learntoquestion ltq discussions

The political sphere and its effects on the ability to enforce basic human rights are deeply involved; it cannot be simply overlooked because of what looks like a clear-cut situation. As a result of the dilemma of peace and morals, Lemkin’s efforts have been diminished by many policymakers who fear the retaliation that may happen if nations were always to enforce standards. However, many agree that this should not prevent action against genocide and violation of human rights. Unfortunately, it is undeniable how maintaining the sovereignty of nations has to be accounted for when getting involved in any affair. If the US were to involve itself in international conflicts without care, the nation would become targeted by many others who do not value or respect what is morally correct. Sovereignty should not be limited as there are no realistic methods to ensure it, and it may cause more harm than good. However, there should be more barriers in place to make it easier to prevent crimes against humanity. The question of who and how is not easy, as our current attempts at a powerful global force, the UN, are too limited to do this. There is too much for the UN and its members to lose to be the necessary unnerving force. Lemkin’s “Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide” states that the crime of genocide should be punished regardless of whether it is wartime or not. This clause is most likely the most conflicted, as it holds the UN accountable for all acts of genocide where they must decide to intervene even when the situation is not as clearly/easily proven as war.

Lemkin’s efforts showcase how the voices of the people and organizations matter equally as much as the nations that head the conventions, especially in democratic societies. The people make up the nation's spirit, and their work makes the nation thrive, so they should have their opinions validated rather than ignored for their “own” sake. Holding the nations accountable is the best way for citizens to fight their role against crimes against human rights.

When Raphael Lemkin said, “Crime should not be punished by victims but should be punished by law, ” he meant that the number of victims affected by an act of is not how the world should determine if the act reaches the severity of genocide. In the introduction to Watchers in the Sky, the narrator explains the “reoccurrence of a historical pattern.” The importance of punishing perpetrators of genocide in a legal manner lies in being able to disrupt this pattern by determining the difference between other crimes and the severity of genocide. With a legal definition and means of enforcement, the term genocide transitions from a word describing the severity of an action to a term outlining specific atrocities. With a legal process behind it, the weight of the word, genocide, is much greater as is what society is able to do with the word. This establishment of international law is an important step in ridding the world of genocide’s evils because it differentiates it from regular war crimes. War crimes are terrible, but they have a separate connotation from the intention and scale of genocide. The enforcement of these international laws is of the same or greater importance because it shows the world that such high crimes won’t go unpunished and can act as a deterrent instead of the opposite.

Ideally, creating a punishable definition of genocide should appeal to all nations, but some nations care more about maintaining sovereignty than joining the genocide convention. In the second clip from, Watchers in the Sky, the British parliament member Ernest Bevin argues for international transparency surrounding genocide. While I don’t believe that complete transparency between nations is achievable, using the term genocide only when it is a completely accurate representation of the situation can help to facilitate increased international cooperation when genocide is occurring.

I agree with universaldeclarationofhumanrights<3’s argument that it is up to all of society to contribute to ensuring awareness about genocide. An important way of doing this is continuing to only use the term in cases that constitute genocide. By doing this, we are all immediately called to attention when we use this term instead of there being room to dispute.

Raphael Lemkin states that “Crime should not be punished by victims but should be punished by law.” This statement is arguing that victims should not have to be the only ones advocating for themselves, and trying to get justice against those who committed a crime against them. Instead, there should be laws that will hold the perpetrators responsible for what they did and punish them in response to their actions. So Lemkin dedicated his life to establish a law that would get justice for people of genocide and in some way hopefully prevent more from happening in the future. Eventually genocide was recognized as a crime, stated in Article I of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide; “The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish.”. It is important that this law is enforced, as if measures to punish those who commit genocide are not taken to the full extent that they should be punished, it will encourage other groups to commit the crime as they will not think there will be a consequence.

When, in Watcher of the Sky, Raphael Lemkin states “Crime should not be punished by victims but should be punished by law” he is referring to the way in which crimes should be prosecuted. In the context of the Holocaust and other genocides, this means that the prosecution of the crime of genocide should not come from victims, but from nations and the international community. This is important because it leaves the responsibility on those whose inaction perpetuated such heinous crimes. This is the idea that the establishment of the 1948 Genocide Convention seeks to address. Its establishment was an essential step as it created some type of accountability both for the international community and individual states. This sought to provide some hesitation when making decisions that would lead either to genocide or a lack of action. More important still is the enforcement of the Genocide Convention. Without enforcement nations may feel at liberty to do what they want and to not adhere to the convention. Enforcement creates an additional layer of protection against potential victims and further dissuades genocide.

