What does ‘intent to destroy’ in genocide mean?

Abstract

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 lowlevel perpetrators knowledge of the genocidal context should suffice. Lastly, this new Volume

<p>From Child to Genocide Perpetrator: Narrative Identity Analysis Among Genocide Prisoners Incarcerated in Muhanga Prison, Rwanda</p>

“…49 It is in that regard they define genocide as a crime with a double mental element, ie, a general intent as to the underlying acts, and an ulterior intent with regard to the ultimate aim of the destruction of the group. 50,51 Similarities and Differences Observed from the Narratives of Respondents Similarities and differences from the respondents in terms of the identity change were found. This corroborates the idea of the prior studies that indicated that people possess multiple constructions of self that differ in activation across situations.…”

A Paradox of International Criminal Justice: The Biafra Genocide

“…In the case of genocide, the general intent relates to the opening paragraph as well as to the acts listed in the offence and directed against one of the protected groups. (Ambos, 2009: 834).…”

“…Kai Ambos (2009: 833) has attempted to illustrate the two separate mental elements: the crime of genocide, by what he described as “general intent” or dolus, and an additional “intent to destroy” 3 as provided by the International Commission of Inquiry on Darfur. 4 A general intent normally relates to all objective elements of the offence definition (actus reus) and has now been defined in international criminal law by Article 30 of the Statute of the ICC as basically encompassing a volitional (intent) and/or a cognitive or intellectual (knowledge) element.…”

The Process of Othering from the "Social Imaginaire" to Physical Acts: An Anthropological Approach

“…Kai Ambos, 55 as well as Ugur Üngör and Mehmet Polatel, 56 therefore distinguish three different levels of perpetrators: high level perpetrators, mid level perpetrators and low level perpetrators, also considered foot soldiers or in the case of the Armenian genocide civilians and gendarmes. The high level perpetrators create the ideological framework in which genocidal violence gets sanctified.…”