Source Details

{
    "source_type": "extension",
    "content_hash": "446bdd07540de8bd74a8e5b9e546ea3f7701c653cb55870716e64b7dc3fd7bea",
    "submitted_via": "chrome_extension",
    "extension_version": "1.0.18",
    "original_url": "https:\/\/legal.un.org\/avl\/ha\/cppcg\/cppcg.html?utm_source=cnn_Global+Briefing&utm_medium=email",
    "parsed_content": "By William A. Schabas\n Professor of International Law, National University of Ireland, Galway\nDirector of the Irish Centre for Human Rights\n \n \n \n \n \u0627\u0644\u0639\u0631\u0628\u064a\u0629\n \u4e2d\u6587\n English\n Fran\u00e7ais\u00a0\n \u0420\u0443\u0441\u0441\u043a\u0438\u0439\u00a0\n Espa\u00f1ol\u00a0\n \n \n \n \n The text of the Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 9 December 1948. After obtaining the requisite twenty ratifications required by article XIII, the Convention entered into force on 12 January 1951.\n The term \u201cgenocide\u201d was first used by Raphael Lemkin in his book Axis Rule in Occupied Europe, published in late 1944. Although the word appears in the drafting history of the Charter of the International Military Tribunal, the final text of that instrument uses the cognate term \u201ccrimes against humanity\u201d to deal with the persecution and physical extermination of national, ethnic, racial and religious minorities. Prosecutors also used the term occasionally in their submissions to the Nuremberg Tribunal, but \u201cgenocide\u201d does not appear in the final judgment, issued on 30 September - 1 October 1946.\n The failure of the International Military Tribunal to condemn what some called \u201cpeacetime genocide\u201d prompted immediate efforts within the United Nations General Assembly. In effect, the Tribunal had confined the scope of crimes against humanity to acts perpetrated after the outbreak of war, in September 1939. At the first session of the General Assembly, in late 1946, Cuba, Panama and India presented a draft resolution that had two objectives: a declaration that genocide was a crime that could be committed in peacetime as well as in time of war, and recognition that genocide was subject to universal jurisdiction (that is, it could be prosecuted by any State, even in the absence of a territorial or personal link). General Assembly resolution 96 (I), adopted on 11 December 1946, affirmed \u201cthat genocide is a crime under international law which the civilized world condemns\u201d. It was silent as to whether the crime could be committed in peacetime, and although it described genocide as a crime \u201cof international concern\u201d, it provided no clarification on the subject of jurisdiction. Resolution 96 (I) mandated the preparation of a draft convention on the crime of genocide.\n \n Drafting of the Genocide Convention\n Drafting of the Convention proceeded in three main stages. First, the United Nations Secretariat composed a draft text. Prepared with the assistance of three experts, Raphael Lemkin, Vespasian Pella and Henri Donnedieu de Vabres, it was actually a compendium of concepts meant to assist the General Assembly rather than any attempt to provide a workable instrument or to resolve major differences. Second, the Secretariat draft was reworked by an Ad Hoc Committee set up under the authority of the Economic and Social Council. Finally, the Ad Hoc Committee draft was the basis of negotiations in the Sixth Committee of the General Assembly, in late 1948, which agreed upon the final text of the Convention, submitting it for formal adoption to the plenary General Assembly.\n Certain aspects of the drafting history of the Convention have figured in subsequent interpretation of some of its provisions. For example, the definition of genocide set out in article II is a much-reduced version of the text prepared by the Secretariat experts, who had divided genocide into three categories, physical, biological and cultural genocide. The Sixth Committee voted to exclude cultural genocide from the scope of the Convention, although it subsequently agreed to an exception to this general rule, allowing \u201cforcible transfer of children from one group to another\u201d as a punishable act. The drafters also voted down, by a very substantial margin, an amendment that sought to add a sixth punishable act to article II. It would have enabled prosecution for imposing \u201cmeasures intended to oblige members of a group to abandon their homes in order to escape the threat of subsequent ill-treatment\u201d. References to these debates have bolstered judicial decisions that essentially exclude \u201cethnic cleansing\u201d from the scope of the definition.\n In addition, the drafters quite explicitly rejected universal jurisdiction for the crime. Article VI recognises only territorial jurisdiction, as well as the jurisdiction of an international criminal tribunal. There was, of course, no international criminal tribunal at the time. But when it agreed to the Convention, the General Assembly also adopted a resolution directing that work begin on a draft statute for such a court. This was the beginning of sporadic work that would eventually lead, half a century later, to the adoption of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.\n Over the next fifty years, the two related but distinct concepts of genocide and crimes against humanity had an uneasy relationship. Not only was genocide recognised by treaty, it came with important ancillary obligations, including a duty to prevent the crime, an obligation to enact legislation and to punish the crime, and a requirement to cooperate in extradition. Article IX gave the International Court of Justice jurisdiction over disputes between States parties concerning the interpretation and application of the Convention. Crimes against humanity were also recognised in a treaty, the Charter of the International Military Tribunal, but one that was necessarily of limited scope and whose effective application concluded when the judgment of the first Nuremberg trial was issued. The only other obligations with regard to crimes against humanity at the time existed by virtue of customary international law.\n \n Key Provisions\n The preamble makes reference to General Assembly resolution 96 (I), and re-affirms that \u201cgenocide is a crime under international law, contrary to the spirit and aims of the United Nations and condemned by the civilized world\u201d. It declares that genocide has inflicted great losses on humanity at all periods of history, and that international cooperation is required in order \u201cto liberate mankind from such an odious scourge\u201d.\n Article I provides the important clarification that genocide can be committed \u201cin time of peace or in time of war\u201d, distinguishing it from crimes against humanity, about which there was still, in 1948, much doubt about its application absent an armed conflict. The provision also links the concepts of prevention and punishment. Noting the connection, the International Court of Justice, in the Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro judgment of 26 February 2007 (Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), said that not only was genocide prevented because of the deterrent effects of punishment, the duty to prevent genocide had its own autonomous scope which was both \u201cnormative and compelling\u201d.\n The crime of genocide is defined in article II, the provision that sits at the heart of the Convention. Genocide is a crime of intentional destruction of a national, ethnic, racial and religious group, in whole or in part. Article II lists five punishable acts of genocide. This definitional provision has stood the test of time, resisting calls for its expansion, and it is reproduced without change in such instruments as the statutes of the ad hoc tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. The obstinate refusal to modify the definition is not explained by some innate conservativism in the international lawmaking process. Rather, the gaps left by the somewhat narrow definition of genocide in the 1948 Convention have been filled more or less satisfactorily by the dramatic enlargement of the ambit of crimes against humanity during the 1990s. The coverage of crimes against humanity expanded to include acts perpetrated in time of peace, and to a broad range of groups, not to mention an ever-growing list of punishable acts inspired by developments in international human rights law. For much the same reason, judicial interpretation of article II has remained relatively faithful to the intent of the drafters of the provision. Thus, it remains confined to the intentional physical destruction of the group, rather than attacks on its existence involving persecution of its culture or the phenomenon of \u201cethnic cleansing\u201d.