At the risk it provoking another infantile tit for tat debate about freedom of speech, I noticed this story from France
What interested me most were a series of bullet point further down the page that read...
Now, clearly citizens of the USA (which along with other countries like Bahrain, Malaysia, Vietnam and Yemen negotiated immunity from prosecution from genocide unless they agree to be prosecuted for it) may have a different view on this than most other countries that have ratified the Genocide Convention, but I wondered exactly what form of 'International Commission' has the right to rule on what acts are considered acts of genocide.
I assume that in the US, the view is that nobody has the right to rule anything about the US except the US itself. But what about in general? The UN? The European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg?
Let's take a domestic example, and ignore for a second the immunity that the USA has negotiated.
If the Court of Human Rights ruled that the persecution of Native Americans was an act of genocide, what would be people's views of the competence of the court to so rule? Or if that's too close to home, how about the story I quoted t the beginning - let's say for example the UN ruled about the Armenian 'Genocide'?
If a government or group are to be prosecuted for genocide, someone must first have the authority to confirm that genocide has taken place. Who has that authority?
I realize this is a broad and complex issue, and that I may have potentially framed it incorrectly, but I'd like to hear views.
N.B. This may be in the wrong forum, but 'History' seemed appropriate.
French President Hollande vows new Armenia 'genocide law'
French President Francois Hollande has said he plans a new law to punish denial that the 1915-16 killing of Armenians was genocide.
A previous law approved by the French parliament was struck down in February by the Constitutional Council, which said it infringed freedom of speech.
Turkey rejects the term "genocide" for the deaths of Armenians during their deportation by the Ottoman Empire.
The issue has strained Franco-Turkish relations in recent years.
Mr Hollande's predecessor Nicolas Sarkozy had also ordered his government to draft a new law after the old one was struck down.
BBC News - French President Hollande vows new Armenia 'genocide law'
What interested me most were a series of bullet point further down the page that read...
- Both the Holocaust and killing of the Armenians are recognised as acts of genocide in France
- Denial of the Holocaust is punishable under the 1990 Gayssot law, which is based on the findings of the Nuremberg Tribunal
- Some legal experts argue that unless the Armenian killings are formally recognised as an act of genocide by an international commission their denial cannot be made punishable
- In the absence of international certification, some legal experts argue the term "Armenian genocide" may be challenged on grounds of freedom of speech
Now, clearly citizens of the USA (which along with other countries like Bahrain, Malaysia, Vietnam and Yemen negotiated immunity from prosecution from genocide unless they agree to be prosecuted for it) may have a different view on this than most other countries that have ratified the Genocide Convention, but I wondered exactly what form of 'International Commission' has the right to rule on what acts are considered acts of genocide.
I assume that in the US, the view is that nobody has the right to rule anything about the US except the US itself. But what about in general? The UN? The European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg?
Let's take a domestic example, and ignore for a second the immunity that the USA has negotiated.
If the Court of Human Rights ruled that the persecution of Native Americans was an act of genocide, what would be people's views of the competence of the court to so rule? Or if that's too close to home, how about the story I quoted t the beginning - let's say for example the UN ruled about the Armenian 'Genocide'?
If a government or group are to be prosecuted for genocide, someone must first have the authority to confirm that genocide has taken place. Who has that authority?
I realize this is a broad and complex issue, and that I may have potentially framed it incorrectly, but I'd like to hear views.
N.B. This may be in the wrong forum, but 'History' seemed appropriate.
Last edited: