GROUPS PROTECTED BY THE GENOCIDECONVENTION: CONFLICTING
INTERPRETATIONS FROM THE INTERNATIONAL
CRIMINAL TRIBUNAL FOR RWANDA
William A. Schabas*

I. HISTORICAL CONSIDERATIONS ......................... 376
II. AKAYEsu: "STABLE AND PERMANENT GROUPS" ..............378
III. KAYESHEMA: PURE SUBJECTIVITY ....................... 383
IV. DEFINING THE GROUPS: AN OBJECTIVE APPROACH ......... 384

The Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of
Genocide' protects "national, ethnical, racial and religious" groups from
intentional physical destruction. It imposes a variety of obligations upon Stateswith respect to individual criminal liability for the crime. "[T]he principles
underlying the Convention are principles which are recognized by civilized
nations as binding on States, even without any conventional obligation,"2 said
the International Court of Justice in its celebrated advisory opinion.
The enumeration of the groups protected by the Convention's definitionof genocide is perhaps its most controversial aspect. Critics have argued thatthe omission of political, economic, social, gender and other groups is illogicaland incompatible with the Convention's lofty mission.3 Some domestic
legislatures, when enacting implementing legislation, have expanded the list ofgroups covered by the term genocide, the most extensive of these being therecent amendment to the French Code penal which defines genocide as the*
M.A. (Toronto), LL.D. (Montrdal), Professor of Human Rights Law and Director, Irish Centre
for Human Rights, National University of Ireland, Galway.
I.
Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime ofGenocide, adopted Dec. 9,1948,
78 U.N.T.S. 277 (entered into force Jan. 12, 1951).
2.
Reservations to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide(Advisory Opinion), [1951] I.C.J. Reports 16, p. 23. Quoted in: Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear
Weapons (Advisory Opinion), [1996] I.C.J. Reports 226, 31. See also Report of the Secretary-Generalpursuant to 12 of Security Council Resolution 808 (1993), U.N. Doec. S/25704, T 45.
3.
Pieter Nicolaas Drost, THE CRIME OF STATE, VOL. 2, GENOCIDE 122-23 (1959); Frank Chalk,
Kurt Jonassohn, Thq Conceptual Framework, in THE HISTORY AND SOCIOLOGY OF GENOCIDE 11 (Frank
Chalk, Kurt Jonassohn, eds., 1990). See also Kurt Johassohn, What is Genocide?, in GENOCIDE WATCH 17-26(Helen Fein, ed., 1991); KURT JONASSOHN, KARIN SOLvEIG BJORNSON, GENOCIDE AND GROSS HUMAN
RIGHTS VIOLATIONS 1 (1998).

376

ILSA Journalof International& ComparativeLaw [Vol. 6:375

intentional destruction of any group based on arbitrary criteria.4 Indeed, since
the Convention's adoption in 1948, surely far more has been said and written
lamenting the restrictive scope of the groups covered by the definition found inarticle HI of the Convention than on its interpretation per se.
The first judicial interpretation of the enumeration of groups protected by
the Genocide Convention dates to September 1998, fifty years after theConvention's adoption.5 In Prosecutorv. Akeyesu, a Trial Chamber of theInternational Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda wrestled with the application of theenumeration to the Tutsi victims of the 1994 genocide in Rwanda. 6 Perplexedby difficulties in determining how to categorize the Tutsi group, the Trial
Chamber ultimately ruled that article U of the Genocide Convention should beinterpreted to apply to all "stable and permanent" groups, whether or not theTutsi could be neatly fit within the scope of the terms "national, ethnical, racial
or religious." Months later, a second Trial Chamber of the same Tribunal, in
Prosecutorv. Kayeshema andRuzindana, took a very different approach to theissue, ruling that the Tutsi were an ethnic group not because they met thedefinition in any objective sense but because Rwandan laws had defined themas such.7
This paper examines the conflicting interpretations produced by different
Trial Chambers of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda with respect
to the enumeration of groups protected by the prohibition of genocide.
I.

