Where is R2P grounded in international law? Anne-Marie Judson A ...

give effect to the present convention and in particular to provide effective penalties for
persons guilty of genocide or any other acts enumerated in Article III. Thus the
responsibility to protect and prevent such crimes including their incitement remains
firstly with the state. 225 Article VI reinforces this position by stating that persons
charged with genocide will be tried by the state in the territory where the act was
committed. For application purposes Article VIII says that ‘any contracting party may
call upon the United Nations for the prevention and suppression of the acts of
genocide’. Article IX gives the ICJ jurisdiction and this includes disputes on the
responsibility of a state for genocide. Finally any party may invoke a request in
relation to genocide indicating the seriousness of the crime of genocide and the
lengths the United Nations will go to enforce this jurisdiction on any party committing
a violation or a breach.
The Reservations to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
(1951) gives us some insight into the customary nature of the convention. The ICJ was
asked by the General Assembly to give its opinion on the reservations of the Genocide
Convention. 226 The Judges said,
The principles underlying the Convention are recognized by civilized nations
as binding on states even without any conventional obligation. It was intended
that the convention would be universal in scope. Its purpose is purely
humanitarian and civilizing. The individual states do not have any advantages
or disadvantages nor interests of their own, but merely a common interest.
This leads to the conclusion that the object and purpose of the convention
implies that it was the intention of the General Assembly and of the states that
adopted it that as many states as possible should participate”. 227
Much later, in 1996, an advisory opinion of the ICJ on the Legality of the Threat or Use of
Nuclear Weapons, pointed out that “the prohibition of genocide would be pertinent in
this case if the recourse to nuclear weapons did indeed entail the element of intent,
225 United Nations World Summit outcome document (2005) paragraph 138
226 See United Nations General Assembly Resolution 16 th November (1950)
227 International Court of Justice. (1951). The Reservations to the Convention on the Prevention
and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Advisory Opinion of 28th May (1951) pp 18-­‐20 in
summaries of judgment.
73