Addressing genocide through international humanitarian law response mechanisms : A case study of Rwanda

Abstract

This study investigated the fabric of international humanitarian law response mechanisms, given the obtaining status quo wherein a lot of „grave‟ breaches to humanitarian concerns are manifest, an aspect largely attributable to the inadequacy of regulatory frameworks and institutions to deal with conflict situations. Against this background, the research took a case study of Rwanda, positing how problematic the distinction between NIACs and IACs has come to be in international humanitarian law. The study traced how the nature of genocide has evolved from Nuremberg to Rwanda, in the process unveiling the applicability of IHL as well as IHRL in this context which aspect is anchored on the research‟s findings. This research adopted a purely desktoporiented methodology that was used along with the doctrinal approach, as these were deemed as both convenient and consistent with the demands of a research of this nature. The study was therefore qualitative in nature involving a thorough and comprehensive review of existing literature. The research argues that for IHL to keep abreast with paradigm shifts, fundamental changes broadening its scope, applicability and jurisprudence are a prerequisite. The first prerequisite is a somewhat admission of „guilt‟, starting with the legal custodians and direct actors, that is states and insurgent groups. The need to amicably foster treaties, not circumventing them in order to avoid recurrences of grave breaches of IHL such as genocide is important in this regard. The second necessity appeals to the Rwandans themselves to engage in practical and restorative means through which real reconciliation can be achieved and to the global world at large to assist in this effort thus drawing lessons which may be applied to future conflicts. The research makes a detailed analysis and discussion of historical and other factors identifying Rwanda‟s case as of significant interest, comparing it with preceding incidence warranting the application of IHL. The study concludes by summarizing major arguments and findings as well as suggesting recommendations as how best IHL can be applied by the „stewards‟ responsible, either by mobilizing participation from stakeholders towards a common construct or as a remedial framework in times of crisis.