The Relationship between Hate Propaganda and Incitement to Genocide: A New Trend in International Law Towards Criminalization of Hate Propaganda?

Leiden Journal of International Law

Volumn 18, Issue 2, 2005, Pages 257-282

  Timmermann, Wibke Kristin ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

freedom of speech; Genocide Convention; Hate propaganda; incitement to genocide; International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda; purposive interpretation

Indexed keywords

EID: 34248038625     PISSN: 09221565     EISSN: 14789698     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0922156505002633     Document Type: Article

References (181)

1. F. Keane, ‘Deliver Us from Evil’, The IndependentMagazine, 3 April 2004, 16.
2. ‘Deliver Us from Evil’., at 18.
3. 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 999 UNTS 171, (1966) 6 ILM 368 (hereinafter ‘ICCPR').
4. General Comment No. 11, 19th Sess. (1983), HRI/GEN/1/Rev. 6, para. 2.
5. ICCPR, General Comment No. 11 note 3; 1950 European Convention for the Prevention of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, opened for signature 4 November 1950, 213 UNTS 221 (entered into force 3 Sep. 1953) (hereinafter ‘ECHR'); 1969 American Convention on Human Rights, opened for signature 22 November 1969, OAS Treaty SeriesNo. 36, at 1, OEA/Ser. L./V/II.23 doc. rev. 2 (entered into force 18 July 1978) (hereinafter ‘ACHR').
6. J.Oraá, Human Rights in States of Emergency in International Law(1992), 144-68; Jorge Landinelli Silva v.Uruguay, Comm. No. 34/1978 (30May 1978), CCPR/C/12/D/34/1978.
7. Oraá, Human Rights in States of Emergency in International Law note 7, at 140.
8. ‘A key element in the reconciliation of the various claims which confront each other in the area of international human rights protection’ (my translation). E. Cannizzaro, Il Principio della Proporzionalita’ nell'Ordinamento Internazionale (2000), 40.
9. Oraá, ‘A key element in the reconciliation of the various claims which confront each other in the area of international human rights protection’ note 7, at 140-1.
10. Pietraroia v. Uruguay, Comm. No. 44/1979 (27March 1981), UN Doc. CCPR/C/OP/1, at 65 (1984); Garcia Lanza et al. v. Uruguay, Comm. No. 8/1977 (3 April 1980); Saldias de Lopez v. Uruguay, Comm. No. 52/1979 (29 July 1981) UN GAOR, 36th Sess., Supp. No. 40, at 176, 182, UN Doc. A/36/40 (1981).
11. Cannizzaro, Pietraroia v. Uruguay note 9, at 56-7, 62-7; Jersild v. Denmark, 298 Eur. Ct. H.R. (Ser. A), (1995) 19 EHRR 1, at paras. 28-37 (hereinafter ‘Jersild');Marais v. France, (1996) 86-A Eur. Comm. HRDR. 184 (hereinafter ‘Marais'); Ochsenberger v. Austria, (1994) 18EHRRCD170; Remer v. Germany, (1995) 82-A Eur.Comm.HRDR. 117 (hereinafter ‘Remer').
12. Inter-American Commission for Human Rights, Annual Report, 1985-6: Nicaragua (1986), 165-75.
13. Annex to UN GA Res. 2625 (XXV) (1970), in I. Brownlie (ed.), Basic Documents in International Law (2002), 27.
14. A. H. Robertson and J. G.Merrills, Human Rights in theWorld (1996), 29.
15. Human Rights in theWorld., at 31; Universal Declaration of Human Rights, GA Res. 217(III), Art. 7, UN GAOR, 3d Sess., Supp. No. 13, UNDoc.A/810 (1948) (hereinafter ‘Universal Declaration'). See S. Farrior, ‘Molding theMatrix: The Historical and Theoretical Foundations of International Law Concerning Hate Speech’, (1996) 14 Berkeley Journal of International Law 1, at 6-21.
