Genocide

Humanitarian intervention is a controversial issue in international relations and it is imperative for policy makers to understand its nature and complexities. This article seeks to explain France’s humanitarian actions during the Rwandan genocide in 1994 and how they were used to protect its strategic interests in Africa and Rwanda. Retrospectively analyzing the actions of France during the Rwandan genocide would provide invaluable insights on how powerful states advance their selfish national interests under the guise of humanitarianism. France’s military intervention in Rwanda represented the attempt to weave its strategic interests with its duty under international law to respond in cases of genocide and serious violations of human rights. The descriptive analysis method is used to build the arguments of this article and the conclusion reveals that France’s actions of leading the humanitarian intervention during the Rwandan genocide were not manifestations of a benevolent foreign policy but the pursuit of its selfish goals.

Rohingya Muslims have suffered persecution and genocide in the Republic of Myanmar (formerly Burma) and have been expelled from the country by the military junta who are in power. The evidence is incontrovertible of grave human rights abuses and that the refugees have lived in diaspora with no prospect of returning home. The UN human rights investigators have compiled reports that testify to the inhumanities that they have suffered prior to their expulsion. Despite this, there has been no efforts towards redressing this problem which falls within the remit of international human rights and humanitarian law. The actions of the Myanmar authorities in using force can be considered as Non-International Armed Conflict (NIAC) and the UN intervention under the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) measure, could be activated. This can serve as a basis for arresting the responsible officials in Myanmar and prosecuting them under an international tribunal. This has not been possible because of the lack of consensus in the international community and the exercise of the veto power by some members of the Security Council. This article argues that there should be intervention in this conflict under the existing precedent by broadening the scope of intervention and then by prosecution in a specially constituted tribunal. The R2P mechanism can be activated by prescribing the genocide of the Rohingyas within the framework of an NIAC and by constituting a tribunal under the Tadic principle to try the members of the Myanmar’s regime for their breaches of IHL.

The challenges of the past century—such as terrorism, nuclear threats, population growth,and drug trafficking—have significantly impacted global security and human rights. Amongthese, the “Environmental Crisis” stands out as one of the most pressing issues facing theinternational community and the rights of future generations. These rights are increasinglythreatened not only by terrorism and nuclear risks but also by the alarming proliferation of theCOVID-19 pandemic, which has emerged as a formidable challenge in the 21st century. It isessential to recognize that these challenges constitute a substantial part of criminal conduct atvarious national, regional, and international levels. To effectively address the myriad forms ofcrimes against the rights of future generations, the adoption of a robust and effective criminalpolicy is imperative. However, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC)has not sufficiently criminalized or addressed crimes specifically targeting future generations.Nonetheless, the Statute’s provisions concerning recognized international crimes—such aswar crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide—may offer a framework for addressingoffenses that infringe upon the rights of future generations. Thus, it is conceivable to pursueaccountability for such crimes within the jurisdiction of the ICC.