Disponible en français.

Genocide, a crime under international law, has been officially recognized in several cases by national or international courts and tribunals, such as the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. However, states, non-governmental organizations and intergovernmental organizations such as the United Nations (UN) are also involved in determining whether a situation could be referred to as “genocide.” Although such a step is not without controversy, states can express their political recognition of these situations through various means, including motions, resolutions or official declarations from the legislative and executive branches. This HillNote addresses the practice of political (or state) recognition of genocide.

Impacts of State Recognition

Political recognition of genocide by a state, while not legally binding (which would require a decision by an international or national court of jurisdiction), can nonetheless contribute to the prevention or ending of genocide and to the commemoration of its victims.

For ongoing genocides, political recognition can serve as a “name and shame” strategy intended to put a stop to the atrocities and attract international attention. It can be seen as creating a moral imperative that encourages other countries and organizations to take action to prevent an escalation of violence, thereby helping to put a stop to the genocide. Moreover, when a genocide is recognized, it entails obligations to prevent and punish the crime of genocide under Article 1 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG). In Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) held that

[i]n fact, a State’s obligation to prevent, and the corresponding duty to act, arise at the instant that the State learns of, or should normally have learned of, the existence of a serious risk that genocide will be committed. From that moment onwards, if the State has available to it means likely to have a deterrent effect on those suspected of preparing genocide, or reasonably suspected of harbouring specific intent (dolus specialis), it is under a duty to make such use of these means as the circumstances permit.

For historical genocides, the ICJ’s ruling in Croatia v. Serbia established that the CPPCG cannot be applied retroactively to events prior to 1951 (when the CPPCG entered into force). While the definition of genocide can be used when referring to these historical events, legal proceedings may not invoke the CPPCG. Nonetheless, a political recognition can be an act of commemoration, for example, by instituting days of remembrance or introducing legislation to help combat Holocaust denial. However, some states may be reluctant to refer to a situation as genocide, fearing negative repercussions and tensions between states.

Those countries party to the CPPCG, including Canada, which ratified the convention in 1952, may also be held responsible if they fail to fulfill their obligation to prevent genocide. However, the ICJ emphasized in Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro that the obligation is not one of results, but rather an obligation of means or of conduct, further to the concept of due diligence.

Overview of Other Countries’ Approaches

Internationally, there is no uniform standard for the political recognition of genocide. The CPPCG does not define either the duty of prevention or how it should be applied, leaving each state to adopt its own approach. As a result, state designation varies from one nation to another.

Some states, such as New Zealand, do not recognize genocides politically. In a 2022 document, New Zealand’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade explained that New Zealand relies solely on the decisions of national or international courts to recognize a genocide. However, other states take a more open stance. For instance, the United Kingdom distinguishes between the genocides it officially acknowledges (including the genocides in Srebrenica and Rwanda) and the genocides recognized through parliamentary resolutions, such as the treatment of Uyghurs and other minorities in Xinjiang, China.

The Netherlands [in Dutch] states that it considers U.N. Security Council resolutions and rigorous analyses, including scientific research, to determine which situations will be considered genocide. Its approach resembles that of the United States, which, although lacking a formal framework, bases its recognition of genocide on a legal analysis of the facts in question before adopting an official position.

Historical genocides, particularly those that occurred prior to the adoption of the CPPCG in 1948 (and its entry into force in 1951), are also a matter of debate. Some countries are reluctant to use the term “genocide” because it implies a retroactive application of the definition of the crime of genocide. However, a 2008 constitutional review in France determined that legislators had the right to issue resolutions recognizing historical events.

Canada’s Approach

In Canada, political recognition of genocide happens at two levels: at the executive level, through statements by the Prime Minister or the Minister of Foreign Affairs, for example, and at the legislative level, through motions or bills introduced in both houses of Parliament.

Canada’s approach to recognizing genocide is summarized in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1 – Recognizing Genocide: Canada’s Approach

Source: Figure prepared by the Library of Parliament.

To date, the Canadian government and Parliament have recognized 12 genocides, including the genocide of the Indigenous peoples in Canada. Each international genocide recognized at the federal level is listed in the table below.

Table 1 – Political Recognition of Genocides by Canada

Source: Table prepared by the Library of Parliament.

Recognizing the Genocide of the Indigenous Peoples in Canada

On 27 October 2022, the House of Commons unanimously agreed to a motion moved by member of Parliament Leah Gazan recognizing what occurred in Canada’s residential schools as genocide. This recognition was further to the findings of the final report of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls (2019) and the findings of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (2015), which placed emphasis on the “cultural genocide” that had occurred.

Conclusion

There are various approaches among states regarding the political recognition of genocide, approaches that are part of broader debates on what constitutes genocide, the scope of the duty to prevent it, and how the CPPCG should be applied. State recognition, while not legally binding, can be a significant gesture that can also mark the beginning of peace and reconciliation processes.

By Camille De La Durantaye-Guillard, Library of Parliament

Categories: International affairs and defence, Law, justice and rights

Tags: Defence, Genocide, indigenous peoples, International Affairs, international law