Research On Universal Jurisdiction Of Genocide Crime

Among the serious international crimes,the crime of genocide has always been a close concern of the international community and it has sought to severely punish the crime.In 1948,the adoption of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide meant that the state reached a certain consensus on the effective punishment of the crime of genocide.States and expert committees actively discussed the issue of jurisdiction over genocide in the development of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.Regarding the crime of genocide,whether the concept of universal jurisdiction and universal jurisdiction should be applied should be included in the provisions of the Convention,and countries and the Committee of Experts have different opinions.This article will study the universal jurisdiction of the crime of genocide,through the elaboration of the dispute process of Article 6 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide,and discover the judicial practice of the State and the International Court of Justice after the Convention was enacted.There are discrepancies in the regulations.Next,through the analysis of the relevant judicial practice of the universal jurisdiction of the genocide after the enactment of the Convention,it is concluded that relevant judicial practice can be used as a follow-up practice to re-examine the conclusions of Article 6 of the Convention on the Elimination of Crimes.And through the study IVof the above judicial practice,explore how the practice of the International Court of Justice,the court and the state interact.Finally,a proposal is made on how the universal jurisdiction of genocide should develop.The article begins with a discussion of the controversy in the development of article 6 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide,focusing on whether the principle of universal jurisdiction can be applied to the crime of genocide and whether the concept of universal jurisdiction should be included in the provisions of the Convention.In this regard,expert committees,countries,institutions,and scholars have different opinions.Secondly,the article mainly analyzes the relevant judicial practices for the universal jurisdiction of the crime of genocide after the formulation of the Convention.From the national legislation,the state practice before the International Court practice,the national practice after the International Court practice,the analysis of Israel,Belgium,Spain,Germany and other countries,the International Court of Justice practice as a separation point,with the "Eichmann case","Guatemala genocide case" and other cases in a series of links,comments and analysis of the above judicial practice can be summarized as a post-mortem practice,and put forward the characteristics of the above judicial practice.Thirdly,the article is based on the judicial practice of universal jurisdiction over genocide,mainly from the perspective of the three institutions of the International Court of Justice,the International Criminal Court and the International Criminal Court,and explores how the practice of these three institutions affects the country's crimes against genocide.How to make universal jurisdiction,and how state practice affects the practice of the International Court.Finally,the article combines the judicial practice of the universal jurisdiction of genocide,and proposes relevant recommendations and conclusions on the clarity and development of universal jurisdiction.