Foreign Relations of the United States, 1948, General; the United Nations, Volume I, Part 1

IO Files: US(P)/A/343

United States Delegation Position Paper

[Paris,] December 6, 1948.

Report of the Sixth Committee on the Draft Convention on Genocide¹

1. United States Position

The United States should vote in favor of the three resolutions.² The first contains the text of the draft convention on genocide; the second invites the International Law Commission to study the desirability of establishing an international penal tribunal; and the third recommends that parties to the convention should take such measures are are necessary and feasible to extend it to dependent territories as soon as possible.

It will be necessary for the United States to make a general statement on this subject.

2. History in Committee³

The Committee examined, article by article, the text of the draft Convention prepared by the Ad Hoc Committee on Genocide. It examined also the numerous amendments proposed by various delegations and drew up the text of a draft resolution, by which the Assembly approved the Convention, the text of which is annexed to the resolution. This resolution was adopted by a vote of 30 to 0 with 8 abstentions (Slav States, United Kingdom, Union of South Africa). The most important developments in the Committee were:

(1) Political Groups: When the Committee dealt for the first time with the question whether political groups should be included in the groups to be protected by the Convention, as proposed by the Ad Hoc Committee, or whether these groups should be excluded from the Convention, the United States led the fight in favor of retaining them. Proposals to exclude political groups were rejected by the Committee by a vote of twenty-nine to twelve with nine abstentions. Subsequently, when it appeared that some states might refrain from ratifying the Convention because of the retention of these groups therein, the United States delegate stated that he would support the proposal for deletion of political groups in the hope that there would be a maximum number of ratifications, and in the further hope that at a future date the Convention might be amended to include them. By a two-thirds majority vote of twenty-six to four with nine abstentions, the Committee decided to reconsider this question. Following this, the Committee by a second vote of twenty-two to six with twelve abstentions, decided to exclude political groups from the Convention.

(2) Cultural Genocide: The provision in the Ad Hoc text relating to so-called cultural genocide was deleted by a vote of twenty-five to sixteen (Slav States, China, Ecuador, Egypt, Ethiopia, Lebanon, Mexico, Pakistan, Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Syria) with four abstentions (Afghanistan, Argentina, Cuba, Venezuela). It was pointed out by several representatives, including the delegate of the United States, that the action envisaged by this provision was within the sphere of human rights.

(3) International Penal Tribunal: Article VII of the Convention, as drafted by the Ad Hoc Committee, provided that persons charged with genocide should be tried by a court of the state in the territory of which the act was committed “or by a competent international tribunal”. The words “or by a competent international tribunal” were at first eliminated by a vote of twenty-three to nineteen with three abstentions. By a vote of twenty-seven (U.S.) to five (Slav States) with six abstentions, the Committee adopted a draft resolution referring to the International Law Commission the study of the question of the desirability of establishing such a tribunal for trial of genocide or other crimes. The United States led the fight to restore the provision regarding an international judicial organ and the Committee decided by a two-thirds majority of thirty-three to nine, with six abstentions, to reconsider this question. It then adopted, by a vote of twenty-nine to nine, with five abstentions, the substance of a United States amendment by which the following words were added at the end of Article VI: “or by such international penal tribunal as may have jurisdiction with respect to such contracting Parties as shall have accepted the jurisdiction of such tribunal.” This provision had been submitted as a joint US-Belgian-French amendment.

(4) Preparatory Acts and Propaganda: The Soviet delegation had proposed that the Convention should also provide for punishment of the following acts: “The preparatory acts for committing genocide in the form of studies and research for the purpose of developing the technique of genocide: setting up of installation, manufacturing, obtaining, processing or supplying of articles or substances with the knowledge that they are intended for genocide; issuing instructions or orders and distributing tasks with a view to committing genocide;”

“All forms of public propaganda (press, radio, cinema, etc. (aimed at inciting racial, national or religious enmities or hatreds or at provoking the commission of acts of genocide.”

The Committee voted first on the principle whether the Convention should contain a clause dealing with preparatory acts and decided against it by a vote of twenty-nine (U.S.) to eleven with five abstentions. The Soviet text regarding such acts was then rejected by a vote of thirty (U.S.) to eight, with five abstentions.

The Committee voted in parts on the Soviet proposal regarding propaganda: First, the addition to the article of the Ad Hoc text of the clause “All forms of public propaganda (press, radio, cinema, etc.) aimed at inciting racial, national or religious enmities or hatreds” was rejected by a vote of twenty-eight (U.S.) to eleven with four abstentions. The addition of the clause, regarding propaganda aimed “at provoking the commission of the acts of genocide” was then rejected by a vote of thirty (U.S.) to eight with six abstentions.

(5) Dependent Territories: In addition to the resolution containing: the text of the draft convention on genocide and the resolution inviting the International Law Commission to study the question of the desirability of establishing an international penal tribunal, the Committee, by a vote of twenty-nine to none with seven abstentions (Slav states), adopted another resolution regarding the application of the genocide convention to dependent territories. In order to avoid duplication, certain other developments in the Committee are discussed in Section 3 below.