\n Article III lists four additional categories of the crime of genocide in addition to perpetration as such. One of these, complicity, is virtually implied in the concept of perpetration and derives from general principles of criminal law. The other three are incomplete or inchoate offences, in effect preliminary acts committed even where genocide itself does not take place. They enhance the preventive dimension of the Convention. The most controversial, \u201cdirect and public incitement\u201d, is restricted by two adjectives so as to limit conflicts with the protection of freedom of expression.\n Reprising a principal established in the Charter of the International Military Tribunal, article IV denies the defence of official capacity to Heads of State and other leading political figures. Article V requires States to enact legislation to give effect to the Convention\u2019s provisions, and to ensure that effective penalties are provided. Many States have accordingly enacted the relevant texts of the Convention within their own penal codes, whereas others have deemed that the underlying crimes of murder and assault were already adequately addressed so that perpetrators of genocide committed on their own territory would not escape accountability.\n One of the more controversial and difficult provisions says that genocide will be punished either by a competent tribunal of the territorial State, or by \u201csuch international penal tribunal as may have jurisdiction\u201d. Little more than a decade after article VI was adopted, the Israeli courts dismissed Adolf Eichmann\u2019s claim that the provision was an obstacle to the exercise of universal jurisdiction over genocide. It was held that despite the terms of the Convention, exercise of universal jurisdiction was authorised by customary international law.\n Pursuant to article VII, States parties to the Convention are obliged to grant extradition \u201cin accordance with their laws and treaties in force\u201d. There is some practice to suggest that this rather vague formulation is nevertheless taken seriously, and that States consider themselves obliged to facilitate extradition when genocide charges are involved, subject to recognised principles prohibiting refoulement where there is a real risk of flagrant human rights abuses in the receiving State.\n Article VIII declares that a State party to the Convention may appeal to \u201ccompetent organs\u201d of the United Nations for them to take action pursuant to the Charter. This provision, which is largely superfluous because the right to seize the organs of the United Nations exists in any event, has apparently been invoked only once, by the United States of America in September 2004 (9 September 2004, Secretary Colin L. Powell, Testimony Before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, United States of America).\n The International Court of Justice is given jurisdiction over disputes \u201crelating to the interpretation, application or fulfilment\u201d of the Convention by article IX. In Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro, the International Court of Justice confirmed that States could, in effect, commit genocide, and that the Court could adjudicate the issue pursuant to article IX. Several applications charging genocide have been filed before the Court, but only one, Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro, has come to a final judgment.\n The remaining provisions of the Convention are mainly technical in nature, and concern such issues as the authentic language versions, application to non-self-governing territories, entry into force, revision and denunciation. The Convention is silent on the subject of reservations. In its 1951 Advisory Opinion (Reservations to the Genocide Convention, I.C.J. Reports 1951, p.15), the International Court of Justice confirmed that reservations to the Conventionwere not prohibited, to the extent that they were not incompatible with the instrument\u2019s object and purpose. Several reservations have been formulated, many of them without widespread objection. Most of the reservations have concerned the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice set out in article IX.\n \n Influence of the Genocide Convention\n The Genocide Convention was the first human rights treaty adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations. It focuses attention on the protection of national, racial, ethnic and religious minorities from threats to their very existence. In that sense, it sits four-square within the priorities of both the United Nations and the modern human rights movement, aimed at the eradication of racism and xenophobia. Furthermore, it stresses the role of criminal justice and accountability in the protection and promotion of human rights.\n The Convention has been much criticised for its limited scope. This was really more a case of frustration with the inadequate reach of international law in dealing with mass atrocities. As history has shown, this difficulty would be addressed not by expanding the definition of genocide or by amending the Convention, but rather by an evolution in the closely related concept of crimes against humanity. Accordingly, the crime of genocide has been left alone, where it occupies a special place as \u201cthe crime of crimes\u201d.\n Case law of the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia has confirmed a restrictive approach to interpretation of the definition of genocide, resisting its extension to cases of ethnic cleansing and similar attacks upon groups aimed at their displacement rather than at their physical extermination. At the same time, in its 2007 ruling the Court found a robust concept of the prevention of genocide within the vague words of article I of the Convention. It spoke of a duty of \u201cdue diligence\u201d imposed upon States, one that extended even to acts committed outside of their own borders by entities over which their influence may extend. This obligation to prevent genocide dovetails nicely with the responsibility to protect, recognised in 2005 by the United Nations General Assembly and endorsed the following year by the Security Council. \n Unlike most of the other main human rights treaties, the Genocide Convention does not establish a monitoring mechanism. There have been periodic calls to set up a treaty body, possibly by an additional protocol to the Convention or perhaps simply by a resolution of the General Assembly. In 2004, the Secretary-General of the United Nations established the high-level position of Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide.\n In its report to the United Nations Secretary-General in January 2005, the International Commission of Inquiry on Darfur insisted that crimes against humanity might, in some cases, be just as serious as genocide. Its comments highlighted what is often a sterile debate about whether to characterise acts as genocide or as \u201cmere\u201d crimes against humanity. Indeed, crimes against humanity was the label attached to the Nazi atrocities at Nuremberg, and it remains one of the \u201cmost serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole\u201d listed in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Nevertheless, alongside the legal definition of genocide, rooted in the 1948 Convention and confirmed in subsequent case law, there is a more popular or colloquial conception. In practice, this lay understanding of genocide is more akin to crimes against humanity, in that it comprises a broad range of mass atrocities.\nThis Introductory Note was written in July 2008.\n \n \n Related Materials\n \n A.\u00a0Legal Instruments\n London Charter of the International Military Tribunal, London, 8 August 1945.\n \n Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, Report of the Secretary-General pursuant to paragraph 2 of Security Council resolution 808 (1993) (S\/25704), 3 May 1993.\n \n Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, Security Council resolution 955 (1944) of 8 November 1994.\n \n Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, Rome, 17 July 1998, United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 2187, p. 3.\n \n B.\u00a0Jurisprudence\n \n International Court of Justice, Reservations to the Genocide Convention, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1951, p. 15.\n \n District Court of Jerusalem, The State of Israel v. Adolf Eichmann, Case No. 40\/61, 11 December 1961.\n \n Supreme Court of Israel, Adolf Eichmann v. The Attorney General, Criminal Appeal 336\/61, 29 May 1962.\n \n International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, Prosecutor v. Radislav Krsti\u0107, Case No: IT-98-33-A, 19 April 2004.\n \n International Court of Justice, Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (New Application: 2002) (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Rwanda), Jurisdiction and Admissibility, I.C.J. Reports 2006, p. 6.\n \n International Court of Justice, Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Judgment of 26 February 2007.