lubunmi O Dairo
76-101
February 2010
Tone thesis
Topic sentence analytic make sure it ties back into the intro.
Quotes sandwich
Distinguish between Lemkin and me
For centuries, the mass murder of people lacked a name but it was truly the Holocaust
that spurred the coining of the term genocide by Raphael Lemkin. With his new term in tow,
Lemkin sought after universal acknowledgment of his word. Raphael Lemkins Genocide
argues that by recognizing genocide as an international crime, the global community will be able
to take the first step toward prevention and prosecution of this atrocity. For Lemkin, the only
feasible way to accomplish this was through a treaty. For Lemkin, a treaty is the only way to
properly address this crime.
Identifying genocide as international crime was crucial to Lemkins plan because his
belief was that genocide could not be tackled as a national crime. Lemkin asserts that genocide is
largely sanctioned by the state and that causes bias in dealing with the crime. Impractical to
treat genocide as a national crime, since by its very nature it is committed by state or by powerful
groups which have the backing of the state (III.6). If a crime is backed by the state, the state will
most likely avoid indicting those committing the crime. This is why Lemkin believed that the
crime should be international so that in the case where a crime is not being properly dealt with by
a state, other countries have the ability to step in and prosecute the perpetrators. Genocide should
be seen as an international crime not only because of the increased ability to prosecute criminals
but also because it is of international concern.
When genocide is being committed in a foreign country, other countries find it hard to
believe and desire to step in. The conscience of mankind has been shocked by type of mass
barbarity (III. 7). Most people find it almost hard to believe that something so horrific could be
taking place. However most countries find themselves unable to step in because it is considered a
national crime. Even though human rights are covered by the UN and was covered formerly by
the League of Nations, genocides occur. Treatment of citizens of other states by their
governments is provided by the minorities treaties under the auspices of the League of nations
(III. 8).The Charter of the United Nations Organization provides for international protection of
human rights indicating that denial of such rights by any state is a matter of concern to all
mankind (III. 8). These proclamations in the charters of the League of Nations and the UN,
they still do not allow other countries to intervene in the case of genocide. Without a treaty
acknowledging genocide as international crime many countries will have no other choice but to
sit back helplessly as they watch the horrors ensue.
The prevention and prosecution of genocide was the number one priority of the Lemkin.
The recognition of the genocide as an international crime was crucial in Lemkins
However the problem that Lemkin found while trying to do this was the absence of a
proper definition of genocide. Once he acquired the name genocide his true battle began. Lemkin
had to get the crime acknowledged as crime of international importance. His belief was that in
order to properly treat genocide, it would require the assistance of the all the countries. If
O lubunmi Dairo
76-101
February 2010
genocide was being condoned by the state it would make it almost impossible for the state to
prosecute their own people. Impractical to treat genocide as a national crime, since by its very
nature it is committed by state or by powerful groups which have the backing of the state. (III.6)
When it comes to national crimes people find it hard to admit their faults and because of that
they lack the impartiality needed to properly prosecute crimes such as genocide. if However it
were recognized as an international crimes other countries would be able to step in then it would
be more probable that crime wouldnt go unpunished. Lemkin proposes that the best way to
achieve this widespread recognition of genocide as a crime would to get the backing of the
United Nations. The UN, which had been newly reformed at that time, was to the main support
of Lemkins treaty. He felt that with the support of the main countries that were contained in the
UN, Lemkin would be able to persuade the other countries to back his treaty.
Genocide should be regarded as international crime is by showing it is of international
concern.
How do you show that he thinks it of international concern use the quoteThe
conscience of mankind has been shocked by type of mass barbarity.
Other examples it comes down to the act of mass murders, one finds that many of the
uninvolved countries are often horrified by what is happening but are unable to act
because of the jurisdiction of the law. This act has been brought to the attention of many
countries but without the proper laws and recognition of genocide as international crime
they are forced to sit back helplessly as they watch the horrors ensue. (Divide this into
separate paragraphs)
According to Lemkin, the acceptance of the treaty would be first step in preventing and
prosecuting genocide. Prevention would be easier once the treaty was enacted because of the
simple fact that the once a crime is officially recognized people are less likely to commit it. Not
only that, but the perpetrators would be liable in any country and that would be a deterrent in
committing the crime. Usually people would find it easy to commit a crime and escape a
neighboring country. With the increased sense of nationality, countries would be less willing to
perpetrate such a crime because they do not want the chance that they could be tried by another
country.
Lemkin asserts that the treaty helps properly prosecute genocide because it allows for
there to be a common law help indict perpetrators. Furthermore adding genocide to prosecution
would allow the gravity of the crimes to be truly felt. By including genocide in the indictment
the enormity of the Nazi crimes has been more accurately described. (V.18) Before the time of
the creation of the word genocide, the trial of those that committed such heinous crimes would
not include or encompass the gravity of the crimes they had executed. In the treaty that Lemkin
prepared he outlined the way genocide would be prosecuted. He felt that the majority of the
blame should be placed on those that directly committed the crime. Liability of genocide should
rest on those who gave and executed the orders (VI. 25) Lemkin believes that even those who
helped carry out the crime be liable as well. By prosecuting both parties it also goes back to the
prevention of the crime. People will be less likely to help commit a crime if they know that they
will be tried for it.
Without the first accepting genocide as an international crime the prosecution and
prevention of genocide would be nearly impossible. This is what Lemkin asserts in his essay, by
making it vehemently clear that genocide should be regarded as international crime in a treaty
backed by the UN. The prosecution and prevention are hinged on the fact that if and when a
O lubunmi Dairo
76-101
February 2010
country is at fault, other countries that are not biased will be able to step in to make sure that
justice prevails. This justice is one that cannot be forgone and in order to have this happen, the
universal nature of genocide must be accepted by those countries that reside in the UN but also
those countries that do not.
In his eyes the implementation of this treaty serves not only the national community
where the genocide occurred but the world as whole.
Word Count: 918