HISTORICAL CONSIDERATIONSThe Polish jurist Raphael Lemkin, in his 1944 work Axis Rule in Occupied
Europe,invented the term genocide, defining it as a crime directed against "thenational group as an entity."' A close reading of Lemkin's writings shows that
he viewed the prohibition of genocide as an extension of the protection of what
were called "national minorities" in the inter-war treaty regime. It is true that
Lemkin spoke of "political" and "economic" genocide, but here he referred not
to the group protected but rather to the nature of the persecution. Lemkin's
approach to the forms that genocide might take, including destruction ofpolitical, economic and cultural institutions, was far broader than what would
4.
Penal Code (France), Journal officiel, July 23, 1992, art. 211-1.
5.
The Eichmann case involved interpretation of Israeli legislation modelled on article II of the
Genocide Convention. While the twojudgments construe several important elements of the definition, they
do not give any attention to the enumeration of groups: A.G. Israel v. Eichmann, (1968) 36 I.L.R. 5 (District
Court, Jerusalem); A.G. Israel v. Eichmain, (1968) 36 LLR. 277 (Supreme Court).
6.
Prosecutor v. Akayesu, (Case no. ICTR-96-4-T), Judgment, Sept. 2, 1998, (1998) 37 I.L.M.
1399.
7.
Prosecutor v. Kayeshema and Ruzindana, (Case no. ICTR-95-I-T), Judgment (May 21, 1999).
8.
Raphael Lemkin, Axis RULE INOCCUPIED EUROPE, ANALYSIS OF GOVERNMENT, PROPOSALSFOR REDRESS 79 (1944).

2000]

Schabaslater take shape within the Convention. But as for the nature of the groups
protected, his narrow conception is quite faithfully reflected in article II of theConvention.9
The term "genocide" was used by the prosecution during the Nuremberg
trial of the major war criminals to describe the destruction of the Jewish
population of Europe.'0 The judges, however, did not adopt the term, andqualified the persecution of Jews by the Nazi regime as a crime against
humanity. A few months after the Nuremberg judgment of September 30 October 1, 1946, genocide was the subject of a General Assembly resolution.
The first draft of General Assembly Resolution 96(1) spoke of "national, racial,ethnical or religious groups,"" echoing almost exactly the terminology later
enshrined in the 1948 Convention. However, a drafting sub-committee of the
Sixth Committee changed this to "racial, religious, political and other groups."
No recorded debates of the sub-committee exist to explain the addition of"political and other groups," and the summary records of the plenary Sixth
Committee are silent on the subject. It has subsequently been argued that thepresence of "political and other groups" within the 1946 definition suggests theexistence of a broader concept of genocide than that expressed in the Convention, one that reflects customary law. But given the meager record of thedebates, the haste with which the resolution was adopted, the novelty of theterm, and the fact that the subsequent Convention excludes "political and othergroups," such a conclusion seems adventuresome at best. That Resolution 96(l)also omits ethnic and national groups is a further argument against it being
taken as an authoritative list on this issue.
During the subsequent drafting work on the Convention, although debate
raged about the specific groups to be included, particularly political groups,
there is no doubt, that the drafters intended to list the protected groups in an
exhaustive fashion. Inclusion of "national groups" within the enumeration
raised little controversy during the drafting of the Convention. As delegates
explained, the term was well-understood within the context of the "minorities
problems" in Eastern Europe between the two wars. Concern that "national"
might be confused with "political" led Sweden to propose the addition of theterm "ethnical."' 2 The reference to "racial" groups posed the least problem forthe drafters of the Convention. There are no significant references to discussion
9.
As a consultant to the Secretariat, he opposed adding political groups to the enumeration in thedraft Convention: U.N. Doc. E/447, 22.
10. France et al. v. Goering et al., (1946) 22 I.M.T.203, 13 I.L.R. 203, 41 A.J.I.L. 172, 45-6
(I.M.T.).
11.
U.N. Doc. A/BUR/50, proposed by Cuba, India and Pakistan. The Saudi Arabian draft
convention, submitted at about the same time, spoke of"the destruction of an ethnic group, people or nation,"
U.N. Doc. A/C.6/86.
12.
U.N. Doc. A/C.6/SR.73 (Petren, Sweden); U.N. Doc. A/C.6/SR.74 (Petren, Sweden).

378

ILSA Journalof International& Comparative Law [Vol. 6:375

of the term "racial" in the travauxprparatoires,suggesting that it is very close
to the core of what the Convention was intended to protect. Although somequestioned the inclusion of religious groups, these were accepted on theunderstanding that they were closely analogous to ethnic or national groups, theresult of historical conditions that were in reality as defining of the group in an
immutable sense as racial or ethnic characteristics.
Subsequent to the adoption of the Convention, the International Law
Commission regularly flirted with the idea of modifying the text of article II of
the Convention so as to give the enumeration of protected groups a nonexhaustive character, but it eventually returned to the original 1948 version.13
When it created the ad hoc Tribunals, the Security Council also retained the1948 definition. There were isolated attempts to amend the definition of
genocide during the drafting of the Rome Statute, 4 but the final version also
repeats the 1948 text without modification.
II.

AKAYEsu: "STABLE AND PERMANENT GROUPS"The Trial Chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, in
its September 2, 1998 decision in Akayesu, considered the enumeration ofprotected groups in article HI of the Genocide Convention (the model for article
2 of the Statute of the InternationalCriminal Tribunalfor Rwandal"), to be too
restrictive. The categorization of Rwanda's Tutsi population clearly vexed the
Tribunal. For the Tribunal, the word "ethnic" came closest, yet it too was
troublesome because the Tutsi could not be meaningfully distinguished,in6
terms of language and culture, from the majority Hutu population.1
The Rwandan Tutsis are, it is widely believed, descendants of Nilotic
herders, whereas the Rwandan Hutus are considered to be of "Bantu" origin
from South and Central Africa. Historically, their economies were different,
the Tutsis raising cattle while the Hutus tilled the soil. There are genomic
differences, a typical Tutsi being tall and slender, with a fine, pointed nose, a13.
Yearbook 1951, Vol. I, 90th meeting, at 66-8; Yearbook 1951, Vol. II, p. 136; "Fourth reporton the draft Code of Offences against the Peace and Security of Mankind, by Mr. Doudou Thiam, Special
Rapporteur," U.N. Doc. A/CN.4/398 (1986), art. 12(1); Yearbook 1989, Vol. 1,2099th meeting, p. 25, 42;
Yearbook.1989, Vol. 1,2100th meeting, p. 27, 12, p. 30, 31; Yearbook 1989, Vol. 1,2102nd meeting, at
41,*2;"Report of the Commission to the General Assembly on the work of its forty-first session," U.N.
Doc. A/CN.4/SER.A/1989/Add.l (Part 2), at 59,9 160; Yearbook 1991, Vol. 1, 2239th meeting, at 214,1
7-8; Yearbook 1991, Vol. 1,2251 st meeting, at 292-93, 19-17; "Report of the Commission to the General
Assembly on the work of its forty-third session," U.N. Doc. A/CN.4/SER.A/199 I/Add. I (Part 2), at 102,1(2).
14.
Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, U.N.
Doc. A/50/22, at 12-13,9159-72.
15.
U.N. Doc. S/RES/955, annex.
16.
Akayesu, supra note 6, at 1693.

2000]

