S

outh African President Cyril Ramaphosa has reaffirmed that his country’s genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) will continue, despite the recently announced ceasefire in Gaza, which has been hailed as a breakthrough in ending nearly two years of war.

Speaking before parliament in Cape Town on Tuesday, Ramaphosa said the peace deal “will have no bearing” on the ongoing legal proceedings. He emphasized that South Africa remains committed to ensuring justice for the people of Gaza, accusing Israel of committing acts that amount to genocide under international law.

“The peace deal that has been struck, which we welcome, will have no bearing on the case that is before the International Court of Justice,” Ramaphosa said. “The case is proceeding, and it now has to go to the stage where Israel has to respond to our pleadings that have been filed in the court, and they have to do so by January of next year.”

Long legal battle

South Africa first filed the case in December 2023, alleging that Israel’s military campaign in Gaza violated the Genocide Convention of 1948. The government submitted a 500-page legal brief to the ICJ in October 2024, detailing evidence of mass killings, the destruction of civilian infrastructure, and deliberate obstruction of humanitarian aid.

Under ICJ timelines, Israel’s response is due by January 12, 2026, with oral hearings expected in 2027. A final judgment could come as late as 2028, according to legal experts familiar with the process.

So far, the court has issued three provisional measures, ordering Israel to prevent genocidal acts, punish incitement to genocide, and ensure the delivery of humanitarian assistance to Gaza. Israel has largely ignored these rulings, according to UN monitors.

The genocide, which began in October 2023, has killed more than 67,000 Palestinians, according to Gaza’s health authorities, leaving much of the enclave in ruins and displacing millions.

‘Peace without justice is not sustainable’

Ramaphosa underscored that South Africa’s pursuit of the case was not political, but moral and legal, rooted in the principles of accountability and human rights.

“We cannot go forward without the healing that needs to take place, which will also result from the case being properly heard,” he said. “True peace requires justice, recognition, and reparations.”

His remarks drew widespread support from international human rights advocates. Francesca Albanese, the UN Special Rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territories, wrote on X that “peace without justice, respect for human rights and dignity, without reparations and guarantees of non-repetition, is not sustainable.”

Global support for South Africa

South Africa has gained growing international backing for its ICJ case. Several countries — including Spain, Ireland, Turkiye, and Colombia — have joined or declared their intent to join the proceedings in support of Pretoria’s efforts.

Colombian President Gustavo Petro said earlier this year that governments “risk becoming complicit in atrocities” if they fail to act, while Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez, one of Europe’s most outspoken critics of Israel’s conduct, reiterated on Tuesday that the ceasefire “cannot mean impunity.”

“There cannot be impunity,” Sánchez told Spanish radio. “The main actors of the genocide will have to answer to justice.”

Human rights groups such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have also accused Israel of committing acts amounting to genocide and crimes against humanity. A UN Commission of Inquiry released in September 2025 concluded that Israel had committed genocide in Gaza, adding weight to South Africa’s case at The Hague.

Israel has strongly rejected all allegations of genocide, calling South Africa’s case “baseless” and “politically motivated.” Israeli officials have insisted that their military operations targeted Hamas fighters, not civilians, and that they acted in self-defense following the group’s October 2023 attacks.

In the tumultuous landscape of the Israel-Palestine conflict, international law emerges as a critical but often elusive framework for addressing the issues at hand. Its application becomes both a beacon of hope for justice and a labyrinth where legal principles intersect with geopolitical realities. 

This month’s curated book bundle unveils a series of thought-provoking works that dissect the interplay between law, politics, and human rights in the context of Israel-Palestine. These books traverse the historical, legal, and humanitarian dimensions of the conflict, offering readers a comprehensive understanding of the challenges and potential avenues for justice.

Justice for Some: Law and the Question of Palestine by Noura Erakat contends that judicial intervention has failed to address the most pressing challenges facing the Palestinian struggle for freedom. She delves into the shortcomings of occupation law, which, rather than deterring Israel’s settlement enterprise, has proven ineffective in curbing its expansion. 

Furthermore, Erakat scrutinizes the laws of war, revealing how they have permitted the use of lethal force and widespread destruction during Israel’s military offensives in the Gaza Strip. The once-promising Oslo Accord’s two-state solution, as posited in 1993, is declared a dead letter, underscoring the need for a fresh perspective.

