gunduz-aktan-kitap-soyledikleri-ve-yazdiklari

SÖYLEDİKLERİ VE YAZDIKLARI
motive for the crimes against humanity as embodied in the
Nuremberg Principles. Expressed differently, in an armed clash
with a group triggered by an existing religious, political or any
other kind of dispute, leading to the deaths of a significant number
of civilians, could be both genocide and a crime against humanity.
The Convention created quite a different situation. Article 2, not
only limits the “intent” to the destruction of only the four groups,
but it also narrows down greatly, as we shall see below, the
grounds for destruction compared to the bases cited in the two
afore-mentioned documents.
During the debates on the Convention, the issue of grounds to
destroy triggered lengthy discussions. The representatives of many
countries argued that proving the presence of motive would be very
hard. If such a requirement were to be stipulated, that would make
it impossible for the courts to deliver genocide verdicts. The
important thing was to prove that the act was perpetrated with
intent to destroy. However, during debates at the Ad hoc
Committee, the Lebanese representative stressed the importance of
the motive, saying that genocide was destroying a group “with
racial hatred”. Later, during debates at the Sixth Committee,
despite the objections of the British and American delegates, the
phrase “as such” which meant that only acts aimed at destroying
members of one of the four groups due to no other reason than his
or her belonging to that specific group, was inserted in Article 2 of
the Convention. This was achieved with the insistence of the Soviet
Union that was leading the “Anti-Fascist Front” with the support of
the majority. This phrase can escape attention at first glance. It
does not have its Turkish equivalent and needs to be translated in
an explanatory manner. Probably because of that difficulty, it has
always been neglected by historians.
One has to take into consideration whether, in the perpetration
of the crime of genocide, the motive was collective or individual.
When an individual kills a member of the target group, this may
not necessarily stem from the fact that the victim was a member of
that specific group. The motive may have been something else. For
instance, it may be a matter of revenge or a desire to confiscate the
victim’s money or other possessions or a mere act of political
ambitions. Genocide, on the other hand, is a collective crime. The
organizers and planners of genocide must have acted with a racial
motive not with a political, religious or any other reason. If they
Gündüz Aktan
241