The norm against genocide is at least as old as the term itself (Lemkin 1944). Yet for all the rhetoric and resolutions, genocide persists, often with impunity, and even without condemnation. This...Show moreThe norm against genocide is at least as old as the term itself (Lemkin 1944). Yet for all the rhetoric and resolutions, genocide persists, often with impunity, and even without condemnation. This study focuses explicitly on why some genocides elicit more international condemnation than others. Specifically, it analyses the reactions of the Organisation for Islamic Cooperation [OIC] to the ongoing genocides of the Rohingya minority in Myanmar and the Uyghur minority in China. While the OIC has unconditionally condemned the former, it has been silent concerning the latter. Exploring this discrepancy, I qualifiedly endorse the realist/rational choice explanation: where the costs of condemnation are high, states and organisations are less inclined to act on the norm against genocide. However, as the case of Turkey and its support for the Uyghurs suggests, this is not a complete explanation. Thus, I contend that the identity-motivation of ethnic solidarity represents a stronger, more robust counterweight to the realist pressures of economics and security, thus increasing the likelihood of condemnation.Show less