Justice for Some introduces a novel approach to understanding the Palestinian quest for freedom by examining the relationship between power dynamics and international law. Erakat navigates through pivotal historical moments, from the Balfour Declaration in 1917 to contemporary conflicts in Gaza, illustrating how the strategic manipulation of legal frameworks has played a pivotal role in shaping the current conditions of the region.

Erakat persuasively argues that, over the past century, the application of law has disproportionately advanced the interests of Israel, highlighting that the outcome was not an inevitable consequence but rather a product of political interventions. 

This book emphasizes that law is inherently political and that its interpretation and enforcement are contingent on the actions of states and individuals. It posits that change within the legal realm is possible and that international law can become a potent force for advancing the cause of freedom when mobilized in support of a political movement.

Noura Erakat, Justice for Some: Law and the Question of Palestine (Stanford University Press, 2019) ISBN: 9781503613577, 352 pages

Protecting Human Rights in Occupied Palestine: Working Through the United Nations offers a brilliant and authoritative exploration of the UN’s attempts to address and expose Israeli violations of international humanitarian law and human rights in the occupied Palestinian territories since the 1967 War. 

Authored by three independent international legal experts who served as UN Special Rapporteurs, the book unveils a compelling narrative of their six-year-long, unpaid mandate to investigate and report on Israeli transgressions.

What sets this study apart is the unprecedented political independence enjoyed by the Special Rapporteurs outside the typical UN bureaucratic constraints. Despite divergent backgrounds and political perspectives, the experts unanimously confirm the routine and diverse violations of Palestinian basic rights by Israel. The book delves into their frustrations, trials, experiences, and the consensus they reached.

This collaborative effort sheds light on both the positive role the UN can play in addressing contentious issues and the geopolitical forces that hinder the implementation of international law. The vehement reactions from Israel and pro-Israeli NGOs underscore the importance of a reliable account of Israeli violations of Palestinian human rights. 

The book exposes how critics sidestep substantive charges by resorting to discrediting attacks, including accusations of anti-Semitism, aimed at undermining the credibility of the Special Rapporteurs.

While skeptics may dismiss the UN’s ability to enforce international law, this book emphasizes the impact of expert findings on shaping international public opinion and solidarity politics. The well-evidenced conclusions presented within the book have fueled transnational activism, exemplified by the growing global support for the BDS Campaign and other nonviolent external pressures.

Richard Falk, John Dugard, and Michael Lynk, Protecting Human Rights in Occupied Palestine: Working Through the United Nations (Clarity Press, 2023) ISBN: 9781949762549, 398 pages

The United Nations and the Question of Palestine: Rule by Law and the Structure of International Legal Subalternity, authored by Ardi Imseis, unravels the complexities and tensions that exist between the UN’s actions and the requirements of international law, revealing a nuanced and often contradictory relationship when it comes to Palestine. The exploration delves into the various forms that the UN’s failure to adhere to international law has taken and the far-reaching implications of such deviations. 

The book unveils a state of ‘international legal subalternity’ imposed upon Palestine and its people. It contends that the promise of justice through international law is consistently offered, yet remains elusive, perpetually withheld under the guise of political legitimacy furnished by the international community.

The book provides readers with a critical perspective on the UN’s handling of the Palestinian question. The author’s exploration invites readers to reconsider preconceptions, offering a thought-provoking analysis of Palestine’s pursuit of justice on the global stage.

Ardi Imseis, The United Nations and the Question of Palestine: Rule by Law and the Structure of International Legal Subalternity (Cambridge University Press, 2023) ISBN: 9781009076272, 303 pages

In Gaza: An Inquest to Its Martyrdom, Norman G. Finkelstein delivers a powerful and meticulously researched examination of the tragic plight befalling the Gaza Strip. As one of the world’s most densely populated areas, with a majority of inhabitants under eighteen and two-thirds classified as refugees, Gaza has been the recurrent target of eight devastating Israeli military operations since 2004. 

Finkelstein portrays the dire reality faced by its largely defenseless population, with thousands perishing and tens of thousands left homeless, exacerbated by a merciless and illegal Israeli blockade.

