The Delicate Nature of Genocide’s Legal Meaning
The article discusses the delicate nature of the term “genocide” and its legal implications, emphasizing the importance of reevaluating and possibly refining its definition. This discussion took place during a panel titled “Atrocities and Extermination” at the XXXIX symposium, “The Grey in Which Monsters Are Born: Thinking the Present,” organized by 17, the Critical Studies Institute at the Old College of San Ildefonso.
The Panelists: Experts in Genocide, Violence, and Justice
The panel featured two distinguished speakers: Ximena Medellín Urquiaga from Mexico, a law doctorate holder from UNAM and an expert in International Criminal Law at CIDE, and Manuel Reyes Mate from Spain, a philosopher who has worked on historical memory and the moral, ethical, and epistemological aspects of barbarity.
Incomplete, Complex, and Limited Definition
Ximena Medellín Urquiaga began by referencing Finnish jurist Martti Koskenniemi, who criticized the legal profession for being “irresponsible.” Medellín Urquiaga explained that jurists often focus on legal texts, concepts, and interpretations to support their arguments rather than assuming the public responsibility that comes with being a legal professional.
She further elaborated on the genocide definition, stating that it does not solely entail physical death but also severe harm and conditions imposed on a group that could eventually lead to their destruction. Medellín Urquiaga pointed out that the 1948 Convention’s genocide definition is “incomplete, complex, and limited,” as it was deliberately truncated by state powers to exclude their own atrocities or those of their high-ranking officials.
The Failure of the Diaspora
Manuel Reyes Mate reflected on the moral and censorship implications of using the term “genocide.” He noted that while there is a legal aspect, people also use it for moral reasons and as a form of censorship. Reyes Mate explained that being rigorous with the term would require a court verdict before discussing it, but people often use it more vaguely due to moral censorship.
Reyes Mate also shared a personal view on the European perspective regarding Gaza: “The Palestinian issue is a European creation. The Jewish people decided long ago to live without a state, peacefully among other nations, until they realized it was impossible. They were expelled, persecuted, and eventually thought they had the right to a state, which became Israel.”
He concluded that while the current situation in Gaza is unacceptable and should be judged with historical responsibility, it’s essential to remember the victims on both sides.
Key Questions and Answers
- What is the main concern regarding the term “genocide”? The issue lies in its legal meaning becoming diluted, which is problematic given the atrocities happening worldwide.
- Who are the panelists and their areas of expertise? Ximena Medellín Urquiaga is a Mexican law expert in International Criminal Law, while Manuel Reyes Mate is a Spanish philosopher focusing on historical memory and barbarity.
- Why is the genocide definition incomplete and complex? The 1948 Convention’s definition was truncated by state powers to exclude their own atrocities or those of high-ranking officials.
- What is the European perspective on the Palestinian issue? The Jewish people’s decision to live without a state, peacefully among others, eventually led to the creation of Israel as a result of European-driven persecution and expulsion.
- How should we approach the term “genocide”? Due to moral censorship, people often use the term vaguely, requiring rigorous legal application and potential court verdicts before discussing it.
