This book aspires to examine international law-making
concerning genocide. The genocide phenomenon is
explored from the perspective of a protected group
emerging from the Convention on the Prevention and
Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. The focus is
given to the concept of judicial law-making and
judicial activism. Its legitimacy is discussed
against legal background of a decision of the
International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda in the
Akayesu Case. It was contended that due to the
proliferation of international judicial bodies and
globalisation of the concept of justice , the role
of international judges should be viewed from a
different approach. After examining the process of
international law-making relating to genocide, this
book, however, concludes that the role of the
international judge has remained the same (i. e. to
decide a case providing reasoning supported by a
relevant set of norms). Although judges decide a
broad interpretation of genocide, this does not mean
that they create international law. States remain the
primary law-makers of the system. Consequently, it is
upon state practice to enhance the progressive
development of these judicial decisions.
concerning genocide. The genocide phenomenon is
explored from the perspective of a protected group
emerging from the Convention on the Prevention and
Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. The focus is
given to the concept of judicial law-making and
judicial activism. Its legitimacy is discussed
against legal background of a decision of the
International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda in the
Akayesu Case. It was contended that due to the
proliferation of international judicial bodies and
globalisation of the concept of justice , the role
of international judges should be viewed from a
different approach. After examining the process of
international law-making relating to genocide, this
book, however, concludes that the role of the
international judge has remained the same (i. e. to
decide a case providing reasoning supported by a
relevant set of norms). Although judges decide a
broad interpretation of genocide, this does not mean
that they create international law. States remain the
primary law-makers of the system. Consequently, it is
upon state practice to enhance the progressive
development of these judicial decisions.