Finkelstein’s book, drawing on numerous human rights reports, conducts a penetrating inquest into Gaza’s martyrdom, challenging Israel’s justifications for these actions as self-defense. He convincingly argues that these assaults were blatant violations of international law. 

However, the book also unveils a disheartening narrative of the failure of international guardians, including renowned organizations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, as well as the UN Human Rights Council, to adequately address Gaza’s suffering.

One of the most unsettling conclusions is the succumbing of human rights organizations to the Israeli juggernaut, particularly highlighted by Judge Richard Goldstone’s retraction of his UN report. Finkelstein’s book only serves as a tribute to Gaza’s martyrs but also stands as an act of resistance against historical forgetfulness. 

In unraveling the man-made humanitarian disaster that is Gaza, Finkelstein offers a compelling call to action, urging readers to confront the uncomfortable truths and advocate for justice in the face of ongoing tragedy.

Norman Finkelstein, Gaza: An Inquest to Its Martyrdom (University of California Press, 2021) ISBN: 9780520318335, 440 pages

Prolonged Occupation and International Law: Israel and Palestine is a significant academic study stemming from the 2018 conference on “The Threshold from Occupation to Annexation.” This collection expands the discourse on the 55-year Israeli administration of the Palestinian Territories, covering themes from colonialism to potential international criminal liability.

In response to the prevailing political inertia, the volume offers a poignant examination of international legal frameworks in the context of Palestinian life under prolonged Israeli occupation. It emphasizes the dynamism of international law, showcasing its potential, when coupled with imagination and social movements, to advance justice in Palestine and beyond.

This scholarly collection, featuring contributions from renowned experts, provides a comprehensive exploration of fundamental legal issues arising from Israel’s prolonged occupation of Palestine. It serves as a crucial resource, weaving together rigorous analysis and lived experiences to guide a nuanced understanding of the challenges posed by prolonged occupation and the quest for justice.

Nada Kiswanson and Susan Power, Prolonged Occupation and International Law: Israel and Palestine (Brill, 2023) ISBN: 9789004503922, 402 pages

In the shadow of the birth of Israel seventy years ago, the Palestinian refugee question remains an enduring and complex crisis, making it one of the most protracted post-WWII refugee issues. With over six million refugees scattered across the Middle East, their status is intricately tied to the political circumstances surrounding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, as well as the specific state or territory ‘hosting’ them. Despite the foundational role of international law in addressing their plight, it often takes a backseat in political discussions.

This compelling new edition builds upon the seminal work of its predecessor published in 1998, offering a clear and comprehensive analysis of various facets of international law relevant to Palestinian refugees. From refugee law and human rights law to humanitarian law, the book explores the intricacies of providing international protection for Palestinian refugees and delves into potential durable solutions. Notably, it examines the current interpretations of Article 1D of the 1951 Refugee Convention and various definitions of Palestinian refugees.

A key reference text, this book serves as an authoritative account of the subject, shedding light on the roles of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA) and the United Nations Refugee Agency (UNHCR) in relation to Palestinian refugees. It stands out for its innovative framework proposing just and durable solutions, drawing on recent developments in refugee law and a holistic, rights-based approach.

Francesca Albanese and Lex Takkenberg, Palestinian Refugees in International Law (Second Edition) (Oxford University Press, 2020) ISBN: 9780198784050, 608 pages

I

srael’s attacks, especially those targeting civilians and civilian infrastructure, displacing civilians and making them targets of attack on the way to migration, and leaving them without food, water, shelter and medical care are acts that may constitute many different types of war crimes, crimes against humanity, or crimes of ethnic cleansing and even genocide, which are more serious crimes.

On October 7, following the Hamas attacks, Israel launched and intensified its attacks on Gaza, which have resulted and continue to result in violations of international law and serious humanitarian disasters.

Investigating these grave acts, which are very serious in terms of their consequences, identifying and prosecuting those responsible, and punishing the guilty must be at the top of the international community’s agenda. Only through prosecutions will it be possible to prevent similar atrocities and ensure that those responsible do not go unpunished.

