Abstract

This article offers a comprehensive examination of the legal and practical dimensions of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (commonly referred to as the Genocide Convention). Building on a historical overview of the Genocide Convention’s post-World War II origins, the analysis explores the evolving jurisprudence of international courts—particularly the International Court of Justice (ICJ)—that has shaped modern understandings of genocide. Central to the discussion is the dual mandate articulated in Article I of the Genocide Convention, which requires States not only to punish genocide after it occurs but also to undertake proactive measures to prevent it. Key sections examine how the obligation to prevent has been construed to extend beyond a State’s borders, compelling third-party States with no direct stake in a conflict or situation to respond when they become aware of a credible risk of genocide. This emerging erga omnes obligation is evidenced by the notable surge in ICJ interventions brought by States under Articles 63 and 62 of the ICJ Statute. This shift underscores a growing acceptance among States that the prevention of genocide is a shared concern rather than a purely bilateral or localized matter. At the same time, the article acknowledges recurring obstacles—including geopolitical considerations, the prohibition on the use of force, sovereignty issues, and evidentiary challenges—that hinder the implementation of the Genocide Convention. The discussion, therefore, addresses possible reforms, ranging from more robust early-warning systems and refined United Nations Security Council procedures to enhancements to domestic legal frameworks. The article concludes that, while the Genocide Convention’s normative force is widely affirmed, its efficacy depends on whether States, international institutions, and civil society can transform legal obligation into sustained collective action—ultimately bridging the gap between principle and practice.

Keywords: Genocide, third-party States, collective action