Schabastypical Hutu being shorter with a flatter nose. These differences are visible insome, but not in many others. Rwandan Tutsis and Hutus speak the samelanguage, practice the same religions, and have essentially the same culture.
Mixed marriages are common. Distinguishing between them was so difficultthat the Belgian colonizers established a system of identity cards, anddetermined what Rwandan law calls "ethnic origin" based on the number ofcattle owned by a family. 7
Confronted with the prospect that none of the four terms of the definition
might apply, the Tribunal concluded that the Convention could still extend tocertain other groups, although their precise definition was elusive. Pledging
fidelity to the Convention's drafters, the Akayesu judgment declared:
On reading through the travaux prdparatoires of the Genocide
Convention (Summary Records of the meetings of the Sixth Committee of the General Assembly, 21 September - 10 December 1948,
Official Records of the General Assembly), it appears that the crimeof genocide was allegedly perceived as targeting only 'stable' groups,
constituted in a permanent fashion and membership of which isdetermined by birth, with the exclusion of the more 'mobile' groups
which one joins through individual voluntary commitment, such aspolitical and economic groups. Therefore, a common criterion in thefour types of groups protected by the Genocide Convention is thatmembership in such groups would seem to be normally not chal-.
lengeable by its members, who belong to it automatically, by birth, ina continuous and often irremediable manner.
The Trial Chamber continued:
Moreover, the Chamber considered whether the groups protected by
the Genocide Convention, echoed InArticle 2 of the Statute, should
be limited to only the four groups expressly mentioned and whether
they should not also include any group which is stable and permanent
like the said four groups. In other words, the question that arises iswhether it would be impossible to punish the physical destruction ofa group as such under the Genocide Convention, if the said group,
although stable and membership is by birth, does not meet thedefinition of any one of the four groups expressly protected by the
Genocide Convention. In the opinion of the Chamber, it is particularly important to respect the intention of the drafters of the Genocide
17.

Andrd Guichaoua, LES CRISES POLIIQUES AU RWANDA El AU BURUNDI (1993-1994) (1995);

Jean-Pierre Chretien, LE DRI DE L'ETHNISME; RWANDA Er BURUNDI: 1990-1996 (1997); G. PRUNIER, THm
RWANDA CRISIS, 1959-1994, HISTORY OFA GENocIDE(1995); Filip Reyntjens, L'AFRIQUE DES GRANDS LACS
EN CRISE (1994).

380

ILSA Journalof International& Comparative Law [Vol. 6:375
Convention, which according to the travaux pr6paratoires, waspatently to ensure the protection of any stable and permanent group. 8

With this approach, the Rwanda Tribunal encompassed the nation's Tutsi
population within the definition of genocide, even if the term "ethnic group"
was deemed insufficient.
The Akayesu analysis is open to criticism on several fronts. In the firstplace, it quite brazenly goes beyond the actual terms of the Convention
definition, invoking the intent of the drafters as a justification. The problem isthat the drafters chose the four terms in order to express their intent. If they
meant to protect all "stable and permanent groups," why didn't they simply say
this? The role of the travauxprparatoiresis to assist in clarifying ambiguousor obscure terms, or those that are manifestly absurd or unreasonable, 9 not to
add elements that were left out. As was stated by Sir Percy Spender and Sir
Gerald Fitzmaurice of the International Court of Justice: "The principle ofinterpretation directed to giving provisions their maximum effect cannot
legitimately be employed in order to introduce what would amount to a revisionof those provisions."20 Reading in terms that are not already present in the text
is also particularly objectionable when the treaty defines a criminal offence,
which should be subject to restrictive interpretation and respect the rule nullum
crimen sine lege.2 ' If the "stable and permanent" hypothesis is to be sustained,
it must rely on a construction of the actual words that appear in article II.
A general discomfort with the term "racial group" may explain why theInternational Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, in its September 2, 1998 judgmentin the Akayesu case, was reluctant to classify the Tutsi as a racial group. The
general conception of Tutsi within Rwanda is based on hereditary physicaltraits, even though these may be difficult to distinguish in many cases.
According to the Rwanda Tribunal, "[t]he conventional definition of a racial
group is based on the hereditary physical traits often identified with ageographical region, irrespective of linguistic, cultural, national or religious
factors."22
This definition, adopted by the Tribunal in 1998, is considerably more
restrictive than the recognized meaning of the term "racial" in 1948. An
indication of usage at the time is provided by the Oxford English Dictionary,
which proposes several definitions of race, of which the most appropriate are:
"A group of persons, animals, or plants, connected by common descent or
18.
Akayesu, supra note 6, at 1515.
19.
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, (1979) 1155 U.N.T.S. 331, art. 32.
20.
South West Africa case, [1950] I.C.J. Reports 128.
21.
Prosecutor v. Delalic et al., (Case no. IT-96-21-T), Judgment, Nov. 16, 1998, (1999) 38
I.L.M.57, 402, 409-13.
22.
Akayesu, supra note 6, at 513.

