2009•Scholarship @ Cornell Law (Cornell University)Open access

Attempt, Conspiracy, and Incitement to Commit Genocide

Jens David Ohlin

Open full text 4 citations

Abstract

In these brief commentaries to the U.N. Genocide Convention, I explore three criminal law modes of liability as they apply to the international crime of genocide. Part I analyzes attempt to commit genocide and uncovers a basic tension over whether attempt refers to the genocide itself (the chapeau) or the underlying offense (such as killing). Part I concludes that the tension stems from the fact that the crime of genocide itself is already inchoate in nature, since the legal requirements for the crime do not require an actual, completed genocide, in the common-sense understanding of the term, but only a prohibited act with the intent of destroying the group in whole or in part. Part II explores the curious fate of both conspiracy and incitement to commit genocide under current international criminal law. Conspiracy to commit genocide was applied at the ad hoc tribunals but rejected by the drafters of the Rome Statute, thus leading to serious confusion over its status under customary law, while incitement to commit genocide is burdened by uncertainty over its inchoate status. Part III then concludes with a brief, speculative discussion of state responsibility for genocide for these modes of liability.

Open-access reader

About this research paper

What this paper is about

In these brief commentaries to the U.N. Genocide Convention, I explore three criminal law modes of liability as they apply to the international crime of genocide. Part I analyzes attempt to commit genocide and uncovers a basic tension over whether attempt refers to the genocide itself (the chapeau) or the underlying offense (such as killing). Part I concludes that the tension stems from the fact that the crime of genocide itself is already inchoate in nature, since the legal requirements for the crime do not require an actual, completed genocide, in the common-sense understanding of the term, but only a prohibited act with the intent of destroying the group in whole or in part. Part II explores the curious fate of both conspiracy and incitement to commit genocide under current international criminal law. Conspiracy to commit genocide was applied at the ad hoc tribunals but rejected by the drafters of the Rome Statute, thus leading to serious confusion over its status under customary law, while incitement to commit genocide is burdened by uncertainty over its inchoate status. Part III then concludes with a brief, speculative discussion of state responsibility for genocide for these modes of liability.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 4 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

In these brief commentaries to the U.N. Genocide Convention, I explore three criminal law modes of liability as they apply to the international crime of genocide. Part I analyzes attempt to commit genocide and uncovers a basic tension over whether attempt refers to the genocide itself (the chapeau) or the underlying offense (such as killing). Part I concludes that the tension stems from the fact that the crime of genocide itself is already inchoate in nature, since the legal requirements for the crime do not require an actual, completed genocide, in the common-sense understanding of the term, but only a prohibited act with the intent of destroying the group in whole or in part. Part II explores the curious fate of both conspiracy and incitement to commit genocide under current international criminal law. Conspiracy to commit genocide was applied at the ad hoc tribunals but rejected by the drafters of the Rome Statute, thus leading to serious confusion over its status under customary law, while incitement to commit genocide is burdened by uncertainty over its inchoate status. Part III then concludes with a brief, speculative discussion of state responsibility for genocide for these modes of liability.

Key concepts: Genocide, Incitement, Commit, Law, Political science, Statute, Criminology, International law

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Attempt, Conspiracy, and Incitement to Commit Genocide — Research Paper | ScholarLens