Erased Crimes: The Global Struggle for Recognition and Justice

By. Solaris Ahmetjan

DOI. 10.57912/30273262

---

In a world that often repeats “Never Again,” the cyclical forgetting of genocide suggests otherwise. Whether it is visible and the centre of public discourse, in the case of Palestine, or flying under the global radar, like the Congolese crisis, genocide is often met with denial and silence by the international community. When states fail to recognise genocide, it is often because it may strain the relations they have with the country that allegedly committed the act, or it can shift the power dynamics in regional politics. Though there are many institutions and legal frameworks focused on genocide prevention and prosecution, like the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the United Nations Genocide Convention, their weakened credibility and inability to effectively punish nations that commit genocide allow such atrocities to continue unabated from the world’s attention. This signals to nations that they could fall back on the excuse of sovereignty if anyone attempts to investigate allegations, distorting the truth and ostracising victims from healing. This system is inept as it stands. However, with appropriate institutional reforms, the global community can ensure that “Never Again” is not a hollow slogan for inaction.

Even with civil society and the public applying pressure through protests against genocide, state actors are often hesitant to label genocide, regardless of how turbulent it may be. Rather, states are more likely to acknowledge a need for allies rather than adversaries, leading to a preference for overlooking human rights abuses to maintain such coalitions. An example of this occurred four years ago when former Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu warned that any move by the United States to recognise the killings of Armenians by the Ottoman Empire as genocide would harm the diplomatic ties between the two nations. Additionally, in areas of already high tensions, such as East and Southeast Asia, discussions surrounding the recognition of genocide often carry much political weight. Japan, for instance, has faced pressure to officially acknowledge its government’s actions during the imperial period of the early 20th century as crimes against humanity or genocide. However, they are still reluctant due to fears of domestic backlash from conservative and ultra-nationalist groups, as well as potential complications to diplomatic relations. Scholars argue that acknowledging those actions could improve Japan’s already hindered national standing, especially with neighbouring nations like China, the Philippines, and South Korea. Addressing this history transparently could improve Japan’s reputation and contribute to regional reconciliation.

These political barriers not only impede genocide recognition but also have devastating consequences, often fueled by nationalistic rhetoric that shapes denial and justifies inaction. For instance, in Japan, nationalist discourse and historical revisionism have contributed to downplaying wartime atrocities, reinforcing a culture of denial that obstructs accountability and international acknowledgement. This failure to recognise genocide also impedes the effectiveness of multinational institutions, which rely on identification to take any meaningful action against genocide. 

However, the issue goes beyond the criminal justice system; in cases like Japan and Turkey, the atrocities were committed by some of the most beloved and trusted figures and institutions – such as the monarch, the military, and national leaders like President Atatürk, leader of the Turkish Nationalist Movement and responsible for the completion of the Armenian genocide through the “Turkification” of Anatolia. Reconciling such actions with their esteemed status poses a deeper challenge for societies, where confronting such history can undermine the foundations of national identity and pride. While a nation confronting its own history is especially challenging, it can be done. Germany’s large interest in reckoning with its past only happened because the international community pushed it during the nation’s reconstruction following the fall of the Berlin Wall.

Such resistance to recognising genocide not only allows those responsible to continue unchecked but also stalls any critical aid, lengthening the suffering of the victims. As these atrocities continue, they open the door to denial by the nation responsible and to the distortion of history, as seen with Turkey's denial of the Armenian Genocide. Setting such a precedent enables the cycle to continue repeatedly, allowing countless targeted groups to dwindle. As this cycle of denial continues, legal institutions, such as the ICC, fail to hold perpetrators accountable due to a lack of recognition. The continued reluctance to recognize genocide and intervene is often rooted in the need to maintain state sovereignty, where any foreign intervention is at risk of being an infringement on a state’s self-governance; the Responsibility to Protect Doctrine was designed to address this tension following repeated failures to intervene. As a result, it often serves as a shield to enable the perpetrators. For instance, the Rwandan genocide was left entirely unchecked, with global actors hesitating to intervene because of the fear of political repercussions and breaching Rwandan sovereignty. The international community’s failure to act until the massacres ended serves as a chilling reminder that non-intervention enables such atrocities to continue unchecked.

The empowerment of the United Nations Genocide Prevention Office (UNGPO) may be the solution. The current ineffectiveness of the organisation can be resolved through increased funding and authority to respond to crises. Strengthening the UNGPO’s funding and authority could enhance early warning mechanisms, introducing additional automatic triggers, enabling real-time alerts when targeted violence is detected, thereby bypassing any political deadlocks that prevent genocide investigations. Additionally, strengthening the Genocide Convention is a crucial step in mitigating this issue. Clarifying its language regarding the circumstances for intervention and establishing clear penalties for non-compliance could prevent states from continuing to hide behind reservations and other legal loopholes. History demonstrates that non-intervention and denial often lead to further humanitarian crises and encourage future aggressors, threatening global stability and causing devastating loss of life – as evidenced by the cases of Turkey and Japan, where addressing their own acts of atrocities has led to deep cultural issues with recognising them later on.

Overall, the recognition of genocide in international law remains a deeply challenging issue, shaped by individual political interests and legal limitations. Solutions such as providing the UNGPO with funding and investigatory mechanisms, and clarifying the Genocide Convention, can help overcome the political barriers that prevent genocide from being recognised. By assisting nations to depoliticise the recognition process with automatic response times and legal accountability, the international community can better protect marginalised communities from future atrocities and assist previous victims in getting justice.