2000]

Schabasorigin;" "A group or class of persons, animals, or things, having some common
feature or features."23 This definition can be extended without difficulty tocover national, ethnic, and even religious minorities, and that is indeed how theterm was understood in 1948, although this no longer corresponds with modernday usage.24 For example, the Permanent Court of International Justice, in a1935 advisory opinion, spoke of the "the preservation of [the] racial peculiarities" of national minorities.25 A special United Nations Declaration of
December 17, 1942 denounced ill-treatment of the "Jewish race" in occupied
Europe.26 The judgment of the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg
noted that judges in Germany were removed from the bench for "racial
reasons," a reference to treatment of Jewish jurists.2 7 It also condemned Julius
Streicher for crimes against humanity because his incitement to murder andextermination at a time when Jews in the East were being killed under the mosthorrible conditions constituted "persecution on political and racial grounds."
A British war crimes tribunal at the end of the Second World War convicted
Nazis for their "persecution of the Jewish race."28 The International Military
Tribunal for the Far East charged the Japanese government with failing to take
into account the "racial needs" and "racial habits" of prisoners of war.2 9
Although the term "racial group" may be increasingly obsolete, theconcept persists in popular usage, social science, and international law.
Understandably, progressive jurists search for a meaning that is consistent withmodern values and contemporary social science. This must be the explanation
for the Rwanda Tribunal's insistence upon hereditary traits as the basis of adefinition. Yet it is unquestionable that the meaning of "racial groups" wasmuch broader at the time of the drafting of the Convention, when it was to alarge extent synonymous with national, ethnic, and religious groups. That

23.

IN THE COMPACTEDITION OFTHEOXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY 2400 (R.W. Burchfield, ed.,1971).
24.
ETHNIC RELATIONS: A CROSS-CULTURAL ENCYCLOPEDIA 195 (David Levinson, ed., 1994).
But in the early 1980s, a court in The Netherlands concluded that Jews were covered by the word "race" inthe country's Penal Code, because "[tihe widely held opinion is that the term 'race' in 1 429(4) cannot be
construed solely in the biological sense but rather... must be viewed as defining 'race' by reference also toethnic and cultural minorities." S. Roth, The Netherlands and the 'Are Jews a Race? Issue, 17:4 PATTERNSOF PREJUDICE 52 (1983).
25.
Minority Schools in Albania, Advisory Opinion, April 6, 1935, P.C.I.J. Series A/B, No. 64.
26.
Quoted in MANFRED LACHS, WAR CRIMES, AN ATrEMpr To DEFINE THE ISSUES 97-98 (1945).
27.
France et al. v. Goering et al., supra note 10, at 419 (1.M.T.).
28.
United Kingdom v. Kramer et al., ("Belsen Trial"), (1947) 2 L.R.T.W.C. I (British Military
Court), at 106.
29.
United States of America et al. v. Araki et al., Judgment of the International Military Tribunal
for the Far East, Nov. 4, 1948, in THE TOKYO WAR CRIMES TRIAL 49,688 (R. John Pritchard, Sonia
Magbanua Zaide, eds., 1981).

382

ILSA Journalof International& ComparativeLaw [Vol. 6:375

modem judicial interpretation results in less protection now than fifty years ago
is surely a perverse result.
On closer scrutiny, three of the four categories in the Convention
enumeration, national groups, ethnic groups, and religious groups seem to beneither stable nor permanent. Only racial groups, when they are defined
genetically, can lay claim to some relatively prolonged stability and permanence. The day after the General Assembly adopted the Genocide Convention
it approved the UniversalDeclarationof Human Rights, which proclaims thefundamental right to change both nationality and religion, thereby recognizingthat they are far from permanent and stable. 3 National groups are modified
dramatically as borders change and as individual and collective conceptions ofidentity evolve. Nationality may be changed, sometimes for large groups ofindividuals where, for example, two countries have joined or secession has
occurred. Religious groups may come into existence and disappear within asingle lifetime. As for ethnic groups, individual members may also come andgo, although there will often be formal legal rules associated with this,determining ethnicity as a result of marriage or in the case of children whoseparents belong to different ethnic groups.
Furthermore, it is not at all clear from a reading of the travauxpr~paratoiresof the Convention that the intent of the drafters "was patently toensure the protection of any stable and permanent group," as the Rwanda
Tribunal claimed. In fact, reference to groups which are "stable andpermanent" occurred only infrequently during the drafting, and other, complex
justifications for the choices of the General Assembly were also given in thecourse of the debates."a What a review of the drafting history reveals is thatpolitical groups - perhaps the best example of a group that is not stable andpermanent - were actually included within the enumeration until an eleventhhour compromise eliminated the reference. The debates leave little doubt thatthe decision to exclude political groups was mainly an attempt to rally aminority of Member States, in order to facilitate rapid ratification of theConvention, and not a principled decision based on some philosophicaldistinction between stable and more ephemeral groups.
Nor is there any support for the "stable and permanent" hypothesis innational legislation introducing the crime of genocide in domestic penal codes.
It is true that several States have departed from the Convention definition, but
none has taken the "stable and permanent" approach.
The Trial Chamber's imaginative interpretation in Akeyesu, designed toaddress its discomfort with defining the Tutsi as an ethnic group, is particularly
30.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights, G.A. Res. 217 A (11), U.N..Doc. A/810, arts. 15(1),31.

U.N. Doc. A/C.6/1R.69 (Amado, Brazil).

18.

2000]

Schabaspuzzling because in the same judgment the Trial Chamber convicted theaccused of crimes against humanity, in that he was responsible for a"widespread or systematic attack on the civilian population on ethnic
grounds."32 Surely the word "ethnic" means the same thing in article 4 of the
Statute as it does in article 2 of the Statute? Yet the Rwanda Tribunal did not
see any need to enlarge the definition of crimes against humanity!
III.

KAYESHEMA: PURE SUBJECTIVITY

Determining the meaning of the groups protected by the Convention seems
to dictate a degree of subjectivity. It is the offender who defines the individual
victim's status as a member of a group protected by the Convention." The
Nazis, for example, had detailed rules establishing, according to objective
criteria, who was Jewish and who was not. It made no difference if theindividual, perhaps a non-observant Jew of mixed parentage, denied belonging
to the group. As Jean-Paul Sartre wrote in Riflexions sur la question juive,"[le juif est un homme que les autres hommes tiennent pour juif: voilb la vdrit6
simple d'oti il faut partir. En ce sens le ddmocrate a raison contre l'antis6mite:c'est l'antisdmite qui fait le juif."34 Problems with the four categories in article
II of the Convention have led some writers to argue for a purely subjective
approach." If the offender views the group as being national, racial, ethnic, or
religious, then that should suffice, they contend. In Rwanda, Tutsis werebetrayed by their identity cards, for in many cases, there was no other way totell.
In Kayeshema andRuzindana, another Trial Chamber of the International
Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda adopted a purely subjective approach, notingthat an ethnic group could be "a group identified as such by others, including
perpetrators of the crimes."36 Indeed, it concluded that the Tutsi were an ethnic
group based on the existence of government - issued official identity cards
describing them as such,37 quite clearly failing to endorse the "stable and32.
Prosecutor v. Akayesu, supra note 6, at 1 652.
33.
For consideration of this question from the standpoint of minorities law, see, John Packer, On
the Content of Minority Rights, in DO WE NEED MINORITY RIGHTS 124-25 (J. Rilikkd, ed., 1996); John
Packer, Problems in Defining Minorities,MINORrrY AND GROUP RIGHTS TOWARDS THE NEW MI.LENIUM(B. Bowring, D. Fott'ell, eds., 1999).
34.
Jean-Paul Sartre, RFLExIONS SUR LA QUESTION JUIVE 81-84 (1954).
35.
Jean-Michel Chaumont, LA CONCURRENCE DES VICTIMES: GINOCIDE, IDENTr,
RECONNAISSANCE 211-12 (1997).
36.
Prosecutor v. Kayeshema and Ruzindana, (Case no. ICTR-95-1-T), Judgment, May 21, 1999,
at [98.
37.
Id. at. 522-30.