According to Watcher of the Sky, the effects of the 1948 Genocide Convention remain limited mainly it has still not been agreed upon, among the international community, how to enforce the convention. Additionally, the 1948 Genocide Convention was written to intentionally vague and ambiguous in order to garner support and get ratified by nations across the globe. Finally, the legal definition of genocide, as given by the 1948 Genocide Convention, is extremely specific, making it extremely difficult to prevent genocide before it occurs. Furthermore, nation sovereignty makes it difficult to prevent genocide, since as sovereign states, nations have the autonomy to make their own desisions. As a result, it would be impossible to instate global initiatives to create and promote knowledge and understanding about genocide. There are already some limits on the sovereignty of nations in the form of international law. International laws are created for nations by nations, much like the laws of individual states. I don’t think limits on sovereignty should exceed those imposed by international law since it would take from the legitimacy of sovereign nations. I do however think that if there is a case in which a nation or group of nations is breaking or has broken these laws, further measures should be taken to ensure that such events do not repeat themselves.

The establishment of international law is an important step in securing the safety of everyone around the world because it creates a definition for a very dangerous crime that for a long time was not defined. Having a definition of the crime gives an official meaning to the crime which people have to respect and make sure that they use properly. There is great power in using the term and so by having a consensus on the definition will allow people to use it with specificity. For example in Preface to “A Problem From Hell”, “Clinton and his team shifted from the language of genocide to that of ‘tragedy’ and ‘civil war,’”. By using the words tragedy and civil war, an extreme measure of ethic cleansing was undermined demonstrating the importance of the term genocide and its definition. With specific examples comes specific punishment. This crime had not been prosecuted before meaning that the sentences for commiting these crimes would have to be strong in order to make sure that no one would dare to do anything remotely close to a genocide. And so when Lemkin states that “Crime should not be punished by victims but should be punished by law” he is saying that the law must provide such a daunting punishment that there will be no victims for these crimes in the future. Although Lemkin had a strong effort in creating the Genocide Convention its effects remain limited because of the fact that countries would need to potentially risk some political power in order to punish these perpetrators in the way they deserve. Article V of the Genocide Convention states that “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,” demonstrating that a country’s legislation must be on the same page as the Genocide Convention. Although this seems like a no brainer, there are many countries in which their sovereignty is extremely important and so by agreeing to a convention that requires that a constitution be on the same page is something that could create friction between various countries. It is a no-brainer that this legislation is absolutely necessary so that atrocities are prevented in the future, however if a country decides that this legislation is not in their best interests, it seems like there is no external urgency to make sure that a country agrees to these terms. There is an international consensus of what is considered good and bad. When it comes to friction between sovereignty and conventions like this one, there should be a driving force that moves nations to signing this legislation as long as it is viewed as just by the vast majority of the world. But then again what is just? Every nation knows what is just, even if it has specific problems with giving up some sovereignty.

The Genocide Convention continues to have a limited ability to prevent or enforce reparation for genocides. This is built into every article of the ¨Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide¨ , which despite its name proves that the UN has no intention of stepping in themselves to enforce their rules. There are 19 articles in the Genocide Convention, and a majority of them are simply more rules and regulations which hinder taking action either in preventing a genocide in a timely manner upon which it starts, or bringing due punishment on those guilty. There are so many necessary steps and checkboxes for any course of action through this convention that at the end of the day it is rare for there to be any true effect. Despite there being 19 articles of the convention, not one of them actually calls for action in the case of an ongoing genocide. Sovereignty allows for a few to make the decisions for the many over whether or not action is taken, and it is always best for the government, the country as a whole to not step into a conflict willingly, even if it means the genocide of others. If people refuse to step into other countries’ affairs, then we may as well not have the convention at all. I think modifications need to be made to the convention rather than limits on sovereignty in order to make it easier to stop genocide, however. It should be necessary in attempting to prevent genocide that one of the steps be taking physical action in the fight. The UN can not use a convention that says it ¨prevents¨ genocide if it does not ensure necessary steps are taken. Even in the aftermath, if it is so difficult to prove the act of genocide, so many offenders who get let off the hook.

While it is important for the legislation to change in order to create change in the actions of Nations, this can only be done through the work of individuals such as Lemkin and others who spent their whole lives pushing for these rights. If individuals do not speak out and push people in the way that Lemkin did in the video, going to each member of the UN directly and speaking to them until they signed onto the Convention, no one else will. Nations and government politics do not feel the need to push for involvement in other nations for just causes, only human nature brings out that desire. It is essential that individuals and human rights organizations bring light to genocides and put pressure on their nations for them to use their power to move towards action, to protest and not be quiet until there is an effective method of preventing, stopind and punishing genocide, one that is better than the Convention now. Individuals need to be doing this even in times of peace, pushing to better the legislation and make it more efficient so that when the time comes that it is necessary to use, the appropriate measures are known and put into place. Right now people only realize there is a problem in the midst of a genocide, and once it is over people forget about the faults and inefficiencies of the legislation until the world is yet again in the midst of a problem.