The nature of Israeli acts

The most striking aspect of Israel’s military attacks on Gaza has been the deliberate killing or maiming of civilians. Israel’s air and ground attacks directly target locations where civilians are known to be present, and deliberately kill or injure civilians.

The targeted bombing of settlements, civilian migration routes, civilian shelters, and refugee camps for displaced Palestinians has become routine. Israel purposefully targets, kills, injures, or arrests civilians both in Gaza and in the West Bank.

Israel is forcedly displacing Palestinians living in the Gaza Strip. The deliberate killing of civilians, who should be protected from the effects of war, is carried out through direct attacks and the targeting of civilian infrastructure. A similar method of attack is the targeting of hospitals and health facilities. Targeted civilian infrastructure also includes schools and places of worship.

While each of Israel’s acts constitute war crimes, it can be argued that they are also crimes against humanity as they contain elements of a systematic attack against a specific community. Examining the nature of these acts, it is even possible to find elements of ethnic cleansing and genocide since the forcible transfer of a civilian population or the creation of an ethnically homogeneous geographical area through mass murder constitute the crime of ethnic cleansing, while the crime of genocide requires evidence of an intention to exterminate the Palestinians in whole or in part.

Israel is the occupying party which faces the military actions of Palestinian armed groups that fight against it. Claiming to be acting in self-defense, Israel has already exceeded the legal limits of this right and based on the disproportionality of the force it uses and the nature of the persons and places it targets, it has become a state that initiates and carries out illegal attacks. Such actions constitute the crime of aggression, which is defined as the planning, preparation, initiation, and execution of an “act of aggression” by political or military decision-makers.

Prosecution of those responsible

The abovementioned offences are crimes that give rise to personal criminal liability. Those who commit such crimes, regardless of their official position, must be tried and punished for them. In accordance with the relevant international conventions, they must first be tried by their own national judicial systems.

However, it is difficult to imagine that Israel would prosecute its own citizens for such crimes. It is precisely in such cases that the International Criminal Court (ICC), which was established to intervene in the judicial process, has the power to try those who should be tried but are not—or are not tried properly. The ICC has jurisdiction to try nationals of states party to its founding treaty, or nationals of any state party, who commit any of the above crimes on the territory of a state party.

Palestine became a state party to the ICC Statute on January 2, 2015, when it deposited its instrument of accession with the UN Secretary-General. The statute entered into force for the state of Palestine on April 1, 2015. Before becoming a party to the ICC Statute, the Palestinian government issued a declaration under Article 12(3) of the statute requesting the court to investigate crimes committed in the Palestinian territories. Through this declaration, the Palestinian state declared its acceptance of the court’s jurisdiction over crimes allegedly committed “in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, since 13 June 2014.”

Narendra Modi is roaring to the world that India is a worthy contender on the global scene. India has come to the fore with its massive economy, recent successes at the space front, potential megaproject linking India, the Middle East and Europe via rail and sea, and playing the role of a distanced ally towards to the competing world powers: the U.S. and China.

All eyes were on the G20 summit taking place in New Delhi this year, and Modi surely wanted to make a good impression. Schools and offices were shut, roads were blocked, and street vendors were removed. Even whole slums near the venue were covered in tarpaulin! Ironically, Modi’s speeches repeatedly described India as the world’s largest democracy and the ‘voice of the Global South’.

However, behind this sterilized facade lies discrimination, oppression, and erasure— on brand with the Hindu nationalism fueled by Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). Numerous attacks on minority communities sweep through the country, including demolitions of Muslim houses, mosque and church attacks, grave desecrations and violent killings. Meanwhile, the government takes every step to define India as a Hindu nation.

In this month’s book bundle, we examine how Modi’s India both oppresses and suppresses its minority citizens. Through books that explain the political dynamics in India, the impact of state-sanctioned violence, and the silencing of critical voices, we observe how the world’s largest democracy goes wrong.

In the book Modi’s India: Hindu Nationalism and the Rise of Ethnic Democracy, Christophe Jaffrelot delves into the intricate dynamics of Indian politics over the last two decades, with a particular focus on the rise of Hindu nationalism coupled with national-populism, largely attributed to Narendra Modi’s leadership. This confluence of factors has not only secured Modi’s electoral success, starting in Gujarat and extending to the entire country but has also transformed the very nature of democracy in India.

Jaffrelot’s work spotlights Modi’s ability to captivate a significant portion of the Indian populace by offering promises of development while simultaneously exploiting ethno-religious fault lines within the electorate. This national-populism is marked by Modi’s personalized political style, characterized by direct communication with voters through various channels, effectively saturating the public discourse.

To shed light on the consequences of this political shift, Jaffrelot conducts original interviews across India, revealing a troubling evolution toward what he terms an “ethnic democracy.” In this model, the majority community is equated with the nation, while religious minorities, specifically Muslims and Christians, find themselves relegated to the status of second-class citizens, vulnerable to harassment by ‘vigilante’ groups.

Furthermore, Jaffrelot elucidates how the political landscape in India has developed authoritarian tendencies for various reasons. In its quest for power not only at the national level but also in the states, the government has centralized authority at the expense of federalism, eroding the very institutions that once served as checks and balances, including India’s Supreme Court.

In sum, Modi’s India showcases a government, supported by popular mandate, stifles dissent and grows increasingly intolerant of ethnic and religious minorities. The book provides essential insights into politics, nationalism, and populism in contemporary India.

Christophe Jaffrelot, Modi’s India: Hindu Nationalism and the Rise of Ethnic Democracy (Princeton University Press, 2021) ISBN: 9780691206806, 656 pages

In Composing Violence: The Limits of Exposure and the Making of Minorities, Moyukh Chatterjee examines the haunting memory of the 2002 anti-Muslim violence in Gujarat, India, where armed Hindu mobs unleashed brutal attacks on Muslims in broad daylight, resulting in a staggering death toll that shocked the nation. Chatterjee’s investigation goes beyond the horrific events themselves, aiming to dissect how such highly visible political violence against minority communities serves as a catalyst for profound transformations in the domains of law, public culture, and power dynamics.

Contrary to the expectation that exposing state-sanctioned anti-Muslim violence would lead to its suppression, Chatterjee argues that these incidents actually set the stage for a fundamental shift in India, pushing it toward a Hindu supremacist state. He contends that examining the responses of both the state and civil society to this violence offers crucial insights into the inherent features of modern democracy, where riots and pogroms become tools for molding a society defined by a vulnerable minority and a dominant majority.

Chatterjee’s exploration focuses on multiple facets, including courtroom procedures, police archives, legal activism, and mainstream media coverage. Through this multifaceted approach, he constructs a theory of violence as a form of governance, effectively engineering minority populations.

Composing Violence invites readers to grapple with the profound and unsettling implications of anti-Muslim violence in India. Chatterjee’s meticulous analysis paints a picture of how violence can shape the course of democracy, raising profound questions about the fragility of minority rights and the complex interplay between power and prejudice in contemporary societies.

Moyukh Chatterjee, Composing Violence: The Limits of Exposure and the Making of Minorities (Duke University Press, 2023) ISBN: 978-1-4780-1966-4, 184 pages

What happens to those who dare question the injustices of the Modi regime? The book How Long Can the Moon Be Caged? provides a piercing examination of the authoritarian regime under Narendra Modi in India, where the suppression of critical voices and the silencing of dissent have become central objectives for the ruling BJP party. Their ethno-nationalist aspiration of establishing an exclusively ‘Hindu’ India, involves targeting anyone who dares to voice questions or opposition.

Authors Suchitra Vijayan and Francesca Recchia present a unique perspective highlight the experiences of political prisoners. Their approach combines astute political and legal analysis with firsthand accounts, offering readers an in-depth exploration of the subtle acts of resistance that occur both within and beyond prison walls, involving not only the prisoners themselves but also their families. The narrative unravels a tale of institutional decay and the erosion of fundamental rights.

The book spotlights the stories of those who have been falsely accused of inciting the Bhima Koregaon violence, student leaders who have protested against the discriminatory citizenship law of 2020, and activists associated with the Pinjra Tod movement. By weaving together these voices, How Long Can the Moon Be Caged? celebrates the remarkable bravery, unwavering humanity, and moral integrity of individuals who have been incarcerated for their unwavering solidarity with marginalized and oppressed communities.