16. 1948 Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, opened for signature 9 December 1948, Art. II, 78 UNTS 277 (entered into force 12 January 1951) (hereinafter ‘Genocide Convention').
17. Streicher Judgment, (1946) 22 Trial of GermanMajorWar Criminals 501, 501 (hereinafter ‘Streicher').
18. Streicher Judgment., at 502.
19. Sentences Judgment, (1946) 22 Trial of GermanMajorWar Criminals 529, 529.
20. Streicher, Sentences Judgment note 19, at 502.
21. J. F. Metzl, ‘Rwandan Genocide and the International Law of Radio Jamming’, (1997) 91 AJIL 628, at 637.
22. An inchoate crime is a crime which is committed ‘even though the substantive offence (i.e. the offence it was intended to bring about) is not completed and no harm results’: A. Ashworth, Principles of Criminal Law (2003), 445.
23. Prosecutor v. Nahimana et al., Judgment and Sentence, Case No. ICTR-99-52-T, 3 December 2003, para. 981 (hereinafter ‘Nahimana').
24. Fritzsche Judgment, (1946) 22 Trial of GermanMajorWar Criminals 525, 525 (hereinafter ‘Fritzsche').
25. Fritzsche Judgment., at 526.
26. Metzl, Fritzsche Judgment note 24, at 637.
27. Nahimana, Metzl note 26, para. 982.
28. L. J.Martin, International Propaganda: Its Legal and Diplomatic Control (1958), 206.
29. W. A. Schabas, ‘Hate Speech in Rwanda: The Road to Genocide’, (2000) 46McGill Law Journal 141, at 152.
30. Ad Hoc Committee on Genocide, 16th Mtg., UN ESCOR, UN Doc. E/AC.25/SR.16 (1948) at 12, cited in Schabas, ‘Hate Speech in Rwanda: The Road to Genocide’ note 34, at 151.
31. Ad Hoc Committee on Genocide., at 152.
32. Ad Hoc Committee on Genocide., at 154.
33. International Law Commission, Draft Code of Crimes Against the Peace and Security of Mankind (1996), Art. 2 commentary, para. 16, in Report of the International Law Commission on theWork of Its Forty-Eighth Session (6May-26 July 1996), in Yearbook. 1996, Vol. II (Part Two) 15, UN Doc. A/51/10.
34. International Law Commission, Draft Code of Offences against the Peace and Security of Mankind, Art. 2(13)(ii), in Report of the International Law Commission Covering theWork of Its Sixth Session (3 June-28 July 1954), in Yearbook. 1954, Vol. II, 151, UN Doc. A/2693.
35. Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, Art. 4(3)(c), SC Res. 827, 3217th Mtg., UN Doc. S/RES/827 (1993).
36. Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, Art. 2(3)(c), SC Res. 955, 3453d Mtg., UN Doc. S/RES/955 (1994).
37. Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, Art. 25(3)(e), UN Doc. A/CONF.183.9* (1998), available at http://www.un.org/law/icc/statute/romefra.htm.
38. W. A. Schabas, Genocide in International Law (2000), 479-82.
39. UN Doc. A/C.6/215/Rev. 1 (1948).
40. Schabas, UN Doc. A/C.6/215/Rev note 43, at 482.
41. Universal Declaration, Schabas note 16, Art. 7.
42. ICCPR, Universal Declaration note 3, Art. 20.
43. K. Boyle, ‘Hate Speech-The United States Versus the Rest of theWorld?’, (2001) 53 Maine Law Review 487, at 495.
44. ACHR, ‘Hate Speech-The United States Versus the Rest of theWorld?’ note 6, Art. 13(5).
45. ICERD, ACHR note 6, Art. 4(a)-(b).
46. GeneralRecommendation 15: OrganizedViolence Based on EthnicOrigin (Art. 4),Comm.on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, 42nd Sess., P 3, UN Doc. A/48/18 (1993), para. 2.
47. ICCPR: 148 ratifications; ACHR: 25 ratifications; ICERD: 161 ratifications (all as of 31 January 2002), cited in I. Brownlie and G. S. Goodwin-Gill (eds.), Basic Documents on Human Rights (2002), xiii, at xiv, xviii.
48. R. R. Baxter, ‘Multilateral Treaties as Evidence of Customary International Law’, (1965-6) 41 BYBIL 275, 300.
49. D. McGoldrick and T. O'Donnell, ‘Hate-Speech Laws: Consistency with National and International Human Rights Law’, (1998) 18 Legal Studies 453, 471.
50. J.R.T. andW.G.P. v. Canada (No. 104/1981), printed in Report of the Human Rights Committee, UN GAOR, 38th Sess., Supp. No. 40, UN Doc. A/38/40, Annex XXIV (1983) 231, 4 HRLJ 193.
51. J.R.T. andW.G.P. v. Canada., para. 8(b). See also D. McGoldrick, The Human Rights Committee: Its Role in the Development of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1991), 490-1.
52. Malcolm Ross v. Canada (No. 736/1997), CCPR/C/70/D/736/1997 (2000).
53. Malcolm Ross v. Canada (No. 736/1997)., para. 11.5.
54. Faurisson v. France (No. 550/1993), UN Doc. CCPR/C/58/D/550/1993 (1996), printed in Report of the Human Rights Committee, vol. II, UN GAOR, 52d Sess., Supp. No. 40, UN Doc. A/52/40, Appendix (1999) 84.
55. Faurisson v. France (No. 550/1993)., (E. Evatt and D. Kretzmer, Individual Opinions and E. Klein, Concurring), para. 4.
56. Glimmerveen and Hagenbeck v. The Netherlands, (1979) 18 Eur. Comm. HRDR. 187, 4 EHRR 260; X. v. Federal Republic of Germany, (1982) 29 Eur. Comm. HRDR. 194; H., W., P. and K. v. Austria, (1989) 62 Eur. Comm. HRDR. 216; Ochsenberger v. Austria;Walendy v.Germany, (1995) 80-A Eur. Comm. HRDR. 94; 38 Y. B. Eur. Conv. H. R. 51; Remer, Faurisson v. France (No. 550/1993) note 12; Honsik v.Austria, 83-B Eur.Comm. HRDR. 77 (1995);Nationaldemokratische Partei Deutschlands, Bezirksverband Mü nchen-Oberbayern v. Germany, (1996) 84-A Eur. Comm. HRDR. 149; Marais, Faurisson v. France (No. 550/1993) note 12. SeeMcGoldrick and O'Donnell, Faurisson v. France (No. 550/1993) note 55, at 465-9.
57. ‘The writings of the applicant go against fundamental values of theConvention, as expressed in its Preamble, that is, justice and peace’ (my translation). Marais, Glimmerveen and Hagenbeck v. The Netherlands note 12, at 190.
58. Jersild, ‘The writings of the applicant go against fundamental values of theConvention, as expressed in its Preamble, that is, justice and peace’ note 12, para. 35.
59. R. Dworkin, Taking Rights Seriously (1977), 193.
60. S/RES/955 (1994).
61. UN Charter Art. 25.
62. Prosecutor v. Akayesu, Judgment, Case No. ICTR-96-4-T, 2 September 1998 (hereinafter ‘Akayesu').
63. Inkotanyi is Kinyarwanda for ‘those who fight courageously’, and was used to refer to units of the RPF. R. Dallaire, Shake HandsWith the Devil: The Failure of Humanity in Rwanda (2003), 531.
64. Akayesu, Inkotanyi is Kinyarwanda for ‘those who fight courageously’ note 68, para. 674.
65. See generally Nahimana, Akayesu note 26.
66. generally Nahimana., para. 1031.
67. generally Nahimana., para. 1035.
68. generally Nahimana., para. 1038.
69. Akayesu, generally Nahimana note 68, para. 562.
70. Nahimana, Akayesu note 26, para. 1015 (emphasis added).
71. Akayesu, Nahimana note 68, para. 482.
72. Prosecutor v. Bikindi, Indictment, CaseNo. ICTR-2001-72-1, 27 June 2001, paras. 20, 31, 34 (hereinafter ‘Bikindi').
73. Schabas, Prosecutor v. Bikindi note 43, at 292.
74. StGB §§ 26, 31(1).
75. StGB § 130.
76. A. Eser, ‘Individual Criminal Responsibility’, in A. Cassese et al. (eds.), The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: A Commentary (2002), Vol. II, at 767, 803-4.
77. Prosecutor v. Blaškić, Trial Chamber Judgment, Case No. IT-95-14, 3 March 2000, para. 280; see also Prosecutor v. Kordić and čerkez, Trial Chamber Judgment, Case No. IT-95-14/2, 26 February 2001, para. 387 (hereinafter ‘Kordić Trial Chamber'); Prosecutor v. Kordić and čerkez, Appeals Chamber Judgment, Case No. IT-95-14/2, 17 December 2004, para. 26.
78. Kordić Trial Chamber, Prosecutor v. Blaškić note 83, para. 387.
79. A. Eser, ‘The Law of Incitement and the Use of Speech to Incite Others to Commit Criminal Acts: German Law in Comparative Perspective’, in D. Kretzmer and F. K. Hazan (eds.), Freedom of Speech and Incitement Against Democracy (2000), 63 at 69. See also A. Cassese, International Criminal Law (2000), 189-90, 198; S. Baer, ‘Violence: Dilemmas of Democracy and Law’, in Kretzmer and Hazan, Kordić Trial Chamber note 85, at 119, 124.
80. M. Kremnitzer and K. Ghanayim, ‘Incitement, not Sedition’, in Kretzmer and Hazan, ‘The Law of Incitement and the Use of Speech to Incite Others to Commit Criminal Acts: German Law in Comparative Perspective’ note 85, at 147, 160.
81. Cited in ‘Incitement, not Sedition’., at 160.
82. Martin, Cited in ‘Incitement, not Sedition’ note 33, at 124-5.
83. Akayesu, Martin note 68, para. 557.
84. W. A. Schabas, ‘Mugesera v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration’, (1999) 93 AJIL 529, 530.
85. Bikindi, ‘Mugesera v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration’ note 78, para. 31.
86. Prosecutor v. Kambanda, Judgment and Sentence, Case No. ICTR-97-23-S, 4 September 1998, para. 39(x) (hereinafter ‘Kambanda').
87. Akayesu, Prosecutor v. Kambanda note 68, para. 557.
88. Akayesu., para. 558.
89. Akayesu., para. 674.
90. Nahimana, Akayesu note 26, paras. 95, 697.
91. Nahimana., para. 1028.
92. Nahimana., para. 1020.
93. Nahimana., para. 1021.
94. Nahimana., para. 409.
95. Nahimana., para. 138.
96. Nahimana., para. 152.
97. Nahimana., para. 153.
98. Nahimana., para. 1036.
99. Nahimana., para. 950.
100. Nahimana., para. 951.
101. Nahimana., para. 949.
102. Nahimana., para. 953.
103. Cited in D. Temple-Raston, ‘Radio Hate’, (2002) Legal Affairs 29, 30.
104. Nahimana, ‘Radio Hate’ note 26, paras. 978-1015.
105. Nahimana., para. 1010.
106. Nahimana., para. 1031.
107. Nahimana., para. 1010.
108. See McGoldrick, Nahimana note 57, at 168-9.
109. 1996 Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, opened for signature 19 December 1966, 999 UNTS 302 (entered into force 23March 1976).
110. ICERD, 1996 Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights note 4, Art. 14.
111. See e.g. ICCPR, ICERD note 3, Art. 41; ICERD, ICERD note 4, Art. 11; ECHR, ICERD note 6, Art. 33; ACHR, ICERD note 6, Art. 45.
112. Cassese, ICCPR note 85, at 23.
113. Kambanda, Cassese note 93, para. 16; Prosecutor v. Serashugo, Sentencing Judgment, Case No. ICTR-98-39-S, 2 February 1999, para. 15.
114. Schabas, Kambanda note 43, at 9.
115. 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Arts. 53, 64, opened for signature 23May 1969, 1155 UNTS 331 (1969) (entered into force Jan. 27, 1980) (hereinafter ‘VCLT').
116. A. Verdross, ‘Jus Dispositivum and Jus Cogens in International Law’, (1966) 60 AJIL 55, 58.
117. Prosecutor v. Furundzija, Judgment, Case No. IT-95-17/1-T, 10 December 1998, para. 151 (hereinafter ‘Furundzija').
118. Verdross, Prosecutor v. Furundzija note 126, at 59.
119. Application of the Genocide Convention case, Verdross note 124, para. 31.
120. Reservations to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Advisory Opinion, 28May 1951, [1951] ICJ Rep. 15, at 23; see also Bassiouni, Application of the Genocide Convention case note 124, at 73; G. A. Christenson, ‘Jus Cogens: Guarding Interests Fundamental to International Society’, (1988) 28 Virginia Journal of International Law 585, 605-6.
121. Reservations advisory opinion, Reservations to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide note 130, at 23.
122. Jorgic case, Reservations advisory opinion note 124, para. 16.
123. A. Cassese, ‘Genocide’, in Cassese et al., Jorgic case note 82, 335 at 338.
124. Schabas, ‘Genocide’ note 43, at 24-30, 52.
125. R. Lemkin, ‘Genocide as a Crime under International Law’, (1947) 41 AJIL 145, 146.
126. Genocide Convention, ‘Genocide as a Crime under International Law’ note 17, Art. I.
127. Schabas, Genocide Convention note 43, at 500.
128. GA Res. 96(I) UN GAOR, 1st Sess., pt. 2, at 1134, UN Doc. A/231 (1946).
129. Application of Genocide Convention case, GA Res. 96(I) UN GAOR note 124, para. 110 (Judge Lauterpacht, Separate Opinion).
130. Genocide Convention, Application of Genocide Convention case, GA Res. 96(I) UN GAOR note 124 note 17, Arts. III(c)-(d).
131. Cassese, Genocide Convention note 85, at 22 (emphasis in original).
132. W. A. Schabas, ‘Le Gé nocide’, in H. Ascencio et al. (eds.), Droit international penal (2000), 319, at 324.
133. S/RES/1161 (1998) (emphasis in original); see also S/RES/1049 (1996).
134. Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, Prevention of Incitement to Hatred and Genocide, Particularly by theMedia (Resolution 1995/4).
135. B. Grill, ‘Der Rest ist Verdrä ngen’, Die Zeit, 1 April 2004, at 12.
136. J. Glover, Humanity: AMoral History of the Twentieth Century (2001), 339.
137. Nahimana, Humanity: AMoral History of the Twentieth Century note 26, para. 358.
138. Glover, Nahimana note 148, at 339.
139. Kremnitzer and Ghanayim, Glover note 86, at 160-1.
140. Kremnitzer and Ghanayim., at 164.
141. E. Staub, The Roots of Evil: The Origins of Genocide and Other Group Violence (1989), 62, 95.
142. The Roots of Evil: The Origins of Genocide and Other Group Violence., at 120.
143. Nahimana, The Roots of Evil: The Origins of Genocide and Other Group Violence note 26, para. 179.
144. M. Frohardt and J. Temin, ‘Use and Abuse ofMedia in Vulnerable Societies’, USIP Special Report 110, United States Institute of Peace (2003), available at http://www.usip.org/pubs/specialreports/sr110.pdf (last visited 2 February 2005), at 7.
145. A. Des Forges, Leave None to Tell the Story: Genocide in Rwanda, Human Rights Watch Report, 1999, available at http://www.hrw.org/reports/1999/rwanda/Geno1-3-10.htm#P408 170340 (last visited 8 March 2004), at 5.
146. Prosecutor v. Ruggiu, Judgment and Sentence, Case No. ICTR-97-32-I, 1 June 2000, para. 19.
147. Dallaire, Prosecutor v. Ruggiu note 69, at 513-14.
148. A. Tsesis, DestructiveMessages: How Hate Speech Paves theWay for Harmful SocialMovements (2002), 20.
149. DestructiveMessages: How Hate Speech Paves theWay for Harmful SocialMovements., at 23.
150. R. E. Herzstein, TheWar That HitlerWon: TheMost Infamous Propaganda Campaign in History (1979), 16.
151. TheWar That HitlerWon: TheMost Infamous Propaganda Campaign in History., at 58-61.
152. TheWar That HitlerWon: TheMost Infamous Propaganda Campaign in History., at 309.
153. TheWar That HitlerWon: TheMost Infamous Propaganda Campaign in History., at 310.
154. TheWar That HitlerWon: TheMost Infamous Propaganda Campaign in History., at 426.
155. Streicher, TheWar That HitlerWon: TheMost Infamous Propaganda Campaign in History note 19, at 501.
156. M. Thompson, ForgingWar: TheMedia in Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia and Hercegovina (1999), 53.
157. Cited in Glover, ForgingWar: TheMedia in Serbia note 148, at 360.
158. This book was published in Paris in 1970. See Des Forges, Cited in Glover note 157, at 1.
159. P. M. Taylor, Munitions of theMind: A History of Propaganda from the AncientWorld to the Present Day (1995).
160. Munitions of theMind: A History of Propaganda from the AncientWorld to the Present Day., at 73.
161. Glover, Munitions of theMind: A History of Propaganda from the AncientWorld to the Present Day note 148, at 50-1.
162. Glover., at 331.
163. J. P. Chré tien, Rwanda: Les mé dias du gé nocide (2002), at 86-7.
164. N. Davies, Europe: A History (1997), 847.
165. Judgment: Schacht et al. (Dissenting Opinion of Judge Nikitchenko), (1946) 22 Trial of German Major War Criminals 531, 538.
166. Judgment: Schacht., at 540.
167. UN Doc. E/447., at 32, cited in Schabas, UN Doc. E/447 note 43, at 480.
168. UN Doc. E/447., at 481.
169. UN Doc. A/C.6/SR.86 (citing Soviet delegateMorozov).
170. UN Doc. A/C.6/SR.86. (citing French delegate Chaumont and Haitian delegate Demesmin).
171. VCLT, UN Doc. A/C.6/SR.86 note 125, Art. 32.
172. Schabas, VCLT note 43, at 230.
173. Soering v. UK, (1989) 161 Eur. Ct. H.R. (Ser. A) at para. 87, (1990) 11 HRLJ 335; see also Loizidou v. Turkey, Preliminary Objections, (1995) 310 Eur. Ct. H.R. (Ser. A) at paras. 70, 72; Artico v. Italy, (1980) 37 Eur. Ct. H.R. (Ser. A) 16 at para. 33.
174. Reservations advisory opinion, Soering v. UK note 130, at 51 (Judge Alvarez, Dissenting Opinion).
175. Reservations advisory opinion., at 53.
176. Reservations advisory opinion, Reservations advisory opinion note 130, at 47 (Judges Guerrero,McNair, Read, and HsuMo, Dissenting Opinion).
177. Schabas, Reservations advisory opinion note 43, at 259.
178. Genocide Convention, Schabas note 17, Art. II.
179. D. Riesman, ‘Democracy and Defamation: Control of Group Libel’, (1942) 42 Columbia Law Review 727, 732.
180. ‘Relevant today’ (my translation). Chré tien, ‘Democracy and Defamation: Control of Group Libel’ note 176, at 138.
181. ‘Eventoday, theirsupportersremainresolute.Theideologicalmaskofthegenocidedieshard'(mytranslation). ‘Relevant today’ (my translation)., at 127.