Darfur and the Politicization of International Law: Genocide or Crimes against Humanity?

In: Humanity & society, Band 31, Heft 1, S. 83-107

Abstract

The humanitarian crisis in Darfur has slowly captivated international public, governmental, and media attention. With at least two million persons displaced and an estimated 400,000 killed,1 it is one of the many grave crises of failed states currently occurring within Africa. The people of the region have faced murder, displacement, rape, and banditry at the hands of the Sudanese government, the state-supported Janjaweed, and other militia groups, most notably the Sudan Liberation Army. Yet the United Nations concluded after a fact-finding mission to the region that these widespread atrocities did not constitute genocide but rather were defined as crimes against humanity. This article provides a brief overview of the background and contemporary state of the situation as well as a legal examination of the nature of genocide in international law and the United Nation Security Council's rationale for applying the label of crimes against humanity. The chief purpose of the article is to clearly differentiate the two concepts of genocide and crimes against humanity and to thoroughly examine the practical difference a definition makes.