\n \n C.\u00a0Documents\n \n Security Council resolution 1674 (2006) of 28 April 2006, paragraph 4 (responsibility to protect).\n \n 2005 World Summit Outcome, General Assembly resolution 60\/1 of 16 September 2005, paragraphs 138-139 (responsibility to protect).\n \n Report of the International Commission of Inquiry on Darfur to the United Nations Secretary-General, pursuant to Security Council resolution 1564 (2004) of 18 September 2004, 25 January 2005.\n \n Security Council resolution 1564 (2004) of 18 September 2004 (establishment of an international commission of inquiry on Darfur).\n \n The crises in Darfur, Secretary Colin L. Powell, Testimony Before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, United States of America, 9 September 2004, 2004\/955 (Press release).\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \u0627\u0644\u0639\u0631\u0628\u064a\u0629\u00a0\n \n \u4e2d\u6587\u00a0\n \n English\u00a0\n \n Fran\u00e7ais\u00a0\n \n \u0420\u0443\u0441\u0441\u043a\u0438\u0439\u00a0\n \n Espa\u00f1ol\u00a0\n \n \n \n \n By resolution 96 (I) of 11 December 1946, the General Assembly, affirming that genocide is a crime under international law which the civilized world condemns, invited Member States to enact the necessary legislation for the prevention and punishment of that crime, recommended that international cooperation be organized to that effect and requested the Economic and Social Council to undertake the necessary studies, with a view to drawing up a draft convention on the crime of genocide.\u00a0On the instructions of the Economic and Social Council, the Secretary General, with the assistance of the Division of Human Rights and a group of three experts (Henri Donnedieu de Vabres, Raphael Lemkin and Vespasien Pella), prepared a draft convention accompanied by a commentary (E\/447, 26 June 1947). \n By resolution 77\u00a0(V) of 6 August 1947, the Economic and Social Council proposed to proceed as rapidly as possible with the consideration of the question of genocide, subject to any further instructions which it may receive from the General Assembly. States were invited to submit their observations on that draft (A\/362, 25 August 1947). \n By resolution 180\u00a0(II) of 21 November 1947, the General Assembly requested the Economic and Social Council to continue its work on the matter and to proceed with the completion of a convention without awaiting the receipt of observations by all Member States. \n On 3 March 1948, the Economic and Social Council, by resolution 117\u00a0(VI), established an Ad Hoc Committee on Genocide composed of national representatives (United States of America, Soviet Union, Lebanon, China, France, Poland and Venezuela), which prepared a second draft convention with commentaries (E\/794, 5 April-10 May 1948).\n The Sixth (legal) Committee considered this draft at its 63rd to 110th meetings and 128th to 134th meetings of the third session of the General Assembly in 1948. \n The General Assembly adopted the Genocide Convention by unanimous vote of the 56 participants at its 179th plenary meeting, on 9\u00a0December 1948 (resolution 260\u00a0(III)).\n \n \n \n Text of the Convention\n Selected preparatory documents\n (in chronological order)\n \n General Assembly resolution 96 (I) of 11 December 1946 (The Crime of Genocide)\n \n Economic and Social Council resolution 47 (IV) of 28 March 1947 (Crime of genocide) (E\/437 (E\/325))\n \n Draft convention on the crime of genocide prepared by the Secretary-General in pursuance of the Economic and Social Council resolution 47 (IV) (E\/447, 26 June 1947)\n \n Economic and Social Council resolution 77 (V) of 6 August 1947 (Genocide)\n \n Note by the Secretary-General, Draft Convention on the Crime of Genocide (A\/362, 25 August 1947)\n \n General Assembly resolution 180 (II) of 21 November 1947 (Draft convention on genocide)\n \n Economic and Social Council resolution 117 (VI) of 3 March 1948 (Genocide)\n \n Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Genocide and draft Convention drawn up by the Committee, 5 April-10 May 1948 (E\/794)\n \n Sixth Committee of the General Assembly, Summary records of meeting nos. 63 to 66 held from 30 September to 4 October 1948 (A\/C. 6\/SR. 63, 64, 65 and 66)\n \n Report of the Drafting Committee, \"Genocide: Draft convention and Report of the Economic and Social Council\" (A\/C.6\/288, 23 November 1948)\n \n Sixth Committee of the General Assembly, Summary records