3. Possible Developments in the Plenary Meeting

The United States should vote against all the proposals for reconsideration mentioned below.

A. Preamble:

1. The French delegation had proposed an amendment to the preamble which would have referred to genocide as a “crime against humanity”. It had also proposed the inclusion of a provision reading as follows: “Having taken note of the legal precedent established by the judgment of the International Military Tribunal at Nurnberg, of 30 September–1 October, 1946”. It is very unlikely that the French delegation would reintroduce such proposals. A vote on this proposal was avoided in the Committee by the adoption of a preamble, the text of which had been submitted by Venezuela. This text was adopted by the Committee by a vote of thirty-eight (U.S.) to nine with five abstentions.

2. The Soviet delegation has reintroduced its proposal to make the following addition to the preamble: after the words “has inflicted great losses on humanity” put a comma, and add the following “and recent events have shown that the crime of genocide is organically bound up with fascism-naziism and other similar race ‘theories’ which propagate racial and national hatred, the domination of the so-called ‘higher’ races and the extermination of so-called ‘lower’ races.” This Soviet proposal was rejected by the Committee by a vote of thirty-seven to seven (Slav states, France), with one abstention (Yemen). The Venezuelan text of the preamble was then adopted by a vote of thirty-eight to nine, with five abstentions.

B. Cultural Genocide:

• The Soviet delegation has proposed that there should be added to the draft Convention submitted by the Legal Committee a new article which is identical with the provision in the text proposed by the Ad Hoc Committee. As stated above, this text was deleted by the Legal Committee by a vote of twenty-five to sixteen with four abstentions. Several representatives, including the delegate of the United States, pointed out that the action envisaged by this provision was within the sphere of human rights.

C. International Penal Tribunal:

• The Soviet delegation has reintroduced its proposal to delete from the Convention (Article VI) the provision regarding trial by an international tribunal. The history of this provision in the Sixth Committee is given above in Section 2.

D. Disbanding of Organizations:

• The Soviet delegation has reintroduced its proposal for the inclusion in the Convention of a new article to read as follows: “The high contracting parties undertake to disband and to prohibit in the future the existence of organizations aimed at the incitement of racial, national and religious hatred and at provoking the commission of crimes of genocide”. This text is practically identical with a Soviet text which the Committee rejected by a vote of twenty-five (U.S.) to seven, with six abstentions.

E. Dependent Territories:

• The Soviet Delegation has proposed that Article XII be amended to read as follows: “The application of the present Convention shall extend equally to the territory of any Contracting Party and to all territories in regard to which such a State performs the functions of the governing and administering authority (including Trust and other Non-Self-Governing Territories)”.
• The article which is in the text proposed by the Sixth Committee provides that the application of the Convention might, by a notification to the Secretary-General, be extended to all or any of the territories for the conduct of whose foreign relations the contracting party in Question is responsible. This provision had been proposed by the UK and was adopted by the Committee by eighteen votes to nine, with fourteen abstentions after the Committee had rejected by nineteen votes to ten, with fourteen abstentions, a Ukrainian provision identical to the one which the Soviet Delegation has now proposed for adoption in the Plenary Session. In this connection, it should also be borne in mind that the Sixth Committee has submitted for approval by the Assembly a draft resolution presented by the representative of Iran (Resolution C), recommending that members of the United Nations administering dependent territories take such measures as are necessary and feasible to enable the provisions of the Convention to be extended to those territories as soon as possible.

F. Universal Repression:

• It is unlikely that the Iranian delegation would reintroduce its proposal (Document A/C.6/218) to add to Article VII a new paragraph reading as follows: “They may also be tried by tribunals other than those of the states in the territories of which the act was committed, if they have been arrested by the authories of such states, and provided no request has been made for their extradition.” The Committee rejected the principle of universal repression involved in the provision just quoted by a vote of twenty-nine (U.S.) to six with ten abstentions.⁴

1. For text of the report of the Sixth Committee, see United Nations, Official Records of the General Assembly, Third Session, Part I, Plenary Meetings, Annexes, pp. 494 ff.; hereafter cited as GA (III/1), Plenary, Annexes. For text of the draft convention on genocide approved by the Sixth Committee for recommendation to the General Assembly, see ibid., pp. 501 ff.
2. For texts of the resolutions, see ibid., pp. 500 ff.
3. Prolonged deliberations occupying much of the time of the Sixth Committee from September 30 to December 2 was the setting for Committee consideration of the draft genocide convention; for the proceedings, see United Nations, Official Records of the General Assembly, Third Session, Part I, Sixth Committee; hereafter cited as GA (III/1), Sixth Committee. In this phase the United States early took up the position that the Sixth Committee should prepare a final text on genocide immediately, for submission to the General Assembly, rather than refer the drafting problem to a subcommittee or to the International Law Commission.
4. The General Assembly considered and accepted the report of the Sixth Committee, with its accompanying draft convention on genocide, in two meetings on December 9 and after considerable discussion; see United Nations, Official Records of the General Assembly, