The United Nations Genocide Convention and
Political Groups: Should the United States
Propose an Amendment?
Lawrence J. LeBlanct

Introduction
The United Nations General Assembly adopted the Convention on thePrevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in December
1948.1 Article II of the Convention defines genocide as the commissionof certain acts with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national,
ethnic, racial, or religious group. 2 The drafters of the Convention seriously considered the possibility of making it applicable to actions against

political groups as well; in fact, a reference to such groups was includedin Article II throughout most of the drafting stage. However, the word
"4political" was deleted from the article near the close of debate on theConvention as a whole, and as a result its protection does not extend topolitical groups.
The drafters' decision not to extend coverage to political groups has
been of little concern in most countries of the world. The Convention
has been ratified by about 100 nations, and the deletion of the word"political" from Article II does not appear to have been an issue in theirratification decisions. 3 In contrast, the matter has been of great concernt Associate Professor of Political Science, Marquette University; M.A., Louisiana State
University, 1967; Ph.D., University of Iowa, 1973. The author wishes to thank Vernon Van
Dyke, Robert Beck, and Michael Switalski for helpful comments and criticism on an earlier
draft of this article.
1. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Dec. 9, 1948,
78 U.N.T.S. 277 [hereinafter Convention].
2. Article II of the Convention, 78 U.N.T.S. at 280, states:
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed withintent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such:(a) Killing members of the group;(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its
physical destruction in whole or in part;(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
3. For a table of the parties to the Convention and of their reservations to and understandings of the document, as well as of objections to those reservations and understandings, see
MULTILATERAL TREATIES DEPOSITED WITH THE SECRETARY GENERAL (Status as of 31
December 1986) at 95-102, U.N. Doe. ST/LEG/SER.E/5, U.N. Sales No. E.87.V.6 (1987).

The Genocide Convention
in the United States ever since President Harry S Truman requested the
Senate's advice and consent to ratification of the Convention in June
1949. Critics of the Convention have denounced the deletion of the word"political" from Article II, insisting that it creates a loophole in the definition of genocide that could be abused by totalitarian states, especially
the Soviet Union. In brief, the critics argue that the Soviet Union could,
for example, persecute a national group in a way that would probably beconsidered genocidal under the terms of the Convention, but evade being
charged with the crime of genocide on the ground that its actions were
undertaken to suppress a political group. To overcome this problem, thecritics have advocated amending Article II to cover political groups.
Although this issue did not prevent the Senate from finally giving its
advice and consent to ratification, 4 Senate critics of the Convention did
succeed in passing a sense of the Senate resolution that calls for theUnited States to take steps, after becoming a party to the Convention, topersuade the United Nations to adopt a "political group" amendment.5
The purpose of this article is to examine the arguments advanced on
this issue, and to offer two responses: First, an amendment adding political groups is unnecessary to achieve the objectives of the Convention's
critics. Second, an amendment is undesirable because it could undermine
efforts to interpret and apply the Convention. The political group proposal seems to rest on a misunderstanding of the reasons why the draftersof the Convention decided not to include political groups among those
protected in the first place. It also reflects a curious and probably erroneous interpretation of the intentions of the drafters and of the meaning of
the Convention as adopted. All things considered, it would be better topursue aggressive enforcement of the Convention as written, and, if necessary, to work toward the development and acceptance of a separate
instrument on what could be called "politicide."
The article is divided into three main parts. Part I examines the basic
considerations that entered into the selection of the groups identified as
objects of protection in Article II of the Convention. Part II presents thearguments made during the drafting stage regarding the treatment ofpolitical groups, and appraises the rationale of the drafters in deciding
4. See 132 CONG. REC. S1378-79 (daily ed. Feb. 19, 1986). The resolution of ratification
was adopted by a vote of 83 in favor, 11 against, and 6 not voting. According to this resolution, the Senate gave its advice and consent to ratification subject to two "reservations," five
"understandings," and a "declaration" stating that "the President will not deposit the instrument of ratification until after the implementing legislation referred to in Article V [of theConvention] has been enacted." Id. Because this implementing legislation has not been
passed, the United States is still not a party to the Convention.
5. Id. at S1377-78.

269

Yale Journal of International Law

Vol. 13:268, 1988

not to include political groups. Part III criticizes the arguments thathave been made in the United States in favor of amending Article II.
I.

The Groups Protected: National, Ethnic, Racial, and Religious

The issue of genocide against political groups is of profound importance precisely because it involves the heart of the Convention-its definition of genocide. In effect, the critics argue that the Convention's
definition is fundamentally flawed. This argument contains a misunderstanding of the drafters' motives in deciding not to include politicalgroups among the objects of protection. In part, the problem the drafters
faced in this regard can be traced to the early efforts to define genocide,which were marked by vagueness and inconsistency.
A.

Early Efforts to Define Genocide

The Polish scholar and attorney Raphael Lemkin coined the word "genocide" in 1944.6 He derived the term from a combination of the Greek
word "genos," which means "race" or "tribe," and the Latin root "cide,"which means "killing." In his actual definition of the term, however,
Lemkin liberally used the words "nations" and "national groups" rather
than "races" or "tribes," and he stated that genocide meant not only the"immediate destruction" of such groups but also efforts to destroy themover time by attacking such things as their political and social institu7
tions, culture, national feelings, religion, and language.
The first U.N. resolution on the subject, Resolution 96(I), passed in
1946, also contained vague and even contradictory statements. It statedthat genocide is "a denial of the right of existence of entire humangroups," and referred to past instances of genocide when groups had
been destroyed "entirely or in part." Moreover, it failed, as Lemkin had,to delineate clearly the kinds of groups that had been or could become
victims of genocide. In this connection, the resolution referred only to"racial, religious, political and other groups."8B.

The Groups Protected

Whatever its shortcomings, Resolution 96(I) established the basic
guidelines within which the Convention was to be drafted. Its provisions
were frequently invoked in the two committees that did the most impor6. See R. LEMKIN, AXIS RULE IN OCCUPIED EUROPE 79 (1944).
7. Id.
8. G.A. Res. 96(I), U.N. Doc. A/64/Add.1, at 188-89 (1947). The resolution is also reprinted in N. ROBINSON, THE GENOCIDE CONVENTION: A COMMENTARY 121-22 (1960).

270

The Genocide Convention
tant work on the Convention: the Ad Hoc Committee of the Economic
and Social Council ("Ad Hoc Committee"),9 and the Sixth (Legal) Committee of the General Assembly ("Sixth Committee"). 10 In both committees, different views were expressed on precisely what kinds of groups
should be identified for protection in Article II. The only category not
expressly mentioned in Resolution 96(I) was national groups, but there
seems never to have been any doubt during the drafting stage that suchgroups should be included in Article II, as the matter was never really
discussed. Ironically, both committees agreed that "national" groupsnot included in Resolution 96(I)-should be included in Article II.
The inclusion of other groups, however, was more controversial. Some
representatives questioned whether both racial and ethnic groups should
be identified in Article II, arguing that those terms meant essentially thesame thing.1 1 The same criticism was directed at the terms "ethnic" and"national." Ultimately, the word "ethnic" was retained upon the insistence of the Swedish delegation, which wanted to maintain a distinction
between these last two concepts.1 2 Perhaps the most serious disagreement occurred over religious groups. The Soviet representative argued
that genocide against a religious group appeared always to be closely
linked to genocide against a national group, thus implying that religious
groups should be considered subgroups of national groups.13 Other representatives, however, especially in the Sixth Committee, took strong exception to this view and argued that there could be-and had beencases of genocide against religious groups within a single nation. 14 In theend, the Soviet position on religious groups was dismissed by virtually
everyone present.1 5
It is noteworthy that the drafters, having agreed upon the groups thatwere to be identified in Article II, decided merely to enumerate them and9. The Ad Hoc Committee consisted of representatives of seven states: China, France,
Lebanon, Poland, the United States, the Soviet Union, and Venezuela. The committee's report
is contained in Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Genocide, 3 U.N. ESCOR Supp. 6, U.N.
Doe. E/794 (1948) [hereinafter Report of the Ad Hoc Committee].
10. The Sixth Legal Committee was comprised of 58 countries. The members are listed inTable I, infra page 277; see 3 U.N. GAOR C. 6 at xiv-xx, U.N. Doe. A/633 (1948). The Ad
Hoc Committee initially prepared the draft of the Convention; it was subsequently revised by
the Sixth Committee before it was adopted by the General Assembly.
11. See 3 U.N. GAOR C.6 (75th mtg.) at 115-16, U.N. Doe. A/633 (1948).
12. Id. at 98.
13. Report of the Ad Hoc Committee, supra note 9, at 6.
14. 3 U.N. GAOR C.6 (75th mtg.) at 116-17, U.N. Doc. A/633 (1948).
15. Id. at 117 (vote of 40 to 5, one abstaining, against including "religious" in parentheses
after "national").

271

Yale Journal of International Law

Vol. 13:268, 1988

not to define them in any detail.1 6 Defining the groups more precisely

was presumably left to the implementing legislation which parties to theConvention are to adopt in accordance with Article V. 17 Thus party-

states are left significant discretion. A U.N. study of this matter showsthat states that have ratified the Convention have defined the protectedgroups in different ways, and it is reasonable to expect that others thathave not yet ratified will follow suit. 18 Thus, the definitions adopted by
Canada,1 9 for example, are not exactly the same as those proposed in

implementing legislation submitted to Congress by the Nixon and Carter
Administrations when they attempted to secure the Senate's advice andconsent to ratification. 20 Because different states have varying definitionsof protected groups, problems could arise in interpreting and applying

the Convention. While it is arguable that any difficulties arising fromdefinitional differences could be resolved by the International Court ofJustice ("ICJ") in accordance with Article IX of the Convention, no dis21

pute involving the Convention has yet reached the ICJ.
Despite potential definitional problems, it is probably just as well thatno effort was made to define the groups more precisely in the Convention

itself. It is unlikely that acceptable definitions could have been agreed
upon. The word "national," for example, seems to have acquired ameaning synonymous with citizenship in a state or country, regardless of

its original meaning. The word "ethnic," in common usage, tends to re16. In principle, drafting international agreements always entails a choice between mere
enumeration and detailed definitions. For a discussion of the relative advantages and disadvantages of each approach, see A. ROBERTSON, HUMAN RIGHTS IN EUROPE 17-18 (1963).
17. Article V of the Convention, 78 U.N.T.S. at 280, states:
The Contracting Parties undertake to enact, in accordance with their respective Constitutions, the necessary legislation to give effect to the provisions of the present Convention
and, in particular, to provide effective penalties for persons guilty of genocide or of any of
the other acts enumerated in Article III.
18. See COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, U.N. ECONOMIC & SOCIAL COUNCIL, STUDY
OF THE QUESTION OF THE PREVENTION AND PUNISHMENT OF THE CRIME OF GENOCIDE 45,

140-53, U.N. Doc E/CN.4/Sub.2/416 (1978) [hereinafter COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS].
This study also shows that even if Article V of the Convention, see supra note 17, is interpreted
as requiring the parties to adopt implementing legislation (which the Special Rapporteur of thestudy insists is the correct interpretation), some of them have not yet done so.
19. CAN. REV. STAT. Ist Supp. 171-81 (1970).
20. The same legislation was submitted by both administrations. See S. ExEc. REP. No.
23, 94th Cong., 2d Sess. 33-38 (1976).
21. Article IX of the Convention, 78 U.N.T.S. at 282, states:
Disputes between the Contracting Parties relating to the interpretation, application or
fulfillment of the present Convention, including those relating to the responsibility of aState for genocide or for any of the other acts enumerated in Article III, shall be submitted to the International Court of Justice at the request of any of the parties to the dispute.
Article IX contemplates an important role for the ICY. The article may only be invoked,
however, in the event of a "dispute" concerning the interpretation of the Convention. In addition, many ratifying states have included reservations to Article IX. The U.S. resolution of
ratification contains such a reservation. 132 CONG. REC. S1377 (daily ed. Feb. 191 1986).

272

The Genocide Convention
fer to a group of people distinguished by certain cultural and linguistic
characteristics. The word "racial" tends to be associated with physicalcharacteristics of a people such as color of skin. But surely one should
expect that different definitions could be put forth, that the words could
have different meanings (or perhaps no meaning) in different culturalcontexts, and that it could be difficult to translate these words from one
language to another. By way of example, one hears frequently of theSoviet Union's treatment of nationalminorities and of Soviet nationality
policies. The word "national" in such cases refers to Ukrainians, Georgians, and so forth, not to the citizens of the Soviet Union as a whole.
The lack of specific content does not mean, of course, that the words
used to identify the groups in Article II of the Convention are meaningless, but rather that the drafters saw the need for some flexibility in defining them. They therefore left more concrete definition to future
determination, through such means as the implementing legislation
adopted by the various parties. Although the drafters did not define indetail the protected groups, it is clear that they intended to extend protection to stable groups only-to groups having an enduring identity.
This decision makes sense, given the historical context in which thedrafters were operating. The Convention was obviously drafted in response to atrocities committed against the Jews and other groups by the
Nazis during World War II. As adopted, Article II would surely apply
to such a situation, whether Jews would be considered a religious, ethnic,
or even racial or national group. Similarly, the Convention would cover
the Armenian genocide-whether one sees Armenians as an ethnic, national, or religious group.
II.

Why Political Groups Are Not Protected

Although the drafters of the Convention reached agreement relatively
easily on most of the groups eventually identified in Article II, discord
arose with respect to political groups. The issue consumed a vast amount22of the time of both the Ad Hoc Committee and the Sixth Committee.
While the arguments advanced in each body were essentially the same,
the Ad Hoc Committee voted four to three for inclusion of politicalgroups in their draft convention, 23 while the Sixth Committee voted
against inclusion. 24
22. See, e.g., 3 U.N. GAOR C.6 (69th through 74th mtgs.) at 54-109, U.N. Docs. A/594& A/633 (1948).
23. Report of the Ad Hoc Committee, supra note 9, at 5.
24. See N. ROBINSON, supra note 8, at 59.

273

Yale Journal of International Law
A.

Vol. 13:268, 1988

The Arguments Against ProtectingPoliticalGroups

Four different arguments were advanced in these debates against including political groups in Article II. Of these, two appear to have beenof little importance as far as the ultimate decision was concerned. One
was the position of the Soviet representative, which rested on allegedly
scientific grounds. He argued that the word "genocide" referred to thedestruction of races or nations, and that therefore to include politicalgroups in Article II would have the effect of expanding the meaning of
the term beyond "the fundamental notion of genocide recognized by science." 2 5 But like the Soviet argument on religious groups discussed
above, 2 6 this position was disregarded by the great majority of representatives of other states.2 7 This point deserves emphasis because, as explained in Section III below, the U.S. delegation to the United Nations
has often been vilified for having capitulated to the Soviet delegation on
the question of including political groups.
A second argument, which several representatives made, was that theprotection of political groups ought to be considered in the broader context of human rights rather than the narrower one of genocide, and thatthe Human Rights Commission therefore seemed like the more appropriate body in which to discuss the issue. 28 But this argument seems to havebeen introduced more as an afterthought-as a convenient way of avoiding an issue full of conceptual and political difficulties.
Two other arguments were of much greater consequence and weredealt with at much greater length by the drafters of the Convention. One
had to do with a perceived lack of stability or permanence of politicalgroups. This issue was vigorously and repeatedly raised by a number ofThird World states. The representatives of Venezuela, Iran, Egypt, andUruguay on the Sixth Committee were especially outspoken in this regard. They argued that political groups were different in kind from national, ethnic, racial, and religious groups, since persons tend to be born
into the latter groups, or at least the membership of these groups does
not change over, relatively long periods of time. Political groups, on theother hand, were not perceived to possess such stability or permanence.
Finally, some representatives opposed including political groups in Article II out of concern that disputes over their inclusion might jeopardize
support for the Convention itself in many states. Some drafters of theConvention felt that their governments might find it necessary to take25.

Report of the Ad Hoc Committee, supra note 9, at 6.

26.
27.
28.

See supra text accompanying note 13.
See Report of the Ad Hoc Committee, supra note 9, at 6.
See 3 U.N. GAOR C.6 (69th mtg.) at 54-62, U.N. Docs. A/594, A/633 (1948).

274

The Genocide Convention
action against subversive elements. Many representatives on the Sixth
Committee, noting that the draft Convention contemplated the creationof an international criminal court, feared that if political groups were
included, their governments might be reluctant to ratify the Convention.
As the Venezuelan representative stated:
The inclusion of political groups might endanger the future of the convention because many States would be unwilling to ratify it, fearing thepossibility of being called before an international tribunal to answer charges
made against them, even if those charges were without foundation.
Subversive elements might make use of the convention to weaken theattempts of their own Government to suppress them... [While] certain
countries where civic spirit was highly developed and the political struggle
fought through electoral laws would favor the inclusion of political groups,...there were countries where the population was still developing andwhere political struggle was very violent. Those countries would obviously
29
not favour the inclusion of political groups in the convention.
B. Arguments in Favorof ProtectingPoliticalGroups
The views summarized above were widely held, but the U.S. representative took a strong stand in favor of including political groups in Article
II. This had the effect of prolonging the negotiations until he was willingto compromise. His position was based on three considerations. He argued that in practice many states defined political groups in their national legislation and decrees-for example, by banning political parties
or by establishing a certain party as the only legal party of the state.
Hence, he insisted, it could not be maintained that political groups were
impossible to define. He also took issue with those concerned that including political groups would hinder the ability of governments to takeaction against groups involved in subversive activities. In this connection
he argued that groups of various sorts, not only political groups, could
engage in subversive activities. Finally, he invoked Resolution 96(I), in
which the General Assembly declared that political groups had been victims of genocide, and he maintained that failing to follow through onthat earlier statement could weaken the credibility of the United Nations. 30 Representatives of several states supported the U.S. position onpolitical groups. An Ecuadoran delegate, for example, observed that
29. Id. at 58.
30. Transcript of the debate setting forth the position of the U.S. representative can befound at 3 U.N. GAOR C.6 (74th mtg.) at 101-03, U.N. Doe. A/633 (1948).

275

Vol. 13:268, 1988

Yale Journal of International Law"public opinion would not understand it if the United Nations no longer''

condemned in 1948 what it had condemned in 1946. 31
C. Resolution of the Issue
The debate among the representatives on the Sixth Committee over theissue of including political groups was lively and prolonged, and resulted
in a vote of twenty-nine in favor, thirteen against, and nine abstentions.
At the time, one-half of the membership of the United Nations supported
the U.S. proposal. But as Table I shows, there was substantial disagree-

ment within the three largest groupings of states (Asia, the Americas,
and Europe) on the issues of the alleged lack of stability of politicalgroups and the possibility of those groups engaging in subversive activi-

ties. Still, the measure carried.
Table 132
Vote in the Sixth Committee on Political Groups(First Vote: Include Political Groups)

Area
AfricaAsia
Oceania
Americas
EuropeColumnTotal

Count(% of area
votes cast)Yes

AbstainNo

No Vote

Total

0
(0)
8
(61.5)
2(100.0)10(45.5)
9(52.9)

2(50.0)
3(23.1)
0
(0)
2
(9.1)
2
(11.8)

1(25.0)
1
(7.7)
0
(0)
5
(22.7)
6(35.3)

1(25.0)
1
(7.7)
0
(0)
5
(22.7)
0(0)

4

29(50.0)

9(15.5)

13(22.4)

7(12.1)

13
2
22
17
58
(100.0)31. Id. at 101.
32. The data on which this table is based were made available by the Inter-University
Consortium for Political and Social Research. The data were originally collected by theInternational Relations Archive and are available on tape. Neither the original collector of thedata nor the Consortium bears any responsibility for analyses or interpretations presented
here. Figures may not add to exactly 100, due to rounding.
The areas referred to in the left-hand column consist of the following countries-Africa:
Egypt, Ethiopia, Liberia, South Africa (6.9% of the total votes); Asia: Aghanistan, Burma,
China, India, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan, Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Thailand, Syria,
Yemen (22.4%); Europe: Belgium, Byelorussian SSR, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, France,
Greece, Iceland, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Sweden, Turkey, Ukrainian
SSR, the Soviet Union, United Kingdom, Yugoslavia (29.3%); Americas: Argentina, Bolivia,
Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El

276

The Genocide Convention
In view of the long debate that occurred over the issue, the vote infavor of including the reference to political groups in Article II suggeststhat the arguments made by the U.S. representative were persuasive.
The decision continued to be controversial, however, throughout the negotiations on other provisions of the Convention. Indeed, the inclusionof political groups in Article II appears to have been the subject of themost serious disagreement during the drafting process. Near the close of
debate on the Convention as a whole, the issue was taken up again byrepresentatives of Iran, Uruguay, and Egypt, who proposed that politicalgroups be deleted from Article II.33 Speaking in favor of this proposal,
the Egyptian delegate noted that as the discussion in the Sixth Committee proceeded, it had become clear that the inclusion of political groups
in Article II would be a serious obstacle to ratification of the Convention
by a large number of states.
At this point, the U.S. representative took what he considered to be a"conciliatory" position, accepting the deletion of political groups from
Article II in exchange for a provision in Article VI that contemplated thecreation of an international criminal court.3 4 The United States had supported the creation of an international criminal court throughout the negotiations, and the Ad Hoe Committee's proposal included theestablishment of such a court. 35 This provision, however, was deleted by
the Sixth Committee. 36 A number of states voiced strong opposition to
the international criminal court in the Sixth Committee. Some were concerned about the ability of political groups to bring unfounded charges
against them before the international body. 37 The Soviet Union expressed doubts about the appropriateness of the international criminal
38
court's jurisdiction.
Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, theUnited States, Uruguay, Venezuela (37.9%); Oceania: Australia, New Zealand (3.4%).
33. 3 U.N. GAOR C.6 (128th mtg.) at 659-61, U.N. Doe. A/633 (1948).
34. Article VI of the Convention states:
Persons charged with genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in Article III [i.e.,
conspiracy to commit genocide, direct and public incitement to commit genocide, attempt
to commit genocide, or complicity in genocide] shall be tried by a competent tribunal of
the State in the territory of which the act was committed, or by such international penal
tribunal as may have jurisdiction with respect to those Contracting Parties which shallhave accepted its jurisdiction.
78 U.N.T.S. at 282.
35. Report of the Ad Hoc Committee, supra note 9, at 11-12.
36. 3 U.N. GAOR C.6 (49th mtg.) at 407, U.N. Doc A/633 (1948).
37. See supra text accompanying note 29.
38. The Soviet Union indicated that it "was still of the opinion that genocide was within
the province of the competent national tribunals alone, since the right of those who had been
victims of genocide to undertake the punishment of the perpetrators of that crime must be
safeguarded." 3 U.N. GAOR C.6 (128th mtg.) at 670, U.N. Doe. A/633 (1948).

Yale Journal of International Law

Vol. 13:268, 1988

While the U.S. representative continued to maintain that politicalgroups should be covered by Article II, he had come to recognize thatthe need to attract the largest possible number of parties to the Convention might be more important than including all the provisions that hebelieved should be included.3 9 Many delegates had expressed serious
concern that the inclusion of political groups in Article II might make it
impossible to secure ratification of the Convention in their own countries.
In the view of the United States, it seemed wise to delete the politicalgroups clause, particularly if the Sixth Committee delegates previously
opposed would be willing to reconsider their earlier rejection of the provision regarding an international criminal court. This compromise
proved acceptable to a large number of delegates and was consideredquite significant, although the court has never been created.
Once the United States agreed to support the exclusion of politicalgroups, the Sixth Committee deleted the reference to them from Article
II. As Table II shows, however, in this second consideration of the issue,
the number of states not voting doubled, to approximately one-third of
the U.N. membership at the time. The number of states abstaining also
increased. Thus, while only six member states (Burma, Chile, China,
Ecuador, Netherlands, and Philippines) felt strongly enough about theissue to vote against excluding political groups, the U.S. proposal was
adopted with a majority of member states either abstaining or not voting
on the issue. The Soviet Union and its handful of consistent supporters(Byelorussian SSR, Ukrainian SSR, Czechoslovakia, Poland, and Yugoslavia) abstained, apparently to indicate displeasure with the international criminal court compromise forged by the U.S. delegation.
39. Id. at 661-62.

278

The Genocide Convention
Table II4
Vote in the Sixth Committee on Political Groups(Second Vote: Exclude Political Groups)
Count(% of area
Area
AfricaAsia
Oceania
Americas
EuropeColumnTotal

votes cast)Yes

AbstainNo

No VoteTotal

2(50.0)
5(38.5)
1(50.0)
10(45.5)
4(23.5)

0
(0)
0
(0)
1
(50.0)
1(4.5)
10(58.8)

0(0)3(23.1)
0
(0)
2
(9.1)
1
(5.9)

2
(50.0)
5(38.5)
0(0)9(40.9)
2(11.8)

422(37.9)

12(20.7)

6(10.3)

18(31.0)

13
2
22
17
58
(100.0)

It would be fair to say, then, that political groups fell victim to two
major considerations when the Convention was drafted. First, there
were practical political considerations. The United States could have its
own way on political groups or an international criminal court, but not
on both. In the end it took the court. Second, there were theoreticalconsiderations. Political groups were widely perceived to be different inkind from national, ethnic, racial, and religious groups; the latter wereperceived as stable groups whereas political groups were perceived as essentially unstable, since membership in political groups is by choicerather than birth, and such membership can change drastically over time.
III. The Proposed United States Amendment On Political Groups
Ironically, while the United States agreed to the deletion of the reference to political groups in Article II in part to remove an obstacle to theConvention's ratification by other states, the decision to delete caused
problems in the U.S. Senate. President Truman transmitted the Convention to the Senate in 1949 with a request for its advice and consent to
ratification. A subcommittee of the Committee on Foreign Relations
held hearings on the Convention in 1950, and although the subcommittee
favored ratification, the full committee failed to report the Convention to
40. The source of the data for Table II is the same as Table I. See supra note 32.

279

Yale Journal of International Law

Vol. 13:268, 1988

the Senate.41 President Truman's request met with the combined opposition of conservative senators and influential organizations such as theAmerican Bar Association. As a result, the Convention languished incommittee until President Nixon resurrected it in the early 1970s. The

Committee on Foreign Relations or subcommittees thereof held hearingson the Convention in 1970, 1971, and 1977,42 and recommended its ratification in 1970, 1971, 1973, and 1976. 43 The same combination of political forces, however, continued to block ratification. A resolution of
ratification was debated on the floor only once during this entire period,in 1974, and at that time a filibuster prevented its adoption. 44 The Committee on Foreign Relations held more hearings during the Reagan Ad-

ministration, in 1981, 1984, and 1985. 45 These hearings culminated in
the February 1986 adoption of a resolution of ratification, known infor46

mally as the Lugar-Helms-Hatch Sovereignty Package.
Throughout this entire period, the so-called "political group exemption" plagued the Senate debates over ratification of the Convention. It

was not the only controversial issue, but it was one of the most important. Other difficult issues proved easier to resolve. One such issue, important especially to conservative senators, was the general argumentthat genocide is not a proper subject of the treaty-making power, andmore specifically, that the Convention itself contained provisions thatwould infringe on constitutional rights and liberties. 47 Another had to
41. See Hearings on the Genocide Convention: Hearingson the InternationalConvention on
the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide Before a Subcomm. of the Senate
Comm. on Foreign Relations, 81st Cong., 2d Sess. (1950). Portions of these hearings were notreleased until 1976, when they appeared in a compilation of historical sessions. See 2 EXECUTIVE SESSIONS OF THE SENATE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITEE, HISTORICAL SERIES 361,
375 (1976).
42. Genocide Convention: HearingsBefore the Subcomm. on the Genocide Convention of
the Senate Comm. on Foreign Relations, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970) [hereinafter 1970 Senate
Hearings]; Genocide Convention: Hearings Before the Subcomm. on the Genocide Conventionof the Senate Comm. on ForeignRelations, 92d Cong., 1st Sess. (1971) [hereinafter 1971 Senate
Hearings]; Genocide Convention: Hearings Before the Senate Comm. on Foreign Relations,95th Cong., 1st Sess. (1977) [hereinafter 1977 Senate Hearings].
43. For the resolution of ratification that was recommended in each of those years, see S.
EXEC. REP. No. 50, 98th Cong., 2d Sess. 21-22 (1984).
44. 120 CONG. REc. 2202-09 (1974).
45. The Genocide Convention: Hearings Before the Senate Comm. on Foreign Relations,
97th Cong., 1st Sess. (1981) [hereinafter 1981 Senate Hearings];Genocide Convention: Hearing
Before the Senate Comm. on Foreign Relations, 98th Cong., 2d Sess. (1984) [hereinafter 1984
Senate Hearings]; Crime of Genocide: HearingBefore the Senate Comm. on Foreign Relations,
99th Cong., 1st Sess. (1985) [hereinafter 1985 Senate Hearings].
46. See 132 CONG. REc. S1377-78 (daily ed. Feb. 19, 1986).
47. Senator Sam Ervin, Jr. was especially outspoken on this point. In more recent years,
Senators Jesse Helms, Strom Thurmond, and Orrin Hatch have held this position. See 1984
Senate Hearings,supra note 45, at 4-34. The Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Senate
Committee on the Judiciary held hearings on the constitutionality of the Convention in 1985.

280

The Genocide Convention
do with the possible application of the Convention in times of war, anissue of great concern during the early 1970s, when some opponents ofratification became alarmed that American soldiers fighting in Vietnam
might be charged with committing genocide.4 8 During the early 1980s,
the International Court of Justice's handling of the case of Nicaragua v.
United States49 raised a new issue: whether the United States should
accept Article IX of the Convention, 50 providing for ICJ resolution of
disputes concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention.5 1 Ultimately, these and other issues were "resolved" in the LugarHelms-Hatch Sovereignty Package, which included U.S. interpretationsof certain provisions of the Convention and expressed reservations to the52
document.
The alleged loophole involving political groups, however, could not be
addressed in the Sovereignty Package. This resolution clarified specificwords, phrases, or provisions contained in the Convention, whereas the
supposed loophole exists because the word "political" was deleted from
Article II of the Convention. Another way had to be found to address
the issue. One proposal, advanced by Senator Steven Symms, was for the
Senate to amend Article II of the Convention by inserting the word"political" after the word "national." This proposal was rejected by a53
vote of sixty-two against, thirty-one in favor, and seven not voting,mainly because it was thought to be a "killer" amendment requiring renegotiation of the Convention prior to U.S. ratification. 5 4 The Senate
then overwhelmingly adopted a compromise: a sense of the Senate resolution calling for the United States to work toward persuading theUnited Nations to include political groups in Article II. This resolution
was adopted by a vote of ninety-three in favor, one against, and six not
voting. 55
ConstitutionalIssues Relating to the ProposedGenocide Convention: HearingsBefore the Subcomm. on the Constitution of the Comm. on the Judiciary, 99th Cong., 1st Sess. (1985).
48. An article on this charge was carried by the New York Times on November 26, 1969,at A10, col. 1, and it figured prominently in the Senate deliberations in the early 1970s. The-text of the article is reprinted in 1971 Senate Hearings, supra note 42, at 53.
49. 1984 I.C.J. 392 (Judgment of Nov. 26, 1984). In the Nicaragua case, the United States
withdrew its consent to the compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ after the court agreed to rule on
Nicaraguan charges of U.S. violation of international law.
50. See supra note 21.
51. See comments of Senator Richard Lugar in 1985 Senate Hearings,supra note 45, at 2.
52. See 132 CONG R c. S1377-78 (daily ed. Feb. 19, 1986).
53. Id. at S1361-62.
54. Senator Richard Lugar, then Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, thoughtthat an amendment would be "tantamount to rejection" of the Convention. Id. at S1357.
Senator Symms was well aware of the implications of his proposal. See id. at S1356-57.
55. Id. at S1379-80. The only negative vote was cast by Senator Barry Goldwater, whoneither participated in the debate nor gave any reasons for his vote.

