What does ‘intent to destroy’ in genocide mean
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 12854292 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Кай Амбос (0000-0003-3597-2443, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Crime, Security and Law, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2009 |
| Volume | 91 |
| Issue | 876 |
| Pages | 833-858 |
| Publication date | 2009-12-01 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | International Review of the Red Cross (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1607-5889 • E-ISSN: 1816-3831 |
| Publisher | Cambridge University Press (CUP) (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1017/s1816383110000056 |
| OpenAlex | W3121677706 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 15 |
| References cited | 19 |
Genocide is a crime with a double mental element, i.e. a general intent as to the underlying acts, and an ulterior intent with regard to the ultimate aim of the destruction of the group. The prevailing view in the case-law interprets the respective ‘intent to destroy’ requirement as a special or specific intent ( dolus specialis ) stressing its volitional or purpose-based tendency. While this view has been followed for a long time in legal doctrine without further ado, it has recently been challenged by knowledge- and structure-based approaches, which have not received sufficient attention. A historical, literal, systematic and teleological interpretation of the ‘intent to destroy’ requirement, taking into account the particular structure of the genocide offence and the meaning of ‘intent’ in comparative law, reveals that the traditional view can no longer be maintained. It should be replaced by a combined structure- and knowledge-based approach that distinguishes according to the status and role of the (low-, mid- and top-level) perpetrators. Thus, the purpose-based intent should be upheld only with regard to the top- and mid-level perpetrators, whereas for the low-level perpetrators knowledge of the genocidal context should suffice. Lastly, this new approach requires a fresh look at the ‘intent to destroy’ requirement in cases of participation in genocide
Context (archaeology · Criminology · Doctrine · Element (criminal law · Epistemology · Genocide · Interpretation (philosophy · Linguistics · Meaning (existential · Political science · Psychotherapist · Sociology · Teleology · Global Peace and Security Dynamics · History · International Law and Human Rights · Law · Philosophy · Psychology · War, Ethics, and Justification
Reducing Genocide to Law
The Physical, Biological and Cultural Dimensions of Genocide
The Last Genocide against the Yazidi People
Imperialist Conditions of Genocide
The Process of Othering from the "Social Imaginaire" to Physical Acts
Organized crime and gang violence in national and international law
Genocide in the Spanish Civil War? Francoist repression in the light of international law
An Earlier Genocide Debate
International Law for a Time of Monsters
Forum
Three Theoretical Approaches to Lemkin’s Definition of Genocide
Speaking of Genocide
Francoist repression in Spain and the crime of genocide
The Debate about Soviet Genocide in Lithuania in the Case Law of The European Court of Human Rights
A Paradox of International Criminal Justice
The definition of genocide
The Criminal Law of Genocide. The German Perspective
Mens rea – Mistake of Law & Mistake of Fact in German Criminal Law
Complicity in genocide as understood through the ICTR experience
Genocide v. War Crimes in the Van Anraat Appeal
The Crime of Genocide in the ICTR Jurisprudence
Joint Criminal Enterprise as a Pathway to Convicting Individuals for Genocide
Genocide, Complicity in Genocide and International v. Domestic Jurisdiction
A Structure-Based Concept of Genocidal Intent
The Definitions of International Crimes in the Al Bashir Arrest Warrant Decision
Complicity in Genocide' versus 'Aiding and Abetting Genocide
Command Responsibility
The Jelisić Case and the Mens Rea of the Crime of Genocide
Critical Issues in the Bemba Confirmation Decision
Genocide, Its Particular Intent to Destroy in Whole or in Part the Group as Such
| Citations per year | 0.94 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 2010 - 2025 (16) |
| Highly cited | No |