Genocide definitions include both scholarly and legal definitions of genocide. Coined by Raphael Lemkin in 1944,Oxford English Dictionary "Genocide" citing Raphael Lemkin Axis Rule in Occupied Europe ix. 79 the word is a compound of the ancient Greek word (, 'genus', or 'kind') and the Latin word ("kill"). While there are various definitions of the term, almost all international bodies of law officially adjudicate the crime of genocide pursuant to the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG), also called the Genocide Convention. The international legal definition is narrower than various sociological and cultural definitions of genocide,: "Doctrinal opinions can be split into two categories: those who advocate for a broader understanding of the crime, as Larry May does, and those who consider, on the basis of the 1948 Genocide Convention, that genocide should be thought of exclusively in physical and biological terms while cultural genocide should rather be addressed as a human rights issue, per William A. Schabas." narrower than the public perception of what this word means, and also narrower than the legal definition of crimes against humanity. From a legal perspective, crimes against humanity are distinct from genocide, but can sometimes be just as heinous, according to the International Commission of Inquiry on Darfur.: "It is indisputable that genocide bears a special stigma, for it is aimed at the physical obliteration of human groups. However, one should not be blind to the fact that some categories of crimes against humanity may be similarly heinous and carry a similarly grave stigma" (quoting the )
The Genocide Convention and nearly all genocide scholars include an intent to destroy as a requirement for any act to be labelled genocide. While many scholars also acknowledge cultural genocide as a form of genocide, there is general agreement that cultural destruction must also be accompanied by physical destruction to be called genocide. The Convention was a legal instrument resulting from a diplomatic compromise; the wording of the treaty was not intended to be a definition suitable as a research tool, and although it is used for this purpose, as it has an international legal credibility that others lack, other definitions have also been postulated.; ; ; Rouben Paul Adalian writing in 2002 highlights the difficulty of trying to develop a common definition for genocide among specialists.
Legal definition of genocide The 1948 Genocide Convention defines genocide as any of five "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group". The acts in question include killing members of the group, causing them serious bodily or mental harm, imposing living conditions intended to destroy the group, preventing births, and forcibly transferring children out of the group. Genocide is a crime of special intent (); it is carried out deliberately, with victims targeted based on real or perceived membership in a protected group.
The Genocide Convention's words "in whole or in part" were interpreted by the International Court of Justice in 2007 as follows: [S]ince the object and purpose of the Convention as a whole is to prevent the intentional destruction of groups, the part targeted must be significant enough to have an impact on the group as a whole.
United States law also addresses this point. The 1987 statute implementing the Genocide Convention says that the words "in part" mean "in substantial part" and furthermore:
[T]he term "substantial part" means a part of a group of such numerical significance that the destruction or loss of that part would cause the destruction of the group as a viable entity within the nation of which such group is a part.
The genocides recognized under the 1948 legal definition that led to trials in international criminal tribunals are the Cambodian genocide, the Rwandan genocide, and the Srebrenica massacre. But, the International Court of Justice has never held a state liable for genocide. There has been scholarly advocacy for expanding or reinforcing the concept of genocide, while others adhere to the original meaning under the Genocide Convention.: "recent debates show that scholars still differ in their perspectives on this topic, with some advocating for a narrow interpretation of the term, limiting its use to its original intent of referring solely to the Shoah, while others are in favor of expanding and softening this concept..."
Themes in definitions of genocide Raphael Lemkin's original definition of genocide was broader than that later adopted by the United Nations; he focused on genocide as the 'destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups', including actions that led to the 'disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups'. Scholarly definitions vary, but there are three common themes: 'the violence or other action taken should be deliberate, organized, sustained, and large-scale', atrocities are selective for a distinguishable group, and 'the perpetrator takes steps to prevent the group from surviving or reproducing in a given territory'. The colloquial understanding of genocide is heavily influenced by the Holocaust as its archetype and is conceived as innocent victims targeted for their ethnic identity rather than for any political reason.
