Criteria for Proving "Special Intent" in the Crime of Genocide رسالة ماجستير

Abstract

Genocide is a special case of international criminal law, since it's a special crime due to the necessity of having a unique mental element, namely special intent (dolus specialis), which differentiates it from other international crimes, such as war crimes and crimes against humanity. Though the material acts of genocide are specific entities under the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, the legal problem remains: the necessity to satisfy an intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a protected group of persons. This mental dimension is by far the most difficult, and hotly debated element of genocide cases, and this element continues to develop through contradictory legal interpretations and doctrinal disputes within different tribunals in different judicial settings. This thesis presents a theoretical analysis that studies the legal principles underlying the evidence of special intention in genocide law based on an examination of international legal conventions, judicial jurisprudence, and modern legal scholarship. Using descriptive and analytical methods (hailed from a historical and inferential literature review), it analyzes the development of the construct dolus specialis, the position as it exists today, and its use within international criminal tribunals like the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), International Criminal Court (ICC), and International Court of Justice (ICJ). The distinction between purpose-based and knowledge-based formulations of intent, as well as the evidentiary importance of circumstantial inferences (e.g., patterns of behaviors, systematic targeting of specific groups, and official policies or statements), is emphasized here. Based on comparative case studies such as those of Rwanda, the former Yugoslavia and recent trial decisions covering the situation in Gaza, it outlines a holistic methodology aimed at analyzing the special intent framework by drawing upon the theory of three interrelated levels of analysis: the material acts (actus reus), its contextual pattern of conduct, and the existence of official policies or directives that embody destructive ends as well. Such a common level of standard is intended to balance the values of legality and the humanitarian concerns in international criminal law while maintaining two inter-related aspects: legal basis and the applicability to practice, in that the legal standard should be founded on a sound body of case law to make it acceptable to law enforcement and applied at a humanitarian level. The thesis finds that a contextual and integrated evidentiary approach is necessary in order to overcome the inadequacies of narrowly construed purpose-specific theories of intent in establishing intent. This research is important as it advances a more coherent judicial practice by establishing a logically structured and legally-grounded standard for proving dolus specialis, and for the capacity of the international courts to hold international violators accountable for the gravest crimes against protected groups.