter and the lack of\ncases prosecuting acts of genocide from the 1950s until the 1990s. Over the past decade,\ninternational tribunal decisions have created an influential understanding as to what constitutes\ngenocide under international law. They have also provided a real world context to an otherwise\nacademic debate regarding the applicability of the Genocide Convention. However, the legal\ndefinition of the crime of genocide remains in a formative state. Both tribunals still have many more\ncases to hear and judgments to render. Moreover, these decisions are not binding precedent on the\nICC or national courts, including those of the United States. International legal developments\nconcerning the crime of genocide will likely be largely based on these courts' approaches. This also\napplies to crimes against humanity, such as ethnic cleansing, as the debate concerning the substantive\ndifference between genocide and ethnic cleansing continues to unfold.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/RL32605",
          "sha1": "fd1578d916c3c93f5d5112a01c9f1af4fe6a6004",
          "filename": "files/20040914_RL32605_fd1578d916c3c93f5d5112a01c9f1af4fe6a6004.pdf",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "filename": "files/20040914_RL32605_fd1578d916c3c93f5d5112a01c9f1af4fe6a6004.html"
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    }
  ],
  "topics": [
    "American Law",
    "Intelligence and National Security"
  ]
}