THE PRECEDENT OF THE CRIME OF GENOCIDE IN THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL TRIBUNAL FOR RWANDA
Abstract
Following the 1994 Rwandan genocide against the Tutsi ethnic group, the International
Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) was established to prosecute those most responsible
for their violations of international law. The Tribunal marked the first prosecution
of the crime of genocide. The unprecedented nature of the prosecution of the crime
resulted in initial inconsistencies and a lack of clarity of the definition. This
study examined the evolution of the legal definition for the crime of genocide through
qualitative analyses of the trial documents in selected case studies from the ICTR,
as well as subsequent cases of the prosecution of genocide outside of the jurisdiction
of the Tribunal. The cases highlighted a convergence over time for the establishment
of group definition, intent, and witness credibility across cases in the Tribunal,
with a diminishing role for witness testimonies in later cases of genocide. The eventual
coherent and clear application of the definition for the crime of genocide in the
ICTR provides valuable precedent for the potential of faster, more consistent future
prosecutions of crimes of genocide. In their slight divergence from the ICTR’s precedent,
however, later cases of genocide demonstrate the necessity of considering of the work
of international courts.
Type
Honors thesisDepartment
Public Policy StudiesPermalink
https://hdl.handle.net/10161/13990Citation
White, Elizabeth (2017). THE PRECEDENT OF THE CRIME OF GENOCIDE IN THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL TRIBUNAL FOR
RWANDA. Honors thesis, Duke University. Retrieved from https://hdl.handle.net/10161/13990.Collections
More Info
Show full item recordScholars@Duke
Elizabeth Hunsaker
Research Associate

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.
Rights for Collection: Undergraduate Honors Theses and Student papers
Works are deposited here by their authors, and represent their research and opinions, not that of Duke University. Some materials and descriptions may include offensive content. More info