Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Confronting Genocide pp 173–191Cite as

Expectation of Prosecuting the Crimes of Genocide in China

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice ((IUSGENT,volume 7))

Abstract

This article argues that it is both necessary and possible for China to legislate on the prosecution and punishment of the crime of genocide. It analyzes the legal framework established by the Genocide Convention which was ratified by China, and contends that the country is under an obligation to enact the provisions of the Convention through domestic legislation for reasons including: the establishment of the ICC, which has presented practical needs for China to perfect its domestic legislation, the need to satisfy the requirement of willingness and ability, and to allow for the exercise of universal jurisdiction. The article claims that the well-rooted idea of equality among different ethnic groups in China further serves as a good psychological foundation for legislation on genocide.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    A survey of the critical articles in the Genocide Convention is undertaken in Francis M. Deng, Chapter 4, Section 4.2 (above).

  2. 2.

    Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide , art.6, Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, January 12, 1951.

  3. 3.

    Reservation to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide , Advisory Opinion, International Criminal Court , 1951 I.C.J. 15 (May 28, 1951), 23; Barcelona Traction , Light and Power Company, Limited (Belgian v. Spain ); Second Phase, International Court of Justice (ICJ ) (February 5, 1970), paras. 33–34, http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/4040aec74.htm (Accessed June 13, 2009); Case Concerning Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, ( Bosnia -Herzegovina v. Yugoslavia ) (Preliminary Objection), International Court of Justice Report (July 11, 1996), para. 31, http://www.un.org/ law /icjsum/9625.htm (Accessed June 13, 2009).

  4. 4.

    The establishment and role of the ICC are discussed in Luis Moreno-Ocampo , Chapter 16 (below).

  5. 5.

    See Joshua M. Kagan, “The Obligation to Use Force to Stop Acts of Genocide: An Overview of Legal Precedents, Customary Norms, and State Responsibility.” San Diego International Law Journal 7, No. 461, 462.

  6. 6.

    Antonio Cassese , International Law, 2nd ed. (New York : Oxford University Press, 2005), 443.

  7. 7.

    A survey of the critical articles in the Genocide Convention is undertaken in Francis M. Deng, Chapter 4, Section 4.2 (above).

  8. 8.

    Statute of the International Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia , art. 4., adopted by United Nations Security Council Res. 827, (May 25, 1993), http://www.un.org/icty/legaldoc-e/index.htm (Accessed June 14, 2009); Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda , art. 2, 2007, http://www.ictr.org/ENGLISH/basicdocs/statute.html?sess=24cff403f7d1ae05a8c4a3bef2c7b8d (Accessed June 13, 2009); Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court , arts. 5–6 (July 1, 2002), http://www.un.org/ children /conflict /keydocuments/english/romestatuteofthe7.html (Accessed June 14, 2009).

  9. 9.

    The Prosecutor v. Jean-Paul Akayesu , Case No. ICTR -96-4-T (September 2, 1998), http://69.94.11.53/ENGLISH/cases/Akayesu/judgement/akay001.htm (Accessed June 15, 2009).

  10. 10.

    The contribution of the Akayesu case is higlighted in Francis M. Deng, Chapter 4, Section 4.2 (above) and Irwin Cotler, Chapter 9, Section 9.2 (above).

  11. 11.

    Prosecutor v. Niyitegaka, Case No. ICTR -96-14-A, (Jul. 9, 2004), 53; see also Prosecutor v. Stakic, Case No. IT-97-24-T, Judgment (Jul. 31, 2003), 502.

  12. 12.

    Reservation to the Genocide Convention , 1951, 23.

  13. 13.

    See Attorney General of Israel v. Eichmann (1961), 36 I.L.R. 18, 39 (Dist. Ct.); Attorney General of Israel v. Eichmann (1962), 36 I.L.R. 277, 36 ILR 18 (Supreme Ct.), and William A. Schabas, “Genocide, Crimes Against Humanity, and Darfur : the Commission of Inquiry ’s Findings on Genocide,” in Cardozo Law Review 27, No. 4 (February 2006): 1703.

  14. 14.

    Reservation to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide , Advisory Opinion, International Criminal Court , 1951 I.C.J. 15 (May 28, 1951), 23.

  15. 15.

    Genocide Convention , Article 1, 3, 5, 1951.

  16. 16.

    Prevent Genocide International, “Implementing the Genocide Convention in Domestic Law,” http://preventgenocide.org/ law /domestic/ (Accessed July 14, 2009).

  17. 17.

    United Nations General Assembly , 2005 World Summit Outcome, UN Doc. A/60/L.1 (September 15, 2005), 31, para. 138.

  18. 18.

    Ian Brownlie, Principles of Public International Law, 6th ed. (New York : Oxford University Press, 2003), 489.

  19. 19.

    Dinah Shelton, “Normative Hierarchy in International Law,” in American Journal of International Law 100 (2006): 291, 300.

  20. 20.

    Reservation to the Genocide Convention , 1951, 23.

  21. 21.

    Barcelona Traction , 1970, paras. 33–34.