Genocide is often considered the apex of criminality, worse than other atrocities even if they lead to an equal amount of civilian death and destruction. However, it has also been argued that several categories of the eleven crimes against humanity can be just as heinous. In international law, genocide is distinct from crimes against humanity, and the legal definition of genocide is narrower. Genocide also has a narrower legal definition than many scholarly non-legal definitions, and the public understanding of genocide is likewise broader than the legal definition.
The tension between law and history serves to clarify the variations in the interpretation of genocide legal definitions and popular discussion. Law focuses on serious acts, defining genocide with specific criteria and limited group protections, while historians explore the complexity of genocides without legal restrictions. They consider long-term processes, various motives, and the evolution of group identities after attacks.
According to Ernesto Verdeja, associate professor of political science and peace studies at the University of Notre Dame, there are three ways to conceptualise genocide other than the legal definition: in academic social science, in international politics and policy, and in colloquial public usage. According to Verdeja, most scholars do not require proof of intent beyond a reasonable doubt. Social scientists often define genocide more broadly than the Convention. The international politics and policy definition centres around prevention policy and intervention and may actually mean "large-scale violence against civilians" when used by governments and international organisations. Lastly, Verdeja says the way the general public colloquially uses "genocide" is usually "as a stand-in term for the greatest evils". This is supported by political scientist Kurt Mundorff who highlights how to the general public genocide is "simply mass murder carried out on a grand scale," akin to the crime of extermination which is a crime against humanity in international law, distinct from the crime of genocide.
List of definitions
Whether something is recognized as genocide depends on which definition is used.
Date AuthorDefinition1944Raphael Lemkin, Polish-Jewish lawyerNew conceptions require new terms. By 'genocide' we mean the destruction of a nation or of an ethnic group. This new word, coined by the author to denote an old practice in its modern development, is made from the ancient Greek word genos (race, tribe) and the Latin cide (killing), thus corresponding in its formation to such words as tyrannicide, homicide, infanticide, etc. Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be the disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups. Genocide is directed against the national group as an entity, and the actions involved are directed against individuals, not in their individual capacity, but as members of the national group. (Axis Rule in Occupied Europe ix. 79)1945Count 3 of the indictment of the 24 Nazi leaders at the Nuremberg TrialsThey (the defendants) conducted deliberate and systematic genocide—viz., the extermination of racial and national groups—against the civilian populations of certain occupied territories in order to destroy particular races and classes of people, and national, racial or religious groups, particularly Jews, Poles, Gypsies and others.Oxford English Dictionary "Genocide" citing Sunday Times 21 October 19451945Raphael LemkinIt is for this reason that I took the liberty of inventing the word, genocide. The term is from the Greek word genes meaning tribe or race and the Latin cide meaning killing. Genocide tragically enough must take its place in the dictionary of the future beside other tragic words like homicide and infanticide. As Von Rundstedt has suggested the term does not necessarily signify mass killings although it may mean that. More often it [Genocide] refers to a coordinated plan aimed at destruction of the essential foundations of the life of national groups so that these groups wither and die like plants that have suffered a blight. The end may be accomplished by the forced disintegration of political and social institutions, of the culture of the people, of their language, their national feelings and their religion. It may be accomplished by wiping out all basis of personal security, liberty, health and dignity. When these means fail the machine gun can always be utilized as a last resort. Genocide is directed against a national group as an entity and the attack on individuals is only secondary to the annihilation of the national group to which they belong.1946Raphael LemkinThe crime of genocide should be recognized therein as a conspiracy to exterminate national, religious or racial groups. The overt acts of such a conspiracy may consist of attacks against life, liberty or property of members of such groups merely because of their affiliation with such groups. The formulation of the crime may be as follows: "Whoever, while participating in a conspiracy to destroy a national, racial or religious group, undertakes an attack against life, liberty or property of members of such groups is guilty of the crime of genocide. ("Genocide", American Scholar, Volume 15, no. 2 (April 1946), p. 227–230)1946United Nations General Assembly Resolution 96 (I) (11 December)Genocide is a denial of the right of existence of entire human groups, as homicide is the denial of the right to live of individual human beings; such denial of the right of existence shocks the conscience of mankind, ...and is contrary to moral law and to the spirit and aims of the United Nations. ...