Yale Journal of International Law

Vol. 13:268, 1988

The resolution is non-binding, and was adopted amidst substantial
skepticism about its potential effectiveness. 56 Some senators voted infavor of the resolution even though they disagreed with its content andrationale. Senator Christopher Dodd, for example, remarked on thefloor of the Senate several days after the adoption of the resolution that
he had voted in favor of it as "a ransom to be paid for getting a final voteon the Genocide Convention." 5 7T In fact, he had serious reservations
about the content and implications of the resolution, suggesting that"anyone who talks about political genocide has missed the whole point of
the Genocide Convention and its 37 years [sic] history."'5 8 Nonetheless,even if the near unanimous vote does not reflect the true sentiment of all
senators, the non-binding resolution is important inasmuch as it reflects
the strong feelings of many senators on the issue. After all, the more
drastic proposal introduced by Senator Symms to amend the Convention
was supported by thirty-one Senators. Of those who opposed the Symms
proposal, some felt that an amendment was not an appropriate way toapproach the issue, even though they did not disapprove of the idea inprinciple. Moreover, President Reagan endorsed the strategy enunciatedin the sense of the Senate resolution even before its adoption,5 9 whichsuggests that the issue is considered important by the Executive Branch
as well. In short, even if the United Nations does not accede to theUnited States' wishes by amending the Convention to cover politicalgroups, there is substantial support in the United States for keeping theissue alive. Thus, it is important to examine the arguments made by critics of the Convention.
A.

The Lack of Leadership by the U.S. Delegation

The first point critics have focused on is the fact that the U.S. delegation to the United Nations initially vigorously supported the inclusion ofpolitical groups in Article II and then changed its position to allow theirdeletion from the article. To opponents of ratification, this change ofstance reflected not leadership in drafting the Convention but "a very
pathetic case of followership."' 6 This was one of the major arguments of
the ABA, which officially opposed ratification of the Convention from1949 until 1976. ABA representatives asserted that the U.S. delegation"retreated at every major point.., like Napoleon's retreat from Mos56. See id. at S1379 (statement of Senator Wallop).
57. 132 CONG. REc. S1613 (daily ed. Feb. 25, 1986).
58. Id.
59. See 132 CONG. REc. S1372 (daily ed. Feb. 19, 1986).
60. 1971 Senate Hearings,supra note 42, at 54.

The Genocide Convention
cow-a complete rout."' 61 Thus, while the United States had enteredinto the negotiations with the intention of making the Convention"meaningful and effective," ' 62 "[w]e lost the war when we acceded to theadamant Communist position, which is all a matter of record, that theword 'political' must go out, and we fought and we fought, and we were'63
outvoted on the question of political groups."
Although the ABA representatives claimed to speak with considerable
knowledge of the negotiations, their arguments distorted and exaggerated
what actually occurred. For the most part, they portrayed the negotiations as a battle in which the U.S. delegation was unable to withstand theonslaught of a determined Communist attack. 64 But, as we have seen,
this was not the case: while the Soviet delegation opposed the inclusionof political groups in Article II, other delegations advanced much more
widely accepted criticisms, especially those that concerned the alleged
lack of stability of political groups. Moreover, there is good reason tothink that the Soviet delegation felt outmaneuvered by the U.S. delegation on the eventual compromise. As noted earlier, 65 the Soviet Unionand its supporters abstained on the vote that resulted in the deletion ofpolitical groups from Article II. It is reasonable to assume that this wasmeant to show displeasure with the compromise the U.S. delegation had
been able to work out with others-that the reference to political groups
would be deleted in exchange for a provision in Article VI regarding thecreation of an international criminal court. While the Soviet delegation
vigorously opposed the inclusion of political groups in Article II, it wasan even more vigorous champion of sovereignty and nonintervention in
the internal affairs of states. For this reason, apparently, the Soviet
Union was not willing to support the creation of an international criminal court, 66 and opposed, though unsuccessfully, the reinsertion of a provision concerning the court in Article VI.67
Critics of the Convention in the United States have either misunderstood the bargaining strategies of the U.S. delegation or deliberately distorted what occurred to suit their own purposes. Indeed, one of theironies that has characterized the debate over U.S. ratification of the
61.
62.
63.
64.

Id.
Id.
Id.
See Rosenthal, Legal and PoliticalConsiderationsof the United States' Ratification of

the Genocide Convention, 3 ANTIOCH L.J. 117, 122-24, 142 (1985). Rosenthal suggests thatanti-Sovietism was one of the three main "doctrinal rationales" embraced by opponents ofratification, the two others being anti-globalism and neo-positivism. Id. at 118-19, 133-42.
65. See supra text accompanying note 40.
66. See generally A. DALLIN, THE SOVIET UNION AT THE UNITED NATIONS (1962).
67. See supra text accompanying notes 34-40.

Yale Journal of International Law

Vol. 13:268, 1988

Convention is that the international criminal court provision of Article
VI has been exceedingly controversial, stimulating disagreement reminiscent of the Brickerism of the 1950s. 68 This disagreement over the criminal court culminated in the insertion of an "understanding" in the
Lugar-Helms-Hatch Sovereignty Package that states in part that "theUnited States declares that it reserves the right to effect its participationin any such tribunal only by a treaty entered into specifically for that
purpose with the advice and consent of the Senate."' 69 It must be emphasized that in 1948 the Soviet bloc in the United Nations consisted of only
five out of a total of fifty-nine states (the Byelorussian SSR, the Ukrainian SSR, Poland, Czechoslovakia, and the Soviet Union itself), and only
six if Yugoslavia is included. This alone renders absurd the preoccupation of so many of the Convention's critics with the Soviet delegation's
position on the issue of political groups. In fact, the United States wasvery ably represented during the negotiations. Table III presents someevidence in support of this point.
Table 11170
Support for US and Soviet Positions on the Genocide Convention(Coincidence of Yes/No on all roll call votes)
Country

CanadaNew Zealand
Netherlands
BrazilChile
United Kingdom
Uruguay
Belgium
Luxembourg
Denmark
India

United States% Agreement

100.0%
93.3
86.7
80.0
80.0
80.0
73.3
73.3
73.3
73.3
73.3

Soviet Union% Agreement(Votes)Country

(15)
(14)
(13)
(12)
(12)
(12)
(11)
(11)
(11)
(11)
(11)

Ukrainian SSR
Byelorussian SSR
Czechoslovakia
Yugoslavia
PolandVenezuela
FranceNorwayArgentina
Denmark
Iran

100.0
100.0
93.3
93.3
86.7
46.7
46.7
40.0
33.3
33.3
33.3

(Votes)

(15)
(15)
(14)
(14)
(13)
(7)
(7)
(6)
(5)
(5)
(5)

68. Senator John W. Bricker (R. Oh.) was very active during the early 1950s in opposition
to U.S. ratification of human rights instruments, including the Genocide Convention. His
concern that presidents would urge ratification of such instruments led him to propose a constitutional amendment limiting the use of the treaty-making power in this area. The concerns
raised by Bricker and his proposed amendment helped push the Eisenhower administration to
retreat from the activism of the Truman administration in the field of human rights. See generally V. VAN DYKE, HUMAN RIGHTS, THE UNITED STATES AND WORLD COMMUNITY 129-41(1970).
69. 132 CONG. REc. S1378 (daily ed. Feb. 19, 1986).
70. The source of the data for Table III is the same as Table I. See supra note 32. The
number of votes in which each country coincided with either the Soviet Union or the UnitedStates is shown in parentheses. Percentages may add to over 100% in some cases, because theSoviet Union and the United States each abstained or did not vote on two of the seventeen rollcall votes. Thus, a country could have a 100% coincidence with U.S. votes while agreeing
with 13.3% of Soviet votes.

The Genocide Convention

Country

United States% Agreement

ThailandAustralia
Cuba
Dominican Repuiblic
SwedenNorwayPanamaEcuador
Bolivia
GreeceIranTurkey
Syria
China
Peru
South Africa
Egypt
Afghanistan
Venezuela
FranceMexicoColombia
Argentina
Pakistan
Philippines
Haiti
Saudi Arabia
NicaraguaParaguay
Burma
Honduras
Yemen
El Salvador
Liberia
Lebanon
GuatemalaIceland
Costa Rica
PolandCzechoslovakia
Yugoslavia
USSR
Ukrainian SSR
Byelorussian SSI k
Ethiopia
Iraq

Soviet Union% Agreement(Votes)Country

73.3
73.3
66.7
66.7
66.7
66.7
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0

(11)
(11)
(10)
(10)
(10)
(10)
(9)
(9)
(9)
(9)
(9)
(9)
(9)

60.0

(9)

53.3
53.3
53.3
53.3
46.7
46.7

(8)
(8)
(8)
(8)
(7)
(7)

40.0
40.0
40.0
40.0
40.0

(6)
(6)
(6)
(6)
(6)

33.3
33.3
26.7
26.7
26.7
20.0
20.0
13.3
13.3
13.3
6.7
6.7

(5)
(5)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(3)
(3)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(1)
(1)

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)

Egypt
Syria
China
Philippines
Australia
Haiti
Dominican Repuiblic
MexicoColombia
Uruguay
Sweden
India
Pakistan
Cuba
PanamaEcuador
Peru
BrazilBolivia
GreeceEthiopia
Saudi Arabia
Afghanistan
Netherlands
Belgium
Luxembourg
LiberiaSouth Africa
Yemen
CanadaGuatemalaHonduras
El Salvador
Nicaragua
Chile
United Kingdom
TurkeyLebanonBurma
Thailand
New ZealandUSA
Costa Rica
Paraguay
Iceland
Iraq(Votes)

33.3
33.3
33.3
33.3
33.3
26.7
26.7
26.7
26.7
26.7
26.7
26.7
26.7
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0

(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)

20.0
20.0

(3)
(3)

13.3
13.3
13.3
13.3
13.3
13.3
6.7
6.7
6.7
6.7
6.7
6.7
6.7
6.7
6.7
6.7
6.7
6.7

(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)

The data in Table III show the coincidence of agreement of all themembers of the United Nations at the time the Convention was draftedwith the U.S. and Soviet positions. Only roll call votes taken in the Sixth
Committee were used in making the calculations; few votes were taken in
the plenary session of the General Assembly when the Convention was
adopted, and those taken upheld decisions reached earlier in committee.
Moreover, only the coincidence of agreement on yes/no votes was taken

285

Yale Journal of International Law

Vol. 13:268, 1988

into account. This method reduces the distortions that might otherwise
occur if abstentions were included. A yes or no vote suggests stronger
feelings on an issue than does an abstention. In addition, states might
abstain for widely differing reasons; their coincidence in so voting would
therefore tell us very little.
In all, seventeen roll call votes were taken in the Sixth Committee. In
other votes, where no roll call was taken, an examination of the debate
records suggests that the U.S. delegation managed as well as, if not better
than, the data based on the roll call votes presented in Table III suggest.
Nonetheless, the data presented in the table enable us to reach conclusions that are less impressionistic than conclusions based solely on thesummary records. In addition, yes/no votes allow generalization about
the extent of "support" for the U.S. and Soviet positions respectively,
and the sources of that support. As Table III shows, the U.S. positions
enjoyed substantial support across a broad spectrum of states. In fact,
twenty-nine of fifty-seven member states supported the U.S. position
more than fifty percent of the time. An additional group of nine states
had relatively high support scores, ranging from 46.7 percent (Venezuela) to 33.3 percent (Saudi Arabia).
In marked contrast, as Table III demonstrates, the Soviet Union enjoyed very little support among most states. In fact, only five statesagreed with the Soviet Union on more than half of the issues. The tableindicates a sharp and rapid decline in support for the Soviet positions
after the very high scores of the Soviet bloc are taken into account.
Although a high support score for either the United States or the Soviet
Union often translated into a low support score for the other, there werestates that apparently exercised considerable independence in their voting behavior. For example, France's support scores for the U.S. and Soviet positions are identical at 46.7 percent.
B.

The Perception of a Loophole

The second major argument of opponents to ratification has concerneda perceived loophole in the Convention's definition of genocide. This argument, like the criticism of U.S. leadership in the negotiations, reflects apreoccupation with the Soviet Union. The critics argue that the deletionof political groups from Article II made the Convention inapplicable precisely where it should be applicable-that is, to the treatment that totalitarian governments mete out to political opponents. Thus, the critics
contend, the Soviet Union could commit genocide against any of thegroups in Article II while claiming that the acts were not genocidal because they were undertaken to suppress enemies of the state, not to de-286

The Genocide Convention
stroy a specific group or groups. It was the deletion of the word"political" from Article II, according to the critics, that made this evasion of charges of genocide possible. 7 1 This argument was made by ABA
representatives and others during Senate hearings in 1950 and in the
1970s, and it continued to be expressed by some critics even after the
ABA changed its position in 1976, declaring itself in favor of the72
Convention.
The text of the recently adopted sense of the Senate resolution on political groups suggests that this argument had a tremendous impact on the
Senate. The resolution's preambular clauses state that the Senate finds"that politically motivated genocide is being carried out in Afghanistan"and "that instances of political genocide have occurred in Tibet andCambodia. ' 73 President Reagan, too, views an amendment as a way of74
dealing with "politically motivated" genocide by totalitarian states.
Such an amendment, however, may be politically infeasible. According
to Article XVI of the Convention, U.N. action is required to amend theConvention. 75 Amending a multilateral convention, especially one suchas the Genocide Convention that has already been ratified by about one
hundred states, would probably be impossible. One U.N. study during
the 1970s showed that most states felt that their main objective should beto enforce the Convention as it is rather than to amend it to expand its
76
coverage.
The difficulty of amending a widely ratified multilateral convention is
not the only consideration that should be weighed in assessing the U.S.
71. See 1971 Senate Hearings,supra note 42, at 54-55.
72. See, e.g., testimony of Maud-Ellen Zimmerman, Chairman of Voters Interest League,
in 1977 Senate Hearings,supra note 42, at 86-89. The Liberty Lobby was especially outspoken. See 1981 Senate Hearings,supra note 45, at 78-111.
73. 132 CONG. REc. S1380 (daily ed. Feb. 19, 1986).
74. Id. at S1379.
75. Article XVI of the Genocide Convention, 78 U.N.T.S. at 286, states:
A request for the revision of the present Convention may be made at any time by any
Contracting Party by means of a notification in writing addressed to the Secretary-General.... The General Assembly shall decide upon the steps, if any, to be taken in respectof such request.
76. See COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, supra note 18, at 114-17. At the time the resolution of ratification was passed, some senators were nonetheless optimistic about the possibility of amending the Convention in the United Nations, and they therefore pressed for the
adoption of the sense of the Senate resolution that calls for such an amendment. Senator
Richard Lugar, for example, did not think that pressing for an amendment after ratification
would "be an empty gesture." He noted that in August 1985, the matter had been discussed in
the Subcommission on the Prevention of Discrimination and the Protection of Minorities of
the U.N. Commission on Human Rights. 132 CONG. REC. S1254 (daily ed. Feb 18, 1986).
Although the Soviet delegate had succeeded in having action on the matter deferred, Senator
Lugar thought it might be possible to resurrect the issue with the help of other Western states.
Id.

287

Yale Journal of International Law

Vol. 13:268, 1988

strategy concerning political groups. It may even be argued that suchconsiderations should be secondary: that if an amendment of Article II
is worth pursuing, it should be pursued regardless of the possible politicaldifficulties. But is such an amendment necessary to achieve the objectivesof the Convention's critics? That is, is an amendment necessary to prevent the evasion of charges of genocide? And even if amendment is notnecessary to meet the concerns of the critics, are there other reasons thatwould make it desirable?
C. Is An Amendment Necessary To Stop PoliticallyMotivated
Genocide?
The often expressed concern that the Convention does not cover politically motivated genocide reflects a curious and probably erroneous interpretation of Article II, and more broadly, of the Convention as a whole.
The critics are preoccupied with motives. They fear, for example, thedestruction of a given group (other than a political party) on the groundsof the group's political beliefs. According to Article II, however, genocide is the commission of certain acts "with the intent to destroy, inwhole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such."
Neither Article II nor any other article of the Convention refers to themotives that must lie behind the commission of such acts. It is true thatwhen the Convention was drafted, some consideration was given to specifying motives. Article II of the draft convention prepared by the Ad Hoe
Committee contained specific references to motives-the destruction ofnational, racial, religious, and political groups on grounds of their national or racial origins, religious beliefs, or political opinions. However,these very precise references to motives were unacceptable to most representatives in the Sixth Committee, and they were deleted from the article.
The representative of the United Kingdom offered the most trenchantcriticisms, suggesting that the references to motives should be deleted
because they were "useless" and "dangerous": useless because Article II
already included the notion of intent as a component of the crime of
genocide, and dangerous because the terms of the draft had the effect ofnarrowing the grounds for charges of genocide.77 According to the U.K.
representative, requiring proof of motive might allow states to claim thatvicious acts aimed at, say, religious groups had been committed on
grounds other than the religious beliefs of the group. In such a situation,
no charge of genocide could be made. 78 Other representatives in the
77.
78.

288

3 U.N. GAOR C.6 (75th mtg.) at 118, U.N. Doc. A/633 (1948).
Id. at 117-18.

The Genocide Convention
Sixth Committee agreed. The U.S. representative, for example, argued
that the "fundamental aim" of Article II was to "define the crime interms of intention, as was normally done in national legislation," and'79
that to "include motives in that definition would lead to ambiguity.
While a few representatives argued in favor of retaining the references tomotives, the Sixth Committee ultimately decided to delete them and toinsert the words "as such" in their place.80
In retrospect, there was more to be said for deleting the references tomotives than for retaining them, precisely for the reasons advanced by
the U.K. and U.S. representatives. The words "as such" in Article II
have the effect of referring back to the groups as entities. Commentatorson the Convention have generally agreed that any of the acts stipulated
in Article II committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part,one of the groups specified would constitute genocide. 81 Put anotherway, no one could "plead that the deed was done for reasons other thanthose to be found in the constituent characteristics of the group," for thewords "as such" "indicate that the essential element of the crime is the82
intentional attack against the existence of a group of human beings."
According to this interpretation of Article II, the reasons that national,
ethnic, racial or religious groups become victims of genocidal acts areirrelevant. It does not matter whether they become victims for political,
economic, or other reasons; it matters only that they become victims.
Thus, notwithstanding the critics' fears, a state would not be able to
avoid charges of genocide by claiming that the motives that lay behind its
83
acts against, say, a national group were solely political.
This interpretation of Article II does not make proving charges of genocide easy. Instead, it calls attention to a different, and equally vexing
problem in interpreting and applying the Convention: proving the intent
to destroy a group or groups. Disputes concerning intention, or the lack79. Id. at 124.
80. Id. at 124-25, 133.
81. See N. ROBINSON, supra note 8, at 58.
82.

P. DROST, THE CRIME OF STATE: GENOCIDE 83 (1959).

83. It should be noted that the representatives of various ethnic groups in the UnitedStates that have closely followed the Convention debates--e.g., Ukrainians, Armenians, andGreeks-have never considered the deletion of political groups from Article II to affect adversely the application of the Convention, as many of its critics have thought it did. To thecontrary, they have supported ratification of the Convention as a way of bringing pressure tobear on the Soviet Union for its allegedly genocidal practices. The Ukrainian Congress Committee of America, for example, strongly supported ratification in 1950 and in the 1970s. See1970 Senate Hearings, supra note 42, at 165-74. Such groups are likely to support initiatives
like that of Senator Robert Byrd, who introduced a concurrent resolution in the Senate in June
1986 calling upon the U.S. Secretary of State to examine whether Soviet action in Afghanistan
violated the Convention, which the Soviet Union has ratified. See 132 CONG. REC. S7919-21(daily ed. June 19, 1986).

289

Yale Journal of International Law

Vol. 13:268, 1988

thereof, have already figured prominently in some recent allegations of
genocide, such as those concerning the war waged by the United States inVietnam and the treatment of Ach6 Indians in Paraguay. United States
government officials, of course, never admitted a genocidal intent in the
conduct of the Vietnam War, and there has been much disagreement on
the issue.8 4 The Paraguayan government has also claimed a lack of intent in the case of the Ach6 Indians as a defense to charges of genocide.8 5Both alleged episodes stand in sharp contrast to the two cases that areusually regarded as the modern paradigms of genocide-the Nazi effort
to exterminate the Jews and other groups during World War II, and theTurkish effort to exterminate the Armenians during World War I. In
both cases the perpetrators' intentions were clear.8 6 Despite difficulties
in proving intent, the Convention as written protects racial, ethnic, national and religious groups from genocidal acts where the perpetrator
claims only a political motive.
D. Is An Amendment Otherwise Desirable?
Even if the deletion of the word "political" from Article II did not
create the loophole regarding motives that critics of the Convention allege, an amendment of the article to cover political groups could still beconsidered desirable in order to outlaw large-scale political persecution.
As a result of the drafters' exclusion of political groups it appears that
the Convention does not apply to situations in which genocide-like acts,
including mass slaughter, are committed, but the national, ethnic, racial,or religious identity of the victims is not at issue. For example, the atrocities committed in Kampuchea after the fall of the Lon Nol government
in 1975 may not constitute genocide under the terms of the Convention.
Hundreds of thousands died, but it could be argued that the slaughter
was not directed at specific groups on the grounds of their national, ethnic, racial, or religious identity. The Kampuchean situation has evokedstrong feelings, and despite the apparently political nature of the acts,
efforts are now underway by a nongovernmental organization-the Cam84.

There is a vast body of literature on this issue. See, e.g., AGAINST THE CRIME OF

SILENCE: PROCEEDINGS OF THE INTERNATIONAL WAR CRIMES TRIBUNAL (. Duffett ed.
1970); Bedau, Genocide in Vietnam?, in PHILOSOPHY, MORALITY AND INTERNATIONAL AF-

FAIRS 46 (V. Held et. al. eds. 1974); Falk, Ecocide, Genocide, and the Nuremburg Tradition ofIndividualResponsibility, in PHILOSOPHY, MORALITY AND INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, supra,

at 123; J.P. SARTRE, ON GENOCIDE 57-79 (1968); Bassiouni, InternationalLaw and the Holocaust, 9 CAL. W. INT'L L.J. 202, 274-75 (1979); G. LEWY, AMERICA IN VIETNAM 301-04(1978).
85.

GENOCIDE IN PARAGUAY 15, 141 (R. Arens ed. 1976).
See L. KUPER, GENOCIDE: ITS POLITICAL USES IN THE TWENTIETH CENTURY(1981); I. HOROWITz, TAKING LIVES: GENOCIDE AND STATE POWER (1980).

86.

290

The Genocide Convention
bodia Documentation Commission-to persuade a party to the Convention to bring charges of genocide to the ICJ against the government of
Democratic Kampuchea, which ratified the Convention in 1950 as
87
Cambodia.
Questions have also been raised about whether the atrocities committed in Uganda during the reign of Idi Amin during the 1970s and in theSoviet Union during the Stalinist purges of the 1930s would constitutegenocide under the Convention. In brief, widespread slaughter of populations can occur and apparently not be covered by the Convention. 8 As
one scholar has observed, the Convention does not "outlaw all forms ofbarbarism." 9To many persons, scholars and non-scholars alike, the inapplicabilityof the Convention to situations such as these is deeply disturbing, reflecting a serious weakness in the Convention's definition of genocide-a
weakness that would not exist had political groups been included in Article II. The one characteristic the victims appeared to share in these situations is that they were thought to be enemies of the state, or perhaps of aparticular political leader or group of leaders. What is important is not
the nature of the groups but that they became victims, and the horror
and magnitude of the crimes make the temptation great to extend protection to all such varied groups.
While the liquidation of political groups is certainly deplorable, it isnonetheless unwise and impractical to provide such groups protection
under the Convention. Most scholars and politicians who have considered the question agree that violence against political groups may, insome circumstances, be legitimate. Kurt Glaser and Stefan Possony, forexample, who feel that political groups should have been included in Article II, recognize that "some groups may very well be hostile andthreaten the security of the state, in which case the threatened stateshould be allowed to protect itself, albeit by nongenocidalmeans." 90 Leo
Kuper argues that the concept of genocide should not apply to certain
87. See Kampuchea, 166 HUM. RTS. INTERNET REP., nos. 5-6 (1987).
88.