384

ILSA Journalof International& ComparativeLaw [Vol. 6:375

permanent" analysis of the Akayesu judgment.38 However, it did not explicitly
disagree with the other Trial Chamber's analysis.
This approach is appealing up to a point, especially because theperpetrator's intent is a decisive element in the crime of genocide. The flaw of
this approach is allowing, at least in theory, genocide to be committed against
a group that does not have any real objective existence. To make an analogy
with ordinary criminal law, many penal codes stigmatize patricide, that is, thekilling of one's parents. But the murderer who kills an individual believing,erroneously, that he or she is killing a parent, is only a murderer, not a patricide.
The same is true of genocide. Although helpful to an extent, the subjective
approach flounders because law cannot permit the crime to be defined by theoffender alone. It is necessary, therefore, to determine some objective existenceof the four groups.
It is also significant that several references to "group" appear within article
II of the Convention. The term is used both within the chapeau, which
describes the mental element or mens rea of the offence, and the fiveparagraphs that follow, which set out the punishable acts of genocide. Had theconcept of groups appeared only in the portion of the text dealing exclusively
with the mental element, namely the chapeau, the subjective argument would
have more force. It would be sufficient to identify a genocidal intent where theaccused believed that the group existed. However, the provision goes further
and requires, in the definition of the actual acts of genocide, that they bedirected against "members of the group."IV.

DEFINING THE GROUPS: AN OBJECTIVE APPROACH

The High Commissioner on National Minorities of the Organization for
Security and Co-operation in Europe, Max van der Stoel, was once quoted
saying that although he could not define the term, "I know a minority when I
see one."39 Put differently, difficulty in constructing a definition does notrender an expression useless, particularly from the legal point of view. The
four terms - national, ethnical, racial, and religious - necessarily involve a
degree of subjectivity because their meaning is determined in a social context.
For example, issue may be taken with the term "racial" because the existenceof races themselves no longer corresponds to usage of progressive social
science.' However, the terms "racial" as well as "race," "racism," and "racial
38.
Id. at. 1 94.
39.
Max van der Stoel, Preventionof Minority Conflicts, in THE CSCE ANDTHETURBULENTNEWEUROPE 148 (L.B. Sohn, ed., 1993). His comment was inspired by United States Supreme Court Justice
Potter Stewart who said the same thing about pornography. Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U.S. 184, 197 (1963).
40.
According to the Commission of Experts on Rwanda, "to recognize that there exists
discrimination on racial or ethnic grounds, it is not necessary to presume or posit the existence of race or20001

Schabasgroup" remain widely used and are certainly definable. They are social
constructs, not scientific expressions, and were intended as such by the draftersof the Convention. To many of the delegates attending the General Assembly
session of 1948, Jews, Gypsies and Armenians might all have been qualified as"racial groups," language that would be seen as quaint and perhaps evenoffensive a half-decade later. Their real intent was to ensure that theConvention would contemplate crimes of intentional destruction of these andsimilar groups. The four terms were chosen in order to convey this message.
International law knows of similar examples of anachronistic language. Oneof the earliest multilateral treaties dealing with human rights was aimed at"white slavery.'Its goal, the eradication of forced prostitution on aninternational scale, remains laudatory and relevant, although the terminology
is obviously archaic.
The four terms in the Convention not only overlap,42 they also help todefine each other, operating much as four comer posts that delimit an area
within which a myriad of groups covered by the Convention find protection.
This was certainly the perception of the drafters. For example, they agreed to
add the term "ethnical" so as to ensure that the term "national" would not be
confused with "political."4' 3 On the other hand, they deleted reference to"linguistic" groups, "since it is not believed that genocide would be practised
upon them because of their linguistic, as distinguished from their racial,national or religious, characteristics." The drafters viewed the four groups ina dynamic and synergistic relationship, each contributing to the construction of
the other.
The 1996 report of the International Law Commission on the Draft Codeof Crimes Against the Peace and Security of Mankind adopts this approach inconsidering "tribal groups" to fall within the scope of the definition of
genocide.4 5 It is not difficult to understand why tribal groups fit within the fourcomers of the domain, whereas political and gender groups do not. Yet inconcluding that tribal groups meet the definition of genocide, it seems
unnecessary to attempt to establish within which of the four enumerated

