Rethinking genocide: its legal conception is a major problem

How delicate is it that the term genocide is stripped of its legal meaning? Why is it important to discuss and rethink the definition when we are faced with such atrocious acts around the world?

This was the main motivation behind the panel "Atrocity and Extermination," held this Wednesday at the Antiguo Colegio de San Ildefonso as part of the 39th colloquium organized by 17, Instituto de Estudios Críticos entitled "The Chiaroscuro in Which Monsters Are Born. Thinking About the Present," which brought together nearly 60 intellectuals from 12 countries from June 16 to 21.

The panel was comprised of two speakers who have dedicated their lives to the study of genocide, violence, and justice for victims: Ximena Medellín Urquiaga (Mexico), PhD in Law from UNAM, researcher at CIDE, and specialist in International Criminal Law, and Manuel Reyes Mate (Spain), philosopher who has worked on historical memory and the moral, ethical, and epistemological implementations of barbarism.

Incomplete, complex and limited definition

Ximena Medellín addressed the Finnish jurist Martti Koskenniemi, who has criticized the law as "an irresponsible profession." The speaker stated that "as lawyers, we tend to discuss fundamental issues by referring to legal texts, concepts, and interpretations to support our arguments, rather than embracing them as a profession in its own right, with the public responsibility that this entails."

Therefore, Medellín Urquiaga added: "Let me break with the logic Koskenniemi criticizes us for by clarifying my position before discussing the dispute surrounding the concept of genocide: as a person, I reject and strongly condemn the criminal actions against the Palestinian people; as a professional, I join those who affirm that there are reasonable grounds to believe that genocide is being committed against the Palestinian population in Gaza."

Based on this, the jurist stated that genocide, contrary to popular belief, does not only entail the physical death of individuals. "Most of the acts constituting genocide involve serious harm caused to a certain group by subjecting it to conditions that will eventually lead to its destruction. However, it does not have to be proven that these have already occurred; rather, in the ordinary course of events, the conditions to which the group is subjected would lead to its destruction."

The definition of genocide contained in the 1948 Convention to Prevent and Punish It, the specialist noted, "is simultaneously incomplete, complex, and limited." This is because, she explained, "it was truncated from the outset by state powers that actively sought to exclude their own atrocities, their own responsibilities, or those of their senior officers." For this reason, among other factors, she acknowledged the complexity of correctly applying the term legally in the administration of justice.

The failure of the diaspora

For his part, Dr. Manuel Reyes Mate reflected: “If everyone—the public, journalists, professors, and doctors—uses the word genocide, referring to Gaza, for example, it's because, in addition to a legal meaning, genocide has a moral significance; it's also a form of censorship, and that's why it's surrounded by great ambiguity. The legal concept is very narrowly defined, and therefore, if we were rigorous, we'd have to wait for a ruling to be able to talk about it. But if not, we tend to use the term in a more vague or diluted sense, under a kind of moral censorship.”

Later, the philosopher also offered a purely personal statement: “For Europeans, the issue of Gaza is not easy. Despite the simplicity and lightness with which many speak out, with which they condemn, judge, and speak out, the problem of Palestine is a European creation. The Jewish people decided many centuries ago to live without a state, that is, in diaspora, peacefully among other peoples, and they tried actively and passively until they recognized that there was no way. They were expelled, persecuted, until, under the cover of romanticism, they believed, like so many other peoples, that they had the right to a state.”

The State of Israel, Reyes Mate added, “is precisely the failure of that diaspora project, a project that fails because of the determination of each and every European state to expel Jews from their lands (…) One cannot judge the present without historical responsibility, and naturally what is happening in Gaza is unacceptable. I hope that The Hague Tribunal will condemn the Israeli reaction as a crime against humanity or genocide, but that does not mean that responsibility lies solely with us. After all, this happened because Hamas insisted. Let us never lose sight of the victims on both sides.”