of meeting nos. 67 to 69, 71 to 87, 91 to 110 and 128 to 134 held, respectively, from 5 to 7 October, 11 to 29 October, 4 to 18 November and 29 November to 2 December 1948 (A\/C.6\/SR. 67, 68, 69, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, and 134)\n \n Report of the Sixth Committee of the General Assembly, \"Genocide: Draft convention and Report of the Economic and Social Council\" (A\/760 and Corr.2, 3 December 1948 and 6 December 1948, respectively)\n \n General Assembly, Verbatim records of plenary meeting nos. 178 and 179 held on 9 December 1948 (A\/PV. 178 and 179)\n \n General Assembly resolution 260 (III) of 9 December 1948 (Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide)\n \n \n \n The Convention entered into force on 12 January 1951. For the current participation status of the Convention, as well as information and relevant texts of related treaty actions, such as reservations, declarations, objections, denunciations and notifications, see:\n \n The Status of Multilateral Treaties Deposited with the Secretary-General\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Statements\n \n \n Third Session of the General Assembly, 178th and 179th Plenary Meetings, Palais de Chaillot, Paris, France, 9 December 1948: Discussion on the Draft Convention on Genocide, reports of the Economic and Social Council and of the Sixth Committee; Adoption of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.\nVideo (11 minutes, Full version)\n \n \n \n \n Statement by Mrs. Begum Ikramullah (Pakistan)\nVideo (2 minutes, English)\n \n \n \n Statement by Mr. Ernest Gross (United States of America)\nVideo (1 minute, English)\n \n \n \n Statement by Mr. W. J. Dignam (Australia)\nVideo (16 seconds, English)\n \n \n \n Statement by Mr. Alexandre Parodi (France)\nVideo (58 seconds, Fran\u00e7ais)\n \n \n \n Statement by Mr. J. C. de Beus (The Netherlands)\nVideo (35 seconds, English)\n \n \n \n Statement by Mr. Ricardo Alfaro (Panama)\nVideo (1 minute, Espa\u00f1ol)\n \n \n \n Statement by Mr. G. G. Fitzmaurice (United Kingdom)\nVideo (1 minute, English)\n \n \n \n Statement by the President of the General Assembly, Mr. H. V. Evatt (Australia)\nProclamation of the results of the vote: the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide is adopted by unanimous vote.\nVideo (19 seconds, English)\n \n \n \n Statement by the President of the General Assembly, Mr. H. V. Evatt (Australia) [Minor image quality problem in the original]\nVideo (2 minutes, English)\n \n \n Third Session of the General Assembly, Signing Ceremony of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Paris, 11 December 1948: Signing of the Convention by Mr. Zafralla Khan (Pakistan), Mr. Ernest Gross (United States of America), Mr. Enrique Ugon (Uruguay), Mr. H. V. Evatt (Australia), Mr. Carlos Muntz (Brazil), Mr. Robert Schuman (France), Mr. Henry Copper (Liberia), while Mr. Ivan Kerno, United Nations Assistant Secretary General, seals the Convention with the official United Nations seal.\nVideo (2 minutes, Full version [Mute])\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n Interviews by United Nations Radio\n \n \n \n Statement by Mr. Raphael Lemkin, 23 December 1947: Mr. Lemkin stresses how crucial the genocide problem is for our civilization and for the very existence of the United Nations.\n Audio (5 minutes, English)\n \n \n \n Statement by Mr. Emile Giraud, member of the Division of Human Rights of the United Nations Secretariat, 24 July 1948: Mr. Giraud stresses the importance of creating a convention on genocide in an effort to overcome the difference of views regarding (i) the consideration of cultural genocide, (ii) the determination of the human groups entitled to protection, and (iii) the choice of forum to sanction the crime.\n \n Audio (5 minutes, Fran\u00e7ais)\n \n \n \n Statement by Mr. Ricardo J. Alfaro (Panama), 6 October 1948: Mr. Alfaro provides an explanation of the crime of genocide by making reference to atrocities committed during World War II.\n Audio (5 minutes, English)\n \n \n \n Statement by Mr. W. J. Dignam (Australia), 6 October 1948: Mr. Dignam describes the work of the Sixth (legal) Committee towards the adoption of a convention on genocide.\n Audio (3 minutes, English)\n \n \n \n Statement by Mrs. B. Ikramullah (Pakistan), 7 October 1948: Mrs. Ikramullah points out that genocide is as old as human history; however, it is only recently that international law is in the process of being developed towards the condemnation of mass slaughter.