Delve into the in-depth and compelling study of crimes against humanity. This exploration offers precise definitions, differentiation from other violations, and an examination of how they are handled by the International Criminal Court. Uncover the elements and characteristics of such transgressions, and peruse through significant examples from contemporary history. Understand the nuanced differences between genocide and crimes against humanity, while casting a spotlight on the role of UK criminal law regarding these severe atrocities. This analysis provides a rigorous take on the subject, offering fundamental knowledge for students, legal professionals, or anyone deeply interested in law and human rights.
Understanding Crimes Against Humanity
Crimes against humanity are some of the most severe offences under international law, aimed at safeguarding the basic human rights and dignity of all people.
Crimes against humanity refer to widespread or systematic attacks directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack.
The term was first officially used following World War II in the Nuremberg Trials, where prominent Nazi officers were prosecuted under international law for their roles in mass atrocities.
Definition: What Are Crimes Against Humanity?
Crimes against humanity consist of various acts, such as murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, imprisonment, torture, rape, and other inhumane acts. These are often committed as part of an orchestrated campaign against a large number of civilians and are typically associated with government policy or supported by prior planning. Let's delve deeper.
An example of crimes against humanity is the Holocaust, where millions of Jews, alongside other marginalized groups, were systematically exterminated by Nazi Germany. Another more recent example involves the atrocities committed during the former Yugoslavia's war, resulting in international community establishing the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia.
Differentiating Crimes Against Humanity from Other Violations
Other violations such as genocide, war crimes, and crimes of aggression are distinct from crimes against humanity. A distinguishing characteristic is that:
- Genocide aims to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group,
- War crimes are those serious violations committed during armed conflict, and
- Crimes of aggression are acts wherein a state uses armed force against another state's sovereignty or territorial integrity.
A Look into the Law: International Criminal Court and Crimes Against Humanity
The role of the International Criminal Court (ICC) is paramount in the prosecution of crimes against humanity. Established in 2002 by the Rome Statute, it serves as an independent, permanent court to try persons accused of the most serious crimes of international concern, including crimes against humanity.
One significant case that the ICC is handling is against Omar al-Bashir, the former President of Sudan, who is charged with crimes against humanity and war crimes committed in Darfur between 2003 and 2008.
Understanding the Role of the International Criminal Court
The International Criminal Court is a court of last resort, intervening only when national criminal jurisdictions do not or cannot take action. It is designed to hold those responsible for the most serious crimes of global concern to justice. This is a delicate yet critical process.
| Party responsible |
Action/Responsibility |
| Prosecutor's Office |
Carries out investigations into crimes |
| Pre-Trial Chamber |
Decides whether charges should be confirmed |
| Trial Chamber |
Conducts full trials and delivers judgments |
The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court is the first treaty to recognise various forms of gender-based violence as crimes against humanity, war crimes, and, in some instances, genocide. This progress in international law was made during the late 20th century.
Elements of Crimes Against Humanity
The elements constituting crimes against humanity are outlined distinctly in law. Taking a detailed look into these distinct elements can help one understand the nature and severity of these inhumane actions.
Crimes against humanity entail acts that are part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population. The attack must be committed with knowledge of the broader context in which it occurs, and typically involves multiple occurrences of gruesome acts.
Investigating the Key Features that Define Crimes Against Humanity
An offence is qualified as a crime against humanity, as per the Rome Statute, if it fulfils a number of conditions. Between these conditions, three main features are often emphasized:
- The act must be severe, violating basic human rights, and include, but not limited to, extermination, enslavement, rape, forced displacement, and torture.
- The act should be committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack against a civilian population. The act does not necessarily have to be both widespread and systematic; one of these is sufficient.
- The perpetrator must have the knowledge that his/her actions form part of such an attack.
The ethnic cleansing in the Bosnian War from 1992 to 1995 represents how these key features define crimes against humanity. During this conflict, acts such as murder, torture, rape, and forced displacement were committed en masse by several factions. The severity of these actions, the large scale on which they were carried out, and the knowledge of the perpetrators that their actions were part of this campaign, made this situation a clear case of crimes against humanity.
The Role of Intentionality in Crimes Against Humanity
Crucial to the definition of crimes against humanity is the role of the perpetrator's intentionality, or what legal professionals refer to as mens rea. According to international law, for an act to be classified as a crime against humanity, it must be committed 'with intent and knowledge'. The perpetrator must knowingly take part in a widespread or systematic attack against any civilian population.
Mens rea refers to the Latin term meaning 'guilty mind'. In criminal law, it represents the mental state of an individual who willingly commits a criminal act.
The Disturbing Reality: Examples of Crimes Against Humanity
There are numerous examples of atrocities that have qualified as crimes against humanity, as they fulfil the aforementioned criteria. These cases are often deeply disturbing, spanning regions and eras, indicating that such crimes are a global issue transcending time.
An instance of such brutality is the Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia (1975-1979) where an estimated two million Cambodians died through execution, forced labour, or starvation. The widespread nature of these crimes and the intent behind them qualifies them as crimes against humanity.
Analysing Notable Cases of Crimes Against Humanity
Analysing some notable cases helps bring clarity to the concept of crimes against humanity. Two significant cases come to mind: the Nuremberg Trials and the dehumanising acts during the Rwandan Genocide.
| Case |
Description |
| Nuremberg Trials |
The Nuremberg Trials were a series of military tribunals held to prosecute prominent leaders of Nazi Germany for their involvement in crimes against humanity during World War II. The trials set an essential precedent in international justice. |
| Rwandan Genocide |
The Rwanda Genocide was a mass slaughter of Tutsi ethnic group by the ethnic Hutu extremists. Within a span of 100 days, an estimated 500,000 to 800,000 Tutsi were killed. Given its scope and intent, this event is considered a dreadful crime against humanity. |
It's crucial to note that an act can qualify both as a crime against humanity and another type of major violation, such as genocide or war crimes. For instance, during the Rwandan genocide, many of the atrocious acts committed also qualified as crimes against humanity because they were part of a systematic or widespread attack against a civilian population with full awareness of the perpetrators.
Exploring the List of Crimes Against Humanity
The malevolent range of actions that constitute crimes against humanity is broad. To have a comprehensive understanding of what crimes against humanity envelop, it's crucial to familiarise oneself with the recognised types of these heinous acts.
Types of Atrocities: Familiarising with the List of Recognised Crimes Against Humanity
Crimes against humanity, as defined by the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Explanatory Memorandum, encompass a wide range of acts. These acts are not random but are rather part of a coordinated attack directed against any civilian population. The key factor is that the perpetrator must be aware that his conduct is part of said coordinated assault.
The Rome Statute is an international treaty establishing the International Criminal Court (ICC). It provides the court with jurisdiction over four key international crimes: genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression.
The broad types of recognised crimes against humanity include:
- Murder
- Extermination
- Enslavement
- Deportation or forcible transfer of population
- Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty
- Torture
- Rape, sexual slavery, or other forms of sexual violence of comparable gravity
- Persecution against an identifiable group on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, or gender grounds
- Enforced disappearance of persons
- The crime of apartheid
- Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health
An instance which exemplifies several types of crimes against humanity is the violence in Darfur, Sudan, which began in 2003. Civilians were subject to a relentless campaign of murder, extermination, forcible transfer, rape, and other forms of sexual violence. Several factions are responsible for this violence, including the Sudanese government.
Examining the Scope and Range of Crimes Against Humanity
The lawful scope and range of crimes against humanity are extensive. One of the singular attributes of crimes against humanity is their nonspecific nature. While other serious international crimes such as genocide and war crimes require an association to armed conflict or to targeted violence against specific protected groups, crimes against humanity can occur in times of war and peace and towards any civilian population.
Enforced disappearance refers to the arrest, detention, kidnapping, or any form of deprivation of liberty by agents of the state, followed by a refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of liberty or by concealment of the fate or whereabouts of the disappeared person.
For these transgressions to classify as a crime against humanity, it's not necessary that they are committed during an armed conflict — they may also occur in peacetime. However, they should still be part of a systematic or widespread directive against a civilian population.
An example of crimes against humanity in peacetime is the ongoing North Korean political prison camp system, where it's reported that up to 200,000 people are presently incarcerated and subjected to forced labour, torture, execution, rape, human experimentation, and starvation.
| Crime |
Description |
| Murder |
Intentional killing of another person. |
| Extermination |
Intentional infliction of conditions of life, inter alia the deprivation of access to food and medicine, calculated to bring about the destruction of part of a population. |
| Enforced Disappearance of Persons |
Arrest, detention, abduction or any other form of deprivation of liberty by agents of the state or by persons or groups of persons acting with the authorisation, support, or acquiescence of the state, followed by a refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of liberty or by concealment of the fate or whereabouts of the disappeared person. |
It's worth noting that the definitions of various crimes against humanity vary slightly, according to different legal jurisdictions. However, the Rome Statute definitions provide a broad and internationally recognised frame of reference. Additionally, the individual criminal responsibility plays a significant role in the prosecution of these crimes, emphasising the principle that persons committing these heinous acts are individually held responsible, irrespective of the state's involvement or endorsement of their actions.
Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity
Genocide and crimes against humanity stand as two of the most severe violations of international human rights law. They epitomise the darkest side of humanity, reflecting actions that completely disregard human life, dignity, and freedom. Understanding the key differences and similarities between these two grave crimes is essential for students of law, history, politics, and international relations.
The Fine Line: Differentiating Between Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity
At first glance, genocide and crimes against humanity may appear similar, as they both encompass egregious acts involving mass atrocities. However, they are uniquely separated by important legal distinctions.
Genocide is characterised as a series of acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group. This includes killing members of the group, causing serious bodily or mental harm, and deliberately imposing conditions of life calculated to bring about the group's physical destruction.
On the other hand, crimes against humanity comprise various acts, such as murder, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population. The element of 'intent to destroy' a specific group is not necessary for crimes against humanity as it is in genocide. Crimes against humanity can target any civilian population and can occur in times of war or peace.
For an act to qualify as genocide, there must be a proven specific intent \( \textit{dolus specialis} \), which is a greater burden of proof than is required for crimes against humanity. Sophisticated investigative techniques and evidentiary standards are established by the international community to prove such odious intent.
A common misconception is that genocide requires more deaths than crimes against humanity. This is untrue. The crime of genocide focuses not on the number of lives lost, but rather on the intent to destroy the protected group. Thus, even a smaller number of victims may make up a genocide if the associated intent is present. Conversely, a crime against humanity could involve significantly more victims yet lack the specialised intent required for genocide.
Case Studies of Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity
Studying real-world examples aids in cementing the theoretical distinctions between genocide and crimes against humanity. Two notable case studies emerge from history: the horrors of the Holocaust, recognised as genocide, and the widespread atrocities of the Khmer Rouge regime, typically categorised as crimes against humanity.
The Holocaust, executed by Nazi Germany during World War II, is an example of genocide. Six million Jews, along with millions more, including Roma and disabled individuals, were systematically exterminated due to their racial and biological identities. The event clearly manifests the intent to destroy entirely, or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group.
Contrarily, the Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia (1975-1979) is recognised as a period marked by crimes against humanity. Under Pol Pot's leadership, approximately two million people (a quarter of Cambodia's population at the time) were killed through execution, forced labour, or starvation. Despite the extreme severity and scale of these atrocities, the acts lack a proven specific intent \( \textit{dolus specialis} \) needed to categorise them as genocide.
Examination of these cases provides essential insights into the subtle but important deviations between genocide and crimes against humanity. It highlights the centrality of intentional design in considering an act as genocide, whereas crimes against humanity focus on the nature and scale of atrocities.
| Case Study |
Category |
Rationale |
| The Holocaust |
Genocide |
The systematic extermination attempted to eradicate specific racial and ethnic groups, meeting the 'intent to destroy' criterion of genocide. |
| Khmer Rouge regime |
Crimes against humanity |
Despite the mass scale and severe nature of the acts, they lacked the specific intent to destroy a particular group, thus aligning more with the definition of crimes against humanity. |
Crimes Against Humanity in UK Criminal Law
Understanding how the UK legal system addresses crimes against humanity provides an intriguing study of how national laws can incorporate international legal norms. As you delve into this topic, you will gain insights into the evolution of criminal law in the UK, as it strives to align with the broader joint effort to prevent and punish grave violations of human rights.
How UK Criminal Law Deals with Crimes Against Humanity
UK criminal law addresses crimes against humanity through the International Criminal Court Act 2001 (ICCA). This Act transposes the crimes under the jurisdiction of the ICC, including crimes against humanity, into domestic law. Hence, national courts can exercise jurisdiction over these universal crimes committed domestically or abroad.
The International Criminal Court Act 2001 is the principal legislation of the UK that incorporates the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) into national law, thus enabling UK courts to prosecute individuals for serious international crimes such as genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes.
The ICCA defines crimes against humanity similarly as the Rome Statute. It classifies as crimes against humanity various acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population.
Consider the case against Charles Taylor, the former President of Liberia. This landmark case demonstrates how UK criminal law deals with crimes against humanity. Taylor was tried and convicted not in Liberia, but at The Hague and served his 50-year sentence in a UK prison. Under UK law, Taylor was found guilty of aiding and abetting crimes against humanity during the Sierra Leone Civil War, marking an important precedent in international justice.
The Role of National Courts in Prosecuting Crimes Against Humanity
National courts, including those in the UK, play a fundamental role in combating crimes against humanity. The primary task to investigate and prosecute these heinous crimes rests with national courts, adhering to the principle of complementarity.
The principle of complementarity asserts that the International Criminal Court (ICC) would only intervene when national courts are unwilling or unable to prosecute criminals. Thus, the ICC does not replace national courts, but rather complements them in achieving global justice.
Thus, the UK courts have prosecutorial power over these crimes committed on UK soil or by UK citizens abroad, or when the accused is present within the jurisdiction of the UK. By prosecuting such grave violations of human norms, national courts, like the ones in the UK, convey a strong signal to perpetrators, that grave violations of human rights will not go unpunished, irrespective of where they are committed.
A relevant example is the case of Faryadi Sarwar Zardad, an Afghan warlord who sought refuge in the UK. In 2005, Zardad was found guilty by the Old Bailey of torture and hostage-taking in Afghanistan during the 1990s. This marked the first-ever conviction in the UK of someone accused of committing serious human rights offences overseas and set a strong precedent within UK law.
| Act |
Consequence under ICCA 2001 |
| Crime committed by a UK national overseas |
The UK courts have jurisdiction, and the person can be convicted by the UK national court. |
| Crime committed within the UK |
The person responsible for the crime can be tried and convicted in the UK, irrespective of nationality. |
| Crime committed by an individual present within the UK jurisdiction |
The person, regardless of nationality or where the crime was committed, can be tried and convicted. |
The application of universal jurisdiction in the UK for crimes against humanity shows the commitment of the nation to uphold international law norms. By choosing to prosecute international crimes on a national level, the UK contributes significantly to the prevention of such atrocities and the advancement of global justice.
Crimes against humanity - Key takeaways
- Crimes against Humanity are part of a broader systematic or widespread attack targeted at any civilian population and are typically multiple occurrences of gruesome acts. The offender must be aware that his/her actions are part of such an attack.
- The Rome Statute identifies three main criteria for an act to qualify as a crime against humanity: the act must be severe (e.g., extermination, enslavement, torture); the act must be part of a widespread or systematic attack against a civilian population; the actor must be aware that his/her actions form part of such an attack.
- Mens rea is a legal term representing the mental state of someone willfully committing a crime. It plays a key role in qualifying an act as a crime against humanity.
- Acts constituting crimes against humanity include murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, imprisonment, torture, and other similar acts causing great suffering or severe injury to body or mental or physical health.
- The fundamental difference between Genocide and Crimes against Humanity lies in the intent. Genocide requires an intent to destroy, entirely or partially, a specific national, ethnic, racial or religious group whereas crimes against humanity can target any civilian population and can occur in times of war or peace.
Explanations 
Exams 
Magazine 