In a world where the struggle for dissent and the preservation of civil liberties are ever more vital, this book serves as a powerful testament to the resilience of those who refuse to be silenced, while painting a vivid picture of the ongoing battle for justice and equality in India.

Suchitra Vijayan and Francesca Recchia, How Long Can the Moon Be Caged?: Voices of Indian Political Prisoners (Pluto books, 2023) ISBN 9780745347981, 216 pages

In 2019, Emmanuel Macron assigned a commission of historians to research France’s role in the mass killing of Tutsis in Rwanda. The commission submitted its report to the French president on March 26, 2021. It concludes that the French government has “heavy and damning responsibilities” in the event, but dismisses the claim it was complicit in the genocide.

The mass killing or genocide of the Tutsis in Rwanda began on April 7, 1994. Within three months, from April to July 1994, between from 800,000 to 1,000,000 Tutsis were killed at the hands of Hutu extremists, who were in charge of the government. The commission describes the Rwandan policy of the French government, which was led by then president François Mitterrand as a way to make Rwanda “a kind of laboratory.”

The Mitterrand government offered Rwandan president Juvénal Habyarimana “a guarantee of military protection in exchange for a program of democratization, respect for human rights and negotiations with the Rwandan Patriotic Front.” In this spirit, Mitterrand delivered a speech at the French African Summit of 1990, in which he depicted France as Africa’s most generous supporter. For the commission, there is no doubt that the “French authorities have shown continuous blindness in their support for a racist, corrupt and violent regime conceived as a laboratory.”

The report by the commission, which was chaired by Vincent Duclert, argues that France’s responsibility lies in the ideological blindness of Mitterrand and his advisors that was then imposed on the rest of the state apparatus, and that it is a revelation of colonial stereotypes and a purely ethnic reading that irrigated France’s African policy.

After its independence in 1962, following Belgian colonization, Rwanda developed a close relationship with France. Mitterrand and Habyarimana, who came to power in Rwanda in 1973, were on good terms. The Armed Forces of Rwanda (FAR) were established thanks to French support.

The commission’s archival research reveals that the Rwandan file with the request for arms was intentionally diverted away from the ministries and administrations that are involved in the usual decision-making process. The papers were signed by General Jean-Pierre Huchon, then deputy chief of staff to Admiral Jacques Lanxade, and by then general Christian Quesnot.

The influence of military staff was felt over the rest of the administration, and even at the Élysée Palace, where Bruno Delaye replaced Jean-Christophe Mitterrand, the advisor on African affairs since 1986 and son of then president Mitterrand. It is the syndrome of smoking in a closed room where everyone present, even those who do not actually smoke, carry the smell.

According to an Élysée source, France’s responsibility “translates into an inability to think about the genocide that was taking place.” The commission report concludes that France bears political, institutional, intellectual, moral, and cognitive responsibility for the genocide that took place in Rwanda.

Undeniably some genocides are accorded more importance than others, explaining the wealth of material on the Second World War compared to other genocides. Funding and scholarships are more easily available for activities related to research and dissemination in the context of the most ‘popular’ genocides, and academic conferences tend to set themes and titles alluding more directly to them.

By now, the rational of this bias is widely explained by the following: first, that the Great White-Northern Powers had and have ongoing connections, in terms of family, religion, culture, or otherwise, to the genocide that took place between 1939-1945—it was after all a genocide committed by Europeans on Europeans in Europe.

Second, by the fact that purely charitable actions are rare, and that if the Great White-Northern Powers are to direct time, energy and other resources into halting genocide, they should have vested interests therein.

Third (another way of phrasing the second) that the Bismarckian concept of realpolitik, that is of adopting strategic interests over moral and ideological ones, aptly explains the conduct of the super powers so far, especially in their decisions to intervene (or not to) in countries plagued by genocide.

All of this may also expound the outright neglect of ongoing genocides (currently the Uyghurs in China and Rohingyas in Myanmar) because tackling them more directly wouldn’t benefit the interests of the Great White-Northern Powers. Interfering with the internal affairs of another state by prodding it to stop persecuting its people may make an enemy of it for instance.

The Doctrine of (State) Sovereignty signifies that neither a state, nor an entity, not even an international one may have an upper-hand over a state in ‘telling it what to do’, preventing even the powerful from intervening—often alluded to as the ‘sovereignty problem’. This often likens the international legal system to a toothless tiger.

History has shown that a state must be thoroughly broken, its government quasi absent for another to intervene and set it in order. Moreover reticence over intervention is explained by the fact that pointing fingers at one state may cause it in turn, if comparably powerful, to point fingers back.

For these reasons, attaching the label of genocide on the conduct of a government is treated with caution. Understanding these dynamics at work is not hard if a parallel is drawn with the way people act towards one another in the upkeep of their relationships.

In lieu of affixing the label of ‘genocide’, euphemisms such as ‘cleansing’, ‘ethnic cleansing’, ‘mass killings’, ‘mass atrocity’ are resorted to.

The atrocities in Srebrenica were also denied the label by the UN, despite recognition by the ICTY and ICJ; instead Kofi Annan referred to it as a ‘massacre’. Rewind a few decades, this was equally a disaster for Cambodia where the Khmer Rouge regime, an ally of China, and hence not of the US, was given recognition in the UN General Assembly soon after its horrendous perpetrations between 1975-1979, despite appeals by other governments decrying its actions.

Equally noteworthy is how the label of genocide is never associated with the acts of the United States, and usually with those of its enemy.

The bias of international courts and organisations towards the superpowers, in particular the United States, cannot be denied.

Equally noteworthy is how the label of genocide is never associated with the acts of the United States, and usually with those of its enemy (or the enemy of another superpower), indicative of how biased the perception is of who is ‘evil’ and who is not. Thus all the principal international bodies have by now labelled the perpetrations of the Khmer Rouge regime as genocide, while sparing the United States of all accusations despite their perpetrations in Cambodia when they waged war against neighbouring Vietnam.

A similar approach was adopted in relation to Iraq under the governance of Saddam Hussein, while the US escaped punishment despite perpetrations that led to the killing of civilians in the country.

Without a doubt, many of the criminal and condemnable actions of the superpowers are left unpunished, and the politics of genocide are such that these states continue to exert influence over international decision-making, and indirectly, over international courts of law (ICC, ICJ, ICTY).

The recent elaborate rhetoric on the ‘responsibility (of states or other organisations) to protect (others)’ does not seem to have the intended effect on the superpowers which firstly, are still immune when they operate as perpetrators, and secondly have enough leeway to pick and choose when and where they will intervene in fulfilling their responsibility to protect.

The contrast in the treatment of the uprisings in Libya and Sri Lanka as an illustration of the above, is on point. (The United States’ long-standing animosity towards the Middle East is also all the more evident in this case.) Despite the Sri Lankan government’s assault on the Tamil civilians between 2008-2009, Ban Ki-Moon failed to mobilise the UN, attracting criticism by Amnesty International.

In fact the UN Panel of Experts did not make a recommendation to the ICC to launch an investigation for the mass killings even as ‘no-fire zones’ were turned into ‘free-fire’ ones. In contrast, in the case of Libya, Ban Ki-Moon as well as the High Commissioner for Human Rights condemned the Gaddafi regime within days, and an investigation was quickly carried out by the ICC, including the issuance of arrest warrants for Gaddafi, his son, and brother-in-law.

As to the decision on the intervention in Libya, Obama conveniently played his trump card by evoking the desire of the United States to protect states in need of help, saying: ‘Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. United States of America is different. And as President, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action.’

As a reminder of the directive power of realpolitik, and that no actions are completely charitable as mentioned above, in the same statement Obama went on to mention America’s strategic interests in intervening in Libya.

He highlighted how war in Libya would drive refugees out into neighbouring countries and put a strain over the fragile transitions in Egypt and Tunisia. (It is doubtful that the strategic interests spelled out would be limited to just that.) Such are the dynamics that summarise the treatment of the label of genocide, and the politics involved therein.

So far the main tactic in avoiding the label of genocide in court settings has been to prove the absence of genocidal intent: this has been done by showing that acts of murder were a ‘war act’ rather than part of a larger programme to get rid of a group, an ethnicity, or a genus. As Samantha Power wrote in A Problem from Hell, promises resonating with the slogan ‘Never Again’ have been made by each incumbent President of the United States, but never held.