Russia’s War Against Ukraine

Lessons from Yugoslavia and Rwanda Support Claims of Genocide

By Philip Amur

Philip Amur is a May 2023 graduate of Albany Law School. He grew up in Walnut Creek, CA, and received his undergraduate degree from Willamette University, where he majored in Economics and Spanish.

At Albany Law School, Philip was involved with the Government Law Center Fellowship Program, the Student Bar Association, research assistance, and moot court competitions. During his time as a student, he interned with the Third Judicial District of the New York State Unified Court System, the Goldwater Institute, the Office of the New York State Comptroller, and the Claims Bureau of the New York State Attorney General’s Office.

This September, Philip will be working as an Assistant District Attorney with the Queens County District Attorney’s Office. 

In February of 2022, Russia launched its long-anticipated invasion of Ukraine. The Russian Federation has labeled the invasion a “special military operation” intended merely to save pro-Russian Ukrainians from the alleged nationalistic tendencies of Kyiv’s current government.

However, according to world leaders other commentators, the actions of the Russian government and is military commanders sound in war crimes. Some have gone so far as to classify the acts carried out in Ukraine as genocidal.

This paper examines the legal origins of the term “genocide,” how the term has been interpreted by various ad-hoc tribunals, and whether those prior interpretations provide an adequate basis to charge President Putin with this crime.

_________________________

To read the paper, open HERE.

Analysis of Rwandan Genocide and Rohingya Genocide

By Victor Obech

Victor Obech is an alum of the Albany Law School Class of 2020. He completed his Master of Laws Degree (LLM) at Albany Law, having concentrated in International Law. Victor finished his undergraduate law degree at the University of Nairobi, Kenya in 2015. He is passionate about helping vulnerable immigrants with legal services. He enjoys research and community organization. Victor also works at The Devereux Foundation, a nonprofit organization with interest in providing support to individuals with developmental disability in the society.

Throughout the centuries, different nations and people have experienced acts of genocide. Even though genocide was formally recognized through the Genocide Conventions, targeted killing towards different particular groups of people started way before that. For instance, it is estimated that the Mongols killed and destroyed the lives of about 5% of the world’s population during the peak of their empire. At that time, there were no formalized laws that prevented or guided conduct during wars, and this led to massive deaths during the early century acts of war crime. The perpetrators were also not formally tried or punished in a manner that would deter future acts of war crimes like genocide.

This paper particularly looks into the Rwanda Genocide of 1994 and the Rohingya Genocide which is currently ongoing. The paper intends to make a comparative analysis of the responses of states and other bodies in prevention and punishment of genocide in the two instances. The paper aims at elucidating the necessary steps the world has made in prevention of acts of genocide, and what should be done during an ongoing genocide. It also analyses the punishments faced by the perpetrators and whether they were of deterrent nature or simply a slap on the wrist.

_______________________

To read the paper, open HERE.

The Genocide Convention: Promise but Failure

By Kayla Molinaro
Kayla Molinaro is a third year student at Albany Law School. She is an Associate Editor for Albany Law Review and a teaching assistant for Professor Mary Lynch's Domestic Violence Seminar.
Kayla prepared this memorandum for Prof. Bonventre’s International Law of War & Crime Seminar, Fall 2013.

I.    Definition of Genocide 

Article II of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Genocide Convention) defines genocide as,

“any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.”^[1]

II. Genocide Convention and the International Community’s Duty 

Adopted in 1948, the Genocide Convention stated that states were obligated to prevent and punish those who commit genocide because it was a crime under international law.^[2]  The Convention further addresses the duty and responsibility of a state when it comes to the punishment of actors of genocide whether they are officials or private individuals.^[3]  Under the Genocide Convention, prosecution should take place in a “competent tribunal” and the UN can be called upon to take necessary action to prevent such genocide.^[4] 

The Living Death: Prosecuting Rape as Torture Under International Law [The Presentation]

By Dana P. Stanton
Dana Stanton is a 2013 summa cum laude graduate of Albany Law School. She did her undergraduate work in chemical engineering at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, and she worked as an engineer for General Electric in the Operations Management Leadership Program.
During law school, Dana was an associate editor on the Albany Law Review, and she interned with the Domestic Violence Prosecution Hybrid Clinic and the Family Violence Litigation Clinic, as well as with the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of New York and the New York State Office of the Attorney General's Environmental Protection Bureau.
Dana is now an associate at the law firm of McNamee, Lochner, Titus and Williams in Albany, NY.
This presentation was prepared for Professor Bonventre’s International Law of War and Crime Seminar. It is the companion to Ms. Stanton's paper of the same title that was published by ILS on Sept.16, 2013.

As was stated in the introduction to that companion paper:
The torture of men has traditionally been taken more seriously under international law than sexual violence against women.   As a consequence, wartime rape was not prosecuted in international tribunals until the late 1990s.
However, the physical and psychological harm to rape victims can be just as severe as the harm to torture victims. International tribunals have begun to bring rape within the realm of jus cogens norm by prosecuting rape as a form of torture.
This presentation outlines how rape was used as a weapon in war, why rape was not prosecuted as a war crime until recently, compares rape to torture, explores the sexual violence in Rwanda, the former Yugoslavia and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and the significance of jus cogens for international rape prosecutions.

