[HTML] oup.com

Reexamining the American genocide debate: Meaning, historiography, and new methods

B Madley - The American Historical Review, 2015 – academic.oup.com

NATIVE AMERICANS SUFFERED A catastrophic demographic decline following sustained contact with Europeans. From a pre-contact population of perhaps 5,000,000 or more, the number of American Indians within the continental United States and its colonial …

  Cited by 27 Related articles All 3 versions

The United States and the Genocide Convention: leading advocate and leading obstacle

W Korey - Ethics & International Affairs, 1997 – cambridge.org

Abstract While the United States is now an international leader in the fight against genocide and human rights abuses, it only recently ratified the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide–forty years after the convention’s unanimous adoption …

  Cited by 5 Related articles All 7 versions

[PDF] lse.ac.uk

Acculturation and the acceptance of the Genocide Convention

KE Smith - Cooperation and conflict, 2013 – journals.sagepub.com

This article contributes to the burgeoning literature on why states ratify human rights treaties. It first analyses why Ireland, the United Kingdom and the United States did not initially ratify or accede to the 1948 Genocide Convention, and then explores why the three countries …

  Cited by 2 Related articles All 4 versions

• Volume 11
• March 1997 , pp. 271-290

The United States and the Genocide Convention: Leading Advocate and Leading Obstacle

• William Korey
• • https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-7093.1997.tb00032.x
  • Published online: 01 September 2012

Abstract

While the United States is now an international leader in the fight against genocide and human rights abuses, it only recently ratified the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide– forty years after the convention’s unanimous adoption by the UN General Assembly. Korey provides a description of the long struggle for ratification of the Genocide Convention, detailing decades of work by a committee of fifty-two nongovernmental organizations lobbying the Senate and the American Bar Association, the treaty’s key opponent. Despite the public support for the United Nations and human rights by the United States, failure to ratify the Genocide Convention stemmed primarily from the fear that international covenants were threats to U.S. sovereignty. The United States finally overcame this fear with the ratification of the Genocide Convention in 1988, which opened the door for U.S. leadership.

• Export citation Request permission

Copyright

COPYRIGHT: © Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs 1997

References

 Hide All

¹ The statement was made in a letter to the U.S. Embassy in The Hague. See Dobbs, Michael, “War Crimes Prosecutor Says U.S. Information Insufficient,” Washington Post, November 7, 1995, 1Google Scholar.

² Lemkin, Raphael, Axis Rule in Occupied Europe (Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1944Google Scholar).

³ On the drafting process, see Robinson, Nehemiah, The Genocide Convention: A Commentary (New York: World Jewish Congress, 1960Google Scholar).

⁴ See Korey, William, “Human Rights Treaties: Why is the U.S. Stalling?” Foreign Affairs 45 (April1967), 414–24CrossRef | Google Scholar.

⁵ Ibid, 417Google Scholar

⁶ For an analysis of the early and continuing ABA views, see Goldberg, Arthur J. and Gardner, Richard N., “Time to Act on the Genocide Convention,” American Bar Association Journal 58 (February 1972),141–45Google Scholar.

⁷ Klitzman, Stephen H., Baab, Craig H., and Murphy, Brian C., “Ratification of the Genocide Convention: From the Ashes of ‘Shoah’ Past the Shoals of the Senate,” Federal Bar News & Journal33 (1986), 357Google Scholar.

⁸ Korey, , “Human Rights Treaties,” 418Google Scholar.

⁹ Notes on the origin of the Committee were prepared by Betty Kaye Taylor, executive secretary, and made available to the authorGoogle Scholar.

¹⁰ Mimeographed copies of Gardner’s statement, running twelve pages, were released on March 8, 1967, by the Ad Hoc Committee on Human Rights and Genocide Treaties, together with a summarization for the press. The documents are in the author’s possessionGoogle Scholar.

¹¹ Statement by the AFL—CIO Executive Council, February 23, 1968Google Scholar.

¹² Graham, Fred P., “Bar Unit Neutral on UN Treaties,” New York Times, April 29, 1967, 1Google Scholar.

¹³ IbidGoogle Scholar.

¹⁴ Hunter, Gene, “Bar Backs One Rights Treaty, Shuns 2 Others,” Honolulu Advertiser, August 10,1967, 1Google Scholar.

¹⁵ IbidGoogle Scholar.

¹⁶ Letter dated November 30,1967, in the possession of the authorGoogle Scholar.

¹⁷ The Proclamation, from the Office of the White House press secretary, is in the Ad Hoc Committee’s files, as is the Reverend Herschel Halbert letterGoogle Scholar.

¹⁸ Letter dated December 13, 1967, Ad Hoc Committee filesGoogle Scholar.

¹⁹ Letter dated December 5, 1967, Ad Hoc Committee filesGoogle Scholar.

²⁰ See a letter of President Nixon to Reverend Herschel Halbert, dated February 27, 1970, for special reference to this transmittal. The letter is from the files of the Ad Hoc CommitteeGoogle Scholar.

²¹ IbidGoogle Scholar.

²² IbidGoogle Scholar.

²³ The above citations are from American Bar News 14 (December 1969)Google Scholar, and are to be found in the files of the Ad Hoc Committee. The committee made them available to the author under the heading, “Section Seeks Endorsement of Genocide Convention.”

²⁴ For details of the meeting, see “Genocide Pact Again Opposed by U.S. Bar Unit,” New York Times, February 24, 1970, 10Google Scholar.

²⁵ Shestack, Jerome J., “Sisyphus Endures: The International Human Rights NGO,” New York Law School Law Review 24 (1978), 89–123Google Scholar.

²⁶ Congressional Record-Senate, June 10, 1970, S8720Google Scholar.

²⁷ Washington Post, April 26, 1971Google Scholar.

²⁸ From the files of the Ad Hoc CommitteeGoogle Scholar.

²⁹ Information about this was recorded by Betty Kaye Taylor and is in the files of the Ad Hoc CommitteeGoogle Scholar.

³⁰ The citation is from the files of the Ad Hoc CommitteeGoogle Scholar.

³¹ See Congressional Record, Senate 118 (October 5, 1972)Google Scholar.

³² IbidGoogle Scholar.

³³ Madden, Richard L., “Bid to End Debate on Genocide Fails,” New York Times, February 7, 1974, 2Google Scholar.

³⁴ The testimony is from the files of the Ad Hoc CommitteeGoogle Scholar.

³⁵ From the files of the Ad Hoc CommitteeGoogle Scholar.

³⁶ His testimony is in the files of the Ad Hoc Committee and was made available to the authorGoogle Scholar.

³⁷ “International Observer Roundtable,”Radio Moscow, December 9,1979. Cited in Korey, William, “Sin of Omission,” Foreign Policy 39 (Summer 1980), 173Google Scholar. Another commentator on tnc same program sarcastically noted that “the Senate’s position speaks quite eloquently…of the present American enthusiasm for human rights.”

³⁸ Teltsch, Kathleen, “Crusader Against Genocide Recalled,” New York Times, December 4, 1983, 45Google Scholar.

³⁹ Gwertzman, Bernard, “Reagan Will Submit 1948 Genocide Pact for Senate Approval,” New York Times, September 6, 1984Google Scholar, the Washington Post commented in a lead editorial, “Ratify the Genocide Treaty,” the next day, September 7,1984.

⁴⁰ Jewish Telegraphic Agency, Daily News Bulletin. December 23, 1985, 4.Google Scholar The article reviewed the developments of the year.

⁴¹ Toner, Robin, “After 37 Years, Senate Endorses a Genocide Ban,” New York Times, February 29,1986, 1Google Scholar.

⁴² Molotsky, Irvin, “Senate Votes to Carry Out Treaty Banning Genocide,” New York Times, October 15, 1988, 2Google Scholar.

⁴³ See New York Times, October 29, 1988, B8Google Scholar | PubMed.

⁴⁴ Roberts, Steven V., “Reagan Signs Bill Ratifying UN Genocide Pact,” New York Tunes, November 5, 1988, 28Google Scholar.

The Genocide Convention and the Constitution – Yale Law School …

digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3478&context=fss…

by MS McDougal – ‎1950 – ‎Cited by 50 - ‎Related articles

See also 22 TRIAL OF THE MAJOR WAR CRrIMINALs 491-96 (Nuremberg, 1948); Lemkin,. The U.N. Genocide Convention, 95 CONG. REc. A 1224 (1949). It is significant … Spokesmen for the American Bar Associationhave urged that this Con- … and punishment and for the trial of persons accused thereof either in our.

The United States and the Genocide Convention – Wiley Online Library

onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1747-7093.1997.tb00032.x/pdf

Oct 6, 1977 - commit genocide must be clearly demonstrated before anoffender can be con- victed. Intent is a central element of U.S-.criminal law, as distinct from legal notions in other systems of jurisprudence. It stands as the cornerstone of the genocide treaty. Thus, the treaty’s key Article 2 outlaws “acts committed with