Abbildungen der Seite

approved by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and by President Reagan. Since these are non-controversial I will not

comment on them except to generally describe them and endorse them as wise clarifications and procedures.

The first understanding which the Senate should include in its resolution of ratification clarifies the "intent to destroy", in whole or in part, language of Article II to mean the intent to destroy "in such manner as to affect a substantial part of the

group concerned".

This understanding merely states the common

sense proposition that genocide is intentional mass murder of a


ethnical, racial or religious group, as such, and not

isolated common crimes.

Similarly, the proposed understanding of the United States

government that the "mental harm" language of Article II (b) means the "permanent impairment of mental faculties" simply clarifies the definition of genocide consistent with precise and narrow criminal standards and the well established constitutional law protecting free speech.

The third proposed understanding assures that nothing in

Article VI "shall affect the right of any state to bring to trial

before its own tribunals any of its nationals for acts committed

outside the state".

As noted above,



an important

understanding to assure the full and continued independence of the American legal system and the continued extension of full constitutional rights to any and all United States citizens who may be subjected to allegations concerning genocide.

Finally, the proposed declaration, stating that the United States "will not deposit its instrument of ratification until after the implementing legislation referred to in Article v has been enacted", is a common sense statement by the United States government that, following an affermative Senate vote on advice and consent, it will not accede to the Genocide Convention until Congress has first passed domestic implementing legislation Congressional involvement in convention implementation and assures that our international legal obligations will be fully

pursuant to Article V of the Convention.

This both protects

met at the time the Convention becomes binding on the United


It makes absolutely clear, as is indeed evident from the

face of the Convention, that the Genocide Convention is not self

executing in American courts.

It is likely that there will be controversy, as there has been in the past, concerning whether the United States should reserve to Article IX accepting the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice "relating to the interpretation, application or fulfillment" of the Convention. This issue is not an easy one and if there is strong Senate feeling to have a reservation to Article IX, I would regard it as more important to

give advice and consent to the Convention than to prevail in any view on the Article IX issue, pro-reservation anti

[ocr errors]


After agonizing about the World Court issue under Article IX I believe that, on balance, it is preferable for the United

States not to have a reservation to Article IX.

I do not regard

the opposite conclusion as

unreasonable in light of recent

actions of the Court in and surrounding the Nicaragua case.

Reasons supporting advice and consent to Article IX with no

reservation include the following:

under the Genocide Convention, as under multilateral conventions in general and unlike acceptance of the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court under the optional clause, the Court is constrained by a defined normative standard agreed by the United States;

the United States is already a party to over 80 multilateral treaties referring disputes to the Court and it has been a foreign policy practice of the United States to encourage such treaty clauses. Many important treaties

now pending before the Senate

contain such clauses;

some nations may interpret a United States reservation

to Article IX as inconsistent with a major purpose of

the treaty and thus argue such a reservation would legally negate United States accession. The Netherlands, a close NATO ally of the United States, has made such a statement with respect to the Soviet

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

general compulsory jurisdiction of the court, most of our allies have accepted without reservation the

Court's jurisdiction under Article IX and many place considerable importance on such acceptance,

as is indicated by the Netherland's objection to the Soviet Article IX reservation;

if we have a reservation to Article IX we cannot bring

an action in the Court against others for violation of

the Convention;

for example,


action against

Nicaragua for genocide against the Miskito Indians; and most importantly, the United States is already subject to actions concerning genocide before the World Court under our prior general acceptance of the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court and the international law principle that genocide is already a crime under customary international law. One reason to ratify the Genocide Convention is to obtain clarity in legal

obligation under the Convention as opposed to vague

customary international law.

To reserve to Article IX

will remove this benefit of accession and put us back

under the vague setting of the customary international


standard without benefit of United States

understandings that would accompany our accession.


In conclusion, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee,

there are strong moral, foreign policy and national security reasons why the United States should accede to the Genocide convention. And there are no constitutional or other legal

impediments. to that accession.

As an American I take great pride in my country and its record in human rights. It is right that our nation accede to

the Genocide Convention

and it is long overdue.

we have a

long struggle ahead for human rights and control of totalitarian abuses in a dangerous world. United States accession to the Genocide Convention will not alone reform the behavior of

ruthless and grotesque regimes bent on genocide. But we must not fail to take the small but greatly important step, to accede to the Genocide Cconvention, in doing all we can to

eliminate genocide from the future of mankind.

John Norton Moore is Walter L.

Brown Professor of Law and

Director of the Center for Law and National Security at the Oniversity of Virginia. formerly he served as Counselor on

International Law to the Department of State and as a United

States Ambassador to the Law of the Sea Conference.

He is

Chairman of the American Bar Association Standing Committee on Law and National Security and has testified on two prior occasions on behalf of the American Bar Association in support of Onited States ratification of the Genocide Convention. He is also President of the Conflict Analysis Center in Washington, D.C. which has prepared and distributed an educational pamphlet

on United States ratification of the Genocide Convention.


views expressed are his own.

This testimony draws heavily on the pamphlet prepared by the educational conflict Analysis Center entitled "Genocide:

Ratification of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment

of the Crime of Genocide (1984). Copies of this pamphlet may be obtained from the conflict Analysis Center in Washington, D. C. and a copy has been submitted for inclusion in the hearing record

of this hearing.

See generally on the continuing struggle for human rights M. McDougal, H. Lasswell & L. Chen, Human Rights and World Public Order (1980); L. Sohn & T. Buergenthal, International Protection

of Human Rights (1973); R. Lillich & F. Newman, International

Human Rights: Problems of Law and Policy (1979).


HATCH Question No. 1. Can a treaty affect or nullify the provisions of the state constitutions?

Answer. Yes.
Question No. 2. Can a treaty affect or nullify a state statute?
Answer. Yes.

Question No. 3. Can a treaty affect or nullify a prior judicial decision of a state supreme court?

Answer. Yes.

Question No. 4. Can a treaty affect or nullify existing federal legislation on the same subject?

Answer. Yes.

Question No. 5. Can a treaty increase the powers of the Federal Government at the expense of the states?

Answer. Yes.

Question No. 6. Is a treaty or international agreement which conflicts with the constitution null and void?

Answer. Such a treaty or other international agreement would be voidable by the United States. The determination of whether a treaty or other international agree ment in fact does conflict with the Constitution is, of course, a legal determination made only by the Supreme Court of the United States, and not by any international organization or body or any other country.

Question No. 7. Is the power to make international agreements limited to a particular subject?

Answer. Under the Constitution the power to enter into treaties is vested in the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. The enumeration in the Constitution of subjects of treaties has been interpreted by the Supreme Court as a broad power. The power to make "international agreements” is, on the one hand, limited by the treaty-making power of the Constitution requiring the consent of the Senate and, on the other hand is a very broad power vested in the President under Article II of the Constitution.

Question No. 8. The Genocide Convention makes any official or individual punishable for "direct and public incitement to commit genocide.” Does this mean that if a member of Congress justifies the action of Jews killing Arabs in the Middle East that he can be prosecuted for genocide? What about the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech? What about the freedom of the press?

Answer. A member of Congress or, for that matter, any other public official or private individual, could not be prosecuted for genocide for justifying the action of Jews killing Arabs in the Middle East. The language of the Genocide Convention establishing the crime of genocide for “the direct and public incitement to commit genocide” was specifically included in the Convention at the insistence of the United States in such a way as to be fully protected by the safeguards of the First Amendment to the Constitution.

« ZurückWeiter »