\n Audio (3 minutes, English)\n \n \n \n Statement by Mr. Manfred Lachs (Poland), 8 October 1948: Mr. Lachs describes the work of the Sixth (legal) Committee towards the adoption of a convention on genocide, and gives an account the different opinions regarding the scope of the convention.\n Audio (2 minutes, English)\n \n \n \n Statement by Mr. Hartley Shawcross (United Kingdom), 11 October 1948: Mr. Shawcross explains why there is a need for a genocide convention and expresses his hope that an international court with jurisdiction to deal with the crime of genocide will be established.\n Audio (2 minutes, English)\n \n \n \n Statement by Mr. Erling Wikborg (Norway), 11 October 1948: Mr. Wikborg expresses the desire of his delegation to make the convention on genocide as strong and clear as possible.\n Audio (2 minutes, English)\n \n \n \n Statement by Mr. Ernest Gross (United States of America), 3 November 1948: Mr. Gross expresses the hope of his delegation that approval will be given to a treaty prohibiting genocide and providing for its punishment. He also stresses the importance of extending the scope of the treaty in order to protect political groups.\n Audio (4 minutes, English) \n \n \n \n Third Session of the General Assembly, 179th Plenary Meeting, Palais de Chaillot, Paris, France, 9 December 1948: Continuation of the discussion on the Draft Convention on Genocide, reports of the Economic and Social Council and of the Sixth Committee; Adoption of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.\n Audio (2 hours, 23 minutes, Full version)\n \n \n \n Statement by the President of the General Assembly, Mr. H. V. Evatt (Australia)\n Audio (20 seconds, English)\n \n \n \n Statement by Mr. de Beus (The Netherlands)\n Audio (10 minutes, English)\n \n \n \n Statement by Mr. Dihigo (Cuba)\n Audio (3 minutes, Espa\u00f1ol)\n \n \n \n Statement by Mr. Alfaro (Panama)\nAudio (3 minutes, Espa\u00f1ol)\n \n \n \n Statement by Mr. Amado (Brazil)\n Audio (10 minutes, Fran\u00e7ais)\n \n \n \n Statement by Mr. Fitzmaurice (United Kingdom)\n Audio (10 minutes, English)\n \n \n \n Statement by Mr. Kaeckenbeeck (Belgium)\n Audio (2 minutes, Fran\u00e7ais)\n \n \n \n Statement by Mr. Katz-Suchy (Poland)\n Audio (26 minutes, English)\n \n \n \n Statement by Mr. Augenthaler (Czechoslovakia)\n Audio (8 minutes, Fran\u00e7ais)\n \n \n \n Statement by Mr. Manini y Rios (Uruguay)\n Audio (2 minutes, Espa\u00f1ol)\n \n \n \n Statement by Mr. Tsien Tai (China)\n Audio (4 minutes, Fran\u00e7ais)\n \n \n \n Statement by the President of the General Assembly, Mr. H. V. Evatt (Australia)\nThe President closes the discussion and puts the amendments proposed by the Soviet Union and the Venezuelan amendment to the vote.\nAudio (40 seconds, English)\n \n \n \n Statement by Mr. Perez Perozo (Venezuela)\nWithdrawal of the amendment\nAudio (55 seconds, Espa\u00f1ol)\n \n \n \n The president of the General Assembly, Mr. H. V. Evatt (Australia), puts to the vote the amendments proposed by the Soviet Union, votes are taken by roll-call: all amendments are rejected.\n Audio (25 minutes, English)\n \n \n \n Statement by Mr. Morozov (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics)\nExplanation of vote\nAudio (8 minutes, \u0420\u0443\u0441\u0441\u043a\u0438\u0439)\n \n \n \n The President of the General Assembly, Mr. H. V. Evatt (Australia), puts resolution A proposed by the Sixth Committee (A\/760) to the vote and proclaims the result: the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide is adopted by unanimous vote.\n Audio (4 minutes, English)\n \n \n \n The President of the General Assembly, Mr. H. V. Evatt (Australia), puts resolution B proposed by the Sixth Committee (A\/760) to the vote and proclaims the result: resolution B on the establishment of an international judicial organ is adopted.\n Audio (2 minutes, English)\n \n \n \n The President of the General Assembly, Mr. H. V. Evatt (Australia), puts resolution C proposed by the Sixth Committee (A\/760) to the vote and proclaims the result: resolution C relating to the application of the Convention with respect to dependent territories is adopted.\n Audio (2 minutes, English)\n \n \n \n Statement by The President of the General Assembly, Mr. H. V. Evatt (Australia) with regard to the adoption of the Convention\n Audio (4 minutes, English) \n \n \n \n Report of United Nations Today, Palais de Chaillot, Paris, France, 9 December 1948: Report on the adoption the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. The report includes statements by Mr. Morozov (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics), Mr. Gross (United States of America), Mr. Katz-Suchy (Poland) and the President of the General Assembly, Mr. H. V. Evatt (Australia).\n Audio (13 minutes, English)\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n United Nations, New York. [Read more]\n 26 June 1947\n United Nations, New York. [Read more]\n 9 December 1948\n Palais de Chaillot, Paris, France. \n [Read more]\n \n \n 11 December 1948\n Palais de Chaillot, Paris, France. \n [Read more]\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n 11 December 1948\n United Nations, New York. [Read more]\n \n \n 16 December 1949\n United Nations, New York. [Read more]\n 14 October 1950\n United Nations, New York. [Read more]\n 17 December 1953\n United Nations, New York. [Read more]\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n 12 March 1993\n Outskirts of Phnom Penh, Cambodia. \n [Read more]\n 14 March 1993\n Outskirts of Phnom Penh, Cambodia. [Read more]\n 08 May 1998\n Kigali, Rwanda. \n [Read more]\n 13 June 2001\n Jacob Blaustein Institute for the Advancement of Human Rights, Headquarters of the American Jewish Committee, New York. [Read more]",
    "author_name": "William A. Schabas",
    "site_name": "United Nations Audiovisual Library of International Law",
    "section": null,
    "publisher": "United Nations",
    "ai_headline": "The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide",
    "ai_simplified_title": "UN General Assembly Adopts Genocide Convention 1948",
    "ai_excerpt": "By William A Schabas Professor of International Law National University of Ireland Galway Director of the Irish Centre for Human Rights English Fran ais Espa ol The text of the",
    "ai_subject_tags": [
        "Genocide Convention",
        "International Law",
        "United Nations",
        "Human Rights",
        "International Criminal Law",
        "Raphael Lemkin",
        "Crime of Genocide",
        "Human Rights Law",
        "Crimes Against Humanity",
        "International Criminal Justice"
    ],
    "ai_context_type": "Analysis",
    "ai_context_details": {
        "tone": "informative",
        "perspective": "academic",
        "audience": "specialized",
        "credibility_indicators": {
            "0": "expert_author",
            "1": "historical_context",
            "2": "legal_analysis",
            "4": "treaty_interpretation",
            "5": "case_law_cited",
            "6": "data_cited",
            "7": "expert_quotes",
            "9": "official_document_references",
            "10": "official_records",
            "11": "historical_documents",
            "12": "official_document",
            "13": "historical_record"
        }
    },
    "ai_source_vector": null,
    "ai_confidence_score": 0.9999999999999999,
    "ai_extraction_metadata": {
        "extracted_at": "2026-09-26T00:02:18.020079Z",
        "ai_model": "gemini-2.5-flash",
        "extraction_method": "automated",
        "content_length": 6024,
        "metadata_prompt_body_chars": 6024,
        "metadata_prompt_truncated": false,
        "url": "https:\/\/legal.un.org\/avl\/ha\/cppcg\/cppcg.html",
        "existing_metadata": {
            "author_name": null,
            "published_at": null,
            "domain_name": "legal.un.org",
            "site_name": null,
            "section": null,
            "publisher": null
        },
        "openai_refusal_gemini_fallback": false,
        "chunking_used": true,
        "total_chunks": 6,
        "chunk_merge_method": "comprehensive",
        "merged_at": "2026-09-26T00:02:31.028816Z"
    }
}

{
    "extracted_at": "2026-09-26T00:02:18.020079Z",
    "ai_model": "gemini-2.5-flash",
    "extraction_method": "automated",
    "content_length": 6024,
    "metadata_prompt_body_chars": 6024,
    "metadata_prompt_truncated": false,
    "url": "https:\/\/legal.un.org\/avl\/ha\/cppcg\/cppcg.html",
    "existing_metadata": {
        "author_name": null,
        "published_at": null,
        "domain_name": "legal.un.org",
        "site_name": null,
        "section": null,
        "publisher": null
    },
    "openai_refusal_gemini_fallback": false,
    "chunking_used": true,
    "total_chunks": 6,
    "chunk_merge_method": "comprehensive",
    "merged_at": "2026-09-26T00:02:31.028816Z"
}