  22. 22.

    Case Concerning Application of the Genocide Convention , 1996, 616, para. 31.

  23. 23.

    Brownlie, Principles, 2003, 488–490.

  24. 24.

    Territorial Dispute (Libyan Arab Jamahiririya/ Chad ), International Court of Justice Reports 1994, 6, para. 41; Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America), Preliminary Objections, Judgement, International Court of Justice Reports 1996, 803, para. 23; Kasikili/Sedudu Island (Botswana/Namibia), International Court of Justice Reports 1999, 1045, para. 18.

  25. 25.

    Genocide Convention , preamble, 1951.

  26. 26.

    Reservation to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide , Advisory Opinion, International Criminal Court , 1951 I.C.J. 15 (May 28, 1951), 23.

  27. 27.

    In Re Pinochet , Spanish National Court , Criminal Division (Plenary Session) Case 19/97, November 4, 1998; Case 1/98, November 5, 1998; Genocide Convention , 1951, art. 6.

  28. 28.

    Maria Del Carmen Marquez Carrassco and Jaquin Alcaide Fernandez, In re Pinochet : Spanish National Court , Criminal Division (Plenary Session). Case 19/97, November 4, 1998; Case 1/98, November 5, 1998, (1999) 93 A.J.I.L. 690, at 693.

  29. 29.

    SS Lotus Case ( France v. Turkey ) (1927), P.C.I.J. Series A, No. 10.

  30. 30.

    Linda Keller, Belgian Jury to Decide Case Concerning Rwandan Genocide, in American Society of International Law (May 2001), http://www.asil.org/insights/insigh72.htm, (Accessed June 16, 2008); Wenqi Zhu, The Trigger Mechanism of the International Criminal Court and the Reaction of USA, Henan Social Science 11, No. 5 (September 2003): 66.

  31. 31.

    Maria Del Carmen Marquez Carrassco and Jaquin Alcaide Fernandez, supra note 19, at 693.

  32. 32.

    Sharon A. Willianms, in Otto Triffterer, eds., Commentary on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court , article 12, (Germany , Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft, Baden-Baden, 1999): 332–334.

  33. 33.

    Status of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (October 9, 2001), http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/treaty1gen.htm (Accessed June 14, 2009).

  34. 34.

    Genocide Convention , 1951, art. 6.

  35. 35.

    Status of the Genocide Convention , 2001.

  36. 36.

    The Criminal Code of China was enacted in 1979 and amended in 1999. It has 6 amendments. There is no provision in the Criminal Code and its amendments dealing with the crime of genocide.

  37. 37.

    Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties , art. 26, United Nations , Treaty Series, vol. 1155 (May 23, 1969), 331.

  38. 38.

    Genocide Convention , 1951, art. 5.

  39. 39.

    Ibid, art. 6.

  40. 40.

    The impact of the ICC on international criminal law is discussed in Luis Moreno-Ocampo , Chapter 16 (below).

  41. 41.

    Rome Statute , 2002, art. 5.

  42. 42.

    Rome Statute , 2002 art. 12.

  43. 43.

    Rome Statute, articles 13–15.

  44. 44.

    International Commission of Inquiry on Darfur , “Report of the International Commission of Inquiry on Darfur to the United Nations Secretary-General,” in pursuance with the United Nations Security Council Res. 1564, (September 18, 2004), January 25, 2005, http://www.un.org/News/dh/sudan/com_inq_darfur.pdf (Accessed June 15, 2008).

  45. 45.

    United Nations Security Council , Res. 1593, (March 31, 2005), para. 2.

  46. 46.

    The ICC’s treatment of the Darfur situation is examined in Catherine Lu, Chapter 18, Sections 18.1 and 18.2 (below) and Luis Moreno-Ocampo , Chapter 16 (below).

  47. 47.

    Ibid, para. 2.

  48. 48.

    Beijing Evening News, 1 April 2005, p. 8.

  49. 49.

    United Nations Security Council , Res. 1593, 2005, para. 2.

  50. 50.

    The impact of economic interests on China ’s position vis-à-vis Darfur is addressed in Yehuda Bauer, Chapter 7, Sections 7.1 and 7.3 (above) and Richard J. Goldstone, Chapter 11, Section 11.4 (above).

  51. 51.

    Sharon A. Williams, Commentary on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court , article 12, in ed. Otto Triffterer ( Germany : Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft, Baden-Baden, 1999), 336–338.

  52. 52.

    Rome Statute , 2002, articles 1 and 17.

  53. 53.

    Ibid, art. 17(1)(a).

  54. 54.

    Williams, Commentary, 1999, 385–392.

  55. 55.

    Rome Statute , 2002, art. 25(e); Genocide Convention , 1951, art. 3; Statute of the ICTY , 1997, art. 4(3); Statute of the ICTR , 2007, art. 2(3).

  56. 56.

    A discussion of what constitutes incitement is provided in Irwin Cotler, Chapter 9, Section 9.2 (above).

  57. 57.

