This thesis posits that the term “genocide” and the ‘Genocide Convention’ have been inconsistently used by the international community since the term entered the international law vocabulary and...Show moreThis thesis posits that the term “genocide” and the ‘Genocide Convention’ have been inconsistently used by the international community since the term entered the international law vocabulary and the convention entered into force. Within this, some mass killings appear to fulfil the convention’s criteria, but they are not defined as genocide by the international criminal justice system i.e. the actor that best placed in this community to authoritatively do so, due to its supposed impartiality. This research aims to answer why this is the case. To do so, it first outlines the history of the term genocide and its (historical) role in international criminal justice. Next, it analyses the Genocide Convention and answers why some mass killings are defined as genocide. It does so via an analysis of the avenues through which international criminal justice has been – and can be – pursued, and their cases. This thesis then engages in most-similar case study analyses of various mass killings in Rwanda (1994) and the former Yugoslavia (1995). Accordingly, it argues that some mass killings are not defined as genocide partly because of: the requirement of domestic and international) political will for trying mass killings as genocide(s) and; political interests. In other words, the international criminal justice system is inconsistent when defining mass killings as genocide because it is susceptible to the political will and interests of myriad stakeholders in the international community.Show less