(click to enlarge slides)

___________________________

For the entire presentation, open HERE.
(It is then best to Download [by clicking on File] and then Open the downloaded power-point presentation.)

The Living Death: Prosecuting Rape as Torture Under International Law

Dana P. Stanton is a 2013 summa cum laude graduate of Albany Law School. She did her undergraduate work in chemical engineering at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, and she worked as an engineer for General Electric in the Operations Management Leadership Program.
During law school, Dana was an associate editor on the Albany Law Review, and she interned with the Domestic Violence Prosecution Hybrid Clinic and the Family Violence Litigation Clinic, as well as with the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of New York and the New York State Office of the Attorney General's Environmental Protection Bureau.
Dana is now an associate at the law firm of McNamee, Lochner, Titus and Williams in Albany, NY.
This paper was prepared for Professor Bonventre’s International Law of War and Crime Seminar.

The torture of men has traditionally been taken more seriously under international law than sexual violence against women.   As a consequence, wartime rape was not prosecuted in international tribunals until the late 1990s.
However, the physical and psychological harm to rape victims can be just as severe as the harm to torture victims. International tribunals have begun to bring rape within the realm of jus cogens norm by prosecuting rape as a form of torture.
Part I of the paper explains how rape was used as a weapon in war, and Part II discusses why rape was not prosecuted as a war crime until recently. Part III explains rape from the victims’ perspective and Part IV compares rape to torture. Parts V through VII explore the sexual violence in Rwanda, the former Yugoslavia and the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the jurisprudence arising therefrom. Finally, Part VIII discusses the significance of jus cogens for international rape prosecutions.

_____________________________

To read the paper, open HERE.

Humanitarian Intervention in the Twenty First Century

Would the Security Council Intervene to Stop the Genocide in Rwanda if it Happened Today?

By Anna Ovcharenko

Anna Ovcharenko is a third-year student at Hofstra Law School and President of the Hofstra International Law Society. She is a magna cum laude graduate from Tomsk State University, Russia, where she majored in International Relations. Before law school, Anna served as a diplomat at the Russian Mission to the United Nations where she specialized in international development, children’s rights and environmental issues. In March 2010, she visited Rwanda as part of the UN official delegation. Past summer, Anna worked at the Global Legal Program at the Center for Reproductive Rights. In Spring 2013, she will start her legal internship at the Immigration Clinical Practicum.

This paper was prepared for Professor James Hickey’s International Human Rights Seminar at Hofstra Law School.

The 1994 genocide in Rwanda claimed the lives of at least 800,000 people while the United Nations withdrew its peacekeepers and the rest of the world stood aside. Had the UN Security Council mandated humanitarian intervention, it would have saved the lives of many innocent people.

This paper examines the development of the humanitarian intervention doctrine and analyzes whether it could have been used by the U.N. Security Council in the case of Rwanda. Specifically, it provides the factual context for the genocide in Rwanda and summarizes the lack of effective action by the Security Council to prevent it. It analyzes the international law of humanitarian intervention as it stands today and examines several instances of the use of force by the Security Council in situations amounting to genocide.

The paper concludes with a recommendation that the international community needs to develop a clearer framework for the use of force by the Security Council in the future.

_____________________________

To read the paper, open HERE.

Rape in War [the paper]

By Julia Steciuk
Julia Steciuk prepared this paper for the International Law of War and Crime Seminar, summer 2012, in conjunction with the associated presentation which was previously published on ILS.
As noted then, Julia Steciuk, a second year student at Albany Law School, studied English as an undergraduate at Siena College. During her first year at Albany Law, Julia became Co-Director of Albany Law’s Animal Pro Bono Project, as well as President of the school’s Animal Legal Defense Fund chapter. Julia is a Research Assistant for Professor Vincent M. Bonventre, as well as an Associate Editor for the Center for Judicial Process. She spent her summer interning with the Albany County District Attorney’s Office.

Where there is war there is rape. Throughout history, rape has been used as a tool for a variety of purposes during war. However, it was not until after World War II that rape within the context of war gained the attention of the international legal community and when developments began to be made towards improving the abilities of prosecutors to charge and try rape offenders in the context of war.

Part I of this paper discusses the prosecution of rape in war within the context of the Nuremburg and Tokyo Trials. Part II examines developments in international law towards an increased recognition for victims of rape during such national trials. Parts III and IV discuss how these improvements have been implemented during the Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and the Tribunal for Rwanda, while also examining drawbacks that occurred for the prosecution of rape. Part V discusses further developments and limitations in prosecution of rape in war and Part VI concludes this work.
_____________________________
To read the paper, open HERE.

Rape in War [presentation]

By Julia Steciuk
Julia Steciuk, a second year student at Albany Law School, studied English as an undergraduate at Siena College. During her first year at Albany Law, Julia became Co-Director of Albany Law’s Animal Pro Bono Project, as well as President of the school’s Animal Legal Defense Fund chapter. Julia is a Research Assistant for Professor Vincent M. Bonventre, as well as an Associate Editor for the Center for Judicial Process. She spent her summer interning with the Albany County District Attorney’s Office.
She prepared this presentation for the International Law of War and Crime Seminar, summer 2012. (Her associated paper is forthcoming on ILS.)

(click to enlarge on all slides)

 

 

_____________________________

For the entire presentation, open HERE.
(It is then best to download the presentation and view it from there.)