ethnicity itself as a scientifically objective fact." Final report of the Commission of Experts establishedpursuant to Security Council Resolution 935 (1994), U.N. Doc. S/1995/1405, annex, 159.
41.
International Agreement for the Suppression of the White Slave Traffic, (1904) 1 L.N.T.S. 83;
International Convention for the Suppression of the White Slave Traffic, (1910) 7 Martens Nouveau Recueil(3d) 252, 211 Consol. T.S. 45.
42. Fourth report on the draft Code of Offences against the Peace and Securty of Mankind, by Mr.
Doudou Thiam, Special Rapporteur, U.N. Doc. A/CN.4/398, at 56.
43.
U.N. Doc. A/C.6/SR.73 (Petren, Sweden); U.N. Doc. A/C.6/SR.74 (Petren, Sweden).
44. U.N. Doc. A/401.
45.
Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its forty-eighth session, 6 May-26
July 1996, U.N. Doc. A/51/10, at 89.

386

ILSA Journal of International& Comparative Law [Vol. 6:375

categories they should be placed. In the same spirit, the Canadian Criminal
Code's genocide provision includes the term "color" in its list of protectedgroups.' We readily understand that groups defined by "color" are also
protected by the Convention without it being important to determine whether
they are in fact subsumed within the adjectives national, racial, ethnical, or
religious.
There is a danger that a search for autonomous meanings for each of thefour terms will weaken the overarching sense of the enumeration as a whole,
forcing the jurist into an untenable Procrustes bed. To a degree, this problem
is manifested in the September 2, 1998 judgment of the International Criminal
Tribunal for Rwanda in the Akayesu case. It also appears in the definitions
accompanying the genocide legislation adopted by the United States ofAmerica.47 Deconstructing the enumeration risks distorting the sense thatbelongs to the four terms, taken as a whole.
Raphael Lemkin conceived of genocide as a crime committed against"national groups," something made apparent by frequent references in his book
Axis Rule in Occupied Europe.48 In his famous study, he associated theprohibition of genocide with the protection of minorities.4 9 Lemkin clearly did
not intend the prohibition of genocide to cover all minorities, but rather thosethat had been contemplated by the minorities treaties of the inter-war years.
The term "national" had an already well-accepted technical meaning, having
been used to describe minorities in the legal regime established in the aftermathof the First World War. For Lemkin, genocide was above all meant to describe
the destruction of the Jews, who cannot in a strict sense be termed a nationalgroup at all. Yet the term's usage was clear enough in what it covered and what
it was meant to protect. The historical circumstances and the context of Nazi
persecution further enhanced this perspective. The etymology of the term
"genocide" also confirms this. In ancient Greek, genos means "race" or "tribe."
It does not refer to any group in the abstract, or even to groups defined on thebasis of political view, or economic and social status.
Attacks on groups defined on the basis of race, nationality, ethnicity, andreligion have been elevated, by the Genocide Convention, to the apex of humanrights atrocities, and with good reason. The definition is a narrow one, it istrue, but recent history has disproven the claim that it was too restrictive to beof any practical application. For society to define a crime so heinous that it will46.
Criminal Code [Canada], R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 318(4), "any section of the publicdistinguished by colour, race, religion or ethnic origin."
47.
Genocide Convention Implementation Act of 1987, (TheProxmire Act), S.185 1, sec. 1093.
48.
Supra note 8, at 79, 80-2, 85-7, 90-3. See also, Raphael Lemkin, Le genocide, f 1946] REV.
INT'L DROIT PtNAL 25. (Par 'gnocide' nous voulons dire ladestruction d'une nation ou d'un groupe
ethnique.").
49.
Raphael Lemkin, Axis Rule in Occupied Europe, supra note 21, at 90.

2000]

Schabas387

occur only rarely is testimony to the value of such a precise formulation.
Diluting the definition, either by formal amendment of its terms or by
extravagant interpretation of the existing text, risks trivializing the horror of thereal crime when it is committed.