See L. KUPER, supra note 86, at 138-60; L. KUPER, THE PREVENTION OF GENOCIDE

126-47 (1985); J. BARRON & A. PAUL, MURDER OF A GENTLE LAND: THE UNTOLD STORYOF COMMUNIST GENOCIDE IN CAMBODIA (1977); R. FALK, HUMAN RIGHTS AND STATE

SOVEREIGNTY 15976 (1981); Hawk, Pol Pot's Cambodia: Was it Genocide?, in TOWARD THE
UNDERSTANDING AND PREVENTION OF GENOCIDE 51-59 (I. Charny ed. 1982); Wangyal,
Tibet: A Case of EradicatingReligion Leading to Genocide, in TOWARD THE UNDERSTANDING AND PREVENTION OF GENOCIDE, supra, at 119-26; AMNESTY INT'L, POLITICAL KILLINGS BY GOVERNMENTS (1983).

89. Edwards, Contributionsof the Genocide Convention to the Development of InternationalLaw, 8 OHIO N.U.L. REV. 300, 302 (1981).
90. K. GLASER & S. POSSONY, VICTIMS OF POLITICS 39 (1979).

Yale Journal of International Law

Vol. 13:268, 1988

situations "which have some affinity with genocide, such as the largescale slaughter of hostages taken from the opposing group, or the shooting down or bombing of passenger planes, or the striking at the soft underbelly of England by bombs in underground trains or subways." 91
And as Senator Christopher Dodd explained,
Not all political violence is illegal or immoral. There is simply no way to
distinguish in legal terms between what may qualify for some as political
genocide and what may be regarded as legitimate violence, for instance, abitter and bloody fight by a subjugated people for its freedom. The use ofthis elusive concept would do nothing but provide ammunition for endlesspropaganda battles that we already have enough of. Opponents of the Genocide Convention never ceased to worry about American citizens who
served in our military in Vietnam who may be accused of genocide as aresult of their service. This was, of course, absurd. We were taking part inan armed political conflict, and were not trying to kill all Vietnamese, or all
Buddhists, or any other objectively identifiable group.
We, however, could arguably be accused of having tried to kill all Communists, or at least all Vietcongs. This is the essence of war, ugly as it is.
Do the champions of the concept of political genocide really want to expose
our ex-servicemen to the charge of political genocide on this account? Howabout the Afghan freedom-fighters who certainly try to kill all who belong
to the occupying Soviet powers and who are allied with them? Do thesponsors of this resolution really want to say they are committing political
genocide? My point is, that the Genocide Convention omitted politicalgroups from its definition with good reasons. The reason was not to excuse
extreme political violence. The reason was to give a clear and objective
definition, to try to raise a well defined international standard that every
nation can endorse, even if that endorsement is often hypocritical. 92
These observations lead to a number of questions: Is it possible tocome up with a widely accepted definitional distinction between political
genocide and acceptable attacks against political groups? Where does
one draw the line between appropriate and forbidden political violence?
If the Convention is amended to include political groups among those itaims to protect, how should such groups be defined by member statesand how would this provision be applied?
Some have attempted to begin answering these questions. The U.S.
representative to the United Nations at the time of the drafting of theConvention suggested that a political party provided a good example of apolitical group. While this might be true, it is only one example. To
confine the meaning of political groups to political parties would be unduly narrow and vague. Groups and movements of various sizes, as well
91.
92.

292

L. KUPER, supra note 86, at 138.
132 CONG. REc. S1614 (daily ed. Feb. 25, 1986) (statement of Senator Dodd).

The Genocide Convention
as individuals, commonly claim to be political in nature and to be persecuted for political reasons. Consider, for example, the groups of war
protesters who were tried for various crimes during the Vietnam Wargroups who claimed they were being attacked by the government becauseof their political views. While this claim might be questionable, it points
to the difficulty inherent in selecting criteria for determining what constitutes a political group. One possible criterion is the number of victims
involved, but it is unclear why this factor should be given much weight.
The case of Ach6 Indians suggests that genocide can be perpetrated
against small groups as well as large ones. This group of primitive people, when confronted by those seeking its destruction, behaved in thesame way as victims of the much larger Nazi genocidal plan. The Ach6
demonstrated a loss of self-respect, a loss of the will to live, and even, in
93
some cases, a perverse identification with those trying to destroy them.
Political groups thus present problems of a sort that national, ethnic,
racial, and religious groups do not. Consideration of these problems
leads to a recognition of the wisdom of the Convention's drafters in deleting the reference to political groups from Article II. It does not appear
possible to develop an acceptable definition of what constitutes a politicalgroup for purposes of the Genocide Convention; exceptions to any proposed definition come readily to mind. Yet who would argue that exceptions should be made in the more prominent cases of genocide-thewholesale slaughtering of Jews, Armenians, or the Ach6? The Convention was obviously designed to deal with such cases, and only such
94
cases.
Is there any way out of this dilemma? Jordan Paust has suggested
that, "[t]o the extent that violations of relevant human rights are criminally sanctioned, any gap in coverage by the Genocide Convention [ofpolitical groups] will prove to be of little import." 95 Paust nonethelessbelieves that "it may be important to emphasize these recognitions in a
new international instrument, if only to further sanctify criminal proscription and to provide additional guidance concerning the contours ofpresent prohibitions. ' 96 In this connection he has proposed a draft convention on the prevention and punishment of the "Crime of Politicide."
Paust's draft is analogous to the Genocide Convention, though it contains provisions that some might consider to be an improvement. For
93.

See Munzel, Manhunt, in GENOCIDE IN PARAGUAY, supra note 85 at 19-45.

94. See Edwards, supra note 89, at 302.
95.

Paust, Aggression Against Authority: The Crime of Oppression, Politicide and Other

Crimes Against Human Rights, 18 CASE W. RES. J. INT'L L. 294, 294 (1986).
96. Id.

293

Yale Journal of International Law

Vol. 13:268, 1988

example, it expressly recognizes the principle of universal jurisdiction totry persons accused of politicide and related crimes. 97 While a full analysis of Paust's proposal is beyond the scope of this article, his ideas areworthy of further exploration.
Conclusion
The decision made by the drafters of the Convention to exclude political groups from protection was based on two considerations. First, in
determining which types of groups to protect, the drafters employed thecriterion of stability: whether the groups were ones that persons tend to
be born into or that tend to maintain their identities over relatively long
periods of time. National, ethnic, racial, and religious groups qualified
under this standard. Political groups did not. Second, some drafters
were concerned that the inclusion of political groups in Article II would
create an obstacle to its ratification by many states that were apprehensive that they would be charged with genocide of subversive groups they
were attempting to suppress.
The possibility that such allegations might be made was perceived tobe even more troublesome in light of the fact that the Convention was tocontain a provision relating to the creation of an international criminal
court. In the end, most drafters of the Convention who favored the inclusion of political groups in Article II were persuaded to accept the deletion of the political groups clause in order to eliminate this obstacle toits ratification.
The deletion had the reverse of its intended effect in the United States.
The Senate debated, albeit sporadically, the question of whether or not
the Convention should be ratified by the United States for almost forty
years. Throughout these decades of Senate debate, the Convention's failure to extend protection to political groups as such was seized upon by
numerous critics as a major reason why the United States should not
ratify it. Two principal arguments were made. One condemned the ineffective leadership of the United States in the negotiations, and its supposed capitulation to Soviet demands. The other asserted the existenceof a loophole in the Convention's definition of genocide because of its
failure to mention political groups as possible victims of genocide. The
strong sentiments expressed on these issues spurred the Senate to adopt a
sense of the Senate resolution along with its resolution of ratification in
February 1986, calling upon the President and the Permanent Representative of the United States to the United Nations to propose an amend97. Id. at 304-06.

294

The Genocide Convention
ment of the Convention to extend coverage to political groups. As wehave seen, however, the first argument misrepresents what actually occurred during the negotiations when the Convention was drafted. The
second misinterprets the Convention by introducing questions of motive
into Article II which are irrelevant to a finding that genocide has beencommitted.
Scholars call attention to a different problem that could arise in applying the Convention. The Convention seems not to apply to situations inwhich genocide-like acts have occurred but the national, ethnic, racial, or
religious identity of the victims is not at issue. Yet including politicalgroups in the Convention's definition of genocide would raise different
problems, such as how to define political groups and how to deal withsituations in which political violence might not be considered morally
repugnant. Thus it is best not to pursue an amendment of the Convention, but rather to attempt to deal with the problem of political violence
through other means.