    The difficulty in meeting Genocide Convention criteria particularly in relation to intent is addressed in Gérard Prunier, Chapter 3, Section 3.1 (above) and Francis M. Deng, Chapter 4, Section 4.2 (above).

  58. 58.

    Gao Mingxuan and Wang Xiumei, “Reflections on the Characteristics and Localization of Universal Jurisdiction,” in Law and Social Development (June, 2001), 23.

  59. 59.

    Princeton University Program in Law and Public Affairs, The Princeton Principles on Universal Jurisdiction, 28 (2001). For background information of the Princeton Principles, see http://www.derechos.org/nizkor/icc/princeton.html (Accessed June 19, 2008).

  60. 60.

    Tanaz Moghadam, “Revitalizing Universal Jurisdiction: Lessons from Hybrid Tribunals Applied to the Case of Hissene Habre,” in Columbia Human Rights Law Review 39, No. 1 (2008): 471, 489.

  61. 61.

    Inbal Sansani, “The Pinochet Precedent in Africa : Prosecution of Hissene Habre,” in Human Rights Brief 8, No. 2 (2001): 32, 33.

  62. 62.

    Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, art. 7(1) UN Doc. CAT/C/4/Rev.3 (July 18, 2005).

  63. 63.

    Inbal Sansani, The Pinochet Precedent, 2001, 35.

  64. 64.

    Dustin N. Sharp, “Prosecutions, Development, and Justice: The Trial of Hissene Habre,” Harard. Human Rights Journal 16 (2003): 147, 169.

  65. 65.

    See generally M. Cherif Bassiouni, “Universal Jurisdiction for International Crimes: Historical Perspectives and Contemporary Practice,” in Virginia Journal of International Law 42 (Fall 2001): 1, 81.

  66. 66.

    Rome Statute , 2002, art. 88.

  67. 67.

    Constitution of the People’s Republic of China , Preamble, para.11, art. 4 (December 4, 1982). There are 56 nationalities in China, the majority nationality is called the Han nationality, and other 55 are all clarified as minorities . According to Fifth National Population Census Data, Han are of more than 90% of the country’s population. Data available at http://www.chinapop.gov.cn/zwgk/gbgg/t20040326_2819.htm (Accessed June 2008). About how it was confirmed that there were 55 minority nationalities in the country, see Zhao Wei, About the Identification Process of the 55 Minority Nationalities, Ethnic Unity (March 1999), 52.

  68. 68.

    Law of Population and Family Planning of the People’s Republic of China , art. 18, adopted at the 25th Meeting of the Standing Committee of the Ninth National People’s Congress (December 29, 2001).

  69. 69.

    Ordinance of Population and Family Planning of Xinjing Uygur Autonomous Region, art. 15; Ordinance of Family Planning of Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region; Ordinance of Family Planning of Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region, arts. 9–15; Interim Measures for Family Planning Management in Tibet Autonomous Region, arts. 7–10.

  70. 70.

    Interim Measures for Family Planning Management in Tibet Autonomous Region, arts. 9–10. Ordinance of Family Planning of Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region, art. 11.

  71. 71.

    Marriage Law of the People’s Republic of China , art. 6, amended according to the Decision on Amending the Marriage Law of the People’s Republic of China made at the 21st meeting of the Standing Committee of the Ninth National People’s Congress (April 28, 2001); Supplementary Provisions concerning the Implementation of the Marriage Law of the People’s Republic of China in Xinjing Uygur Autonomous Region, art. 2; Adaptive Provisions concerning the Implementation of the Marriage Law of the People’s Republic of China in Tibet Autonomous Region, art. 1; Supplementary Provisions concerning the Implementation of the Marriage Law of the People’s Republic of China in Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region, art. 3.

  72. 72.

    Criminal Law of the People’s Republic of China , art. 249, adopted by the Second Session of the Fifth National People’s Congress (July 1, 1979), amended by the Fifth Session of the Eighth National People’s Congress (March 14, 1997). There are 5 crimes of incitement in Chinese Criminal Law, the other 4 are found in crimes endangering national security , crimes of impairing the interest of national defense and crimes disturbing public order , see arts. 103, 105, 278 and 373.

  73. 73.

    Shen Hong, On the Crime of Genocide, doctoral diss., Renmin University of China (June 2008), 166–174; Leng Xinyu, On the Universal Jurisdiction, doctoral diss. Renmin University of China (April 2007), 140–150, 196–198.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Renmin University of China Law School, 100872, Beijing, China

    Wenqi Zhu & Binxin Zhang

Authors
  1. Wenqi Zhu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Binxin Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wenqi Zhu .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Fac. Law, Centre for Human Rights &, McGill University, Peel Street 3644, Montreal, H3A 1W9, Québec, Canada

    René Provost

  2. Fac. Law, Centre for Human Rights &, McGill University, Peel Street 3644, Montreal, H3A 1W9, Québec, Canada

    Payam Akhavan

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Zhu, W., Zhang, B. (2011). Expectation of Prosecuting the Crimes of Genocide in China. In: Provost, R., Akhavan, P. (eds) Confronting Genocide. Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice, vol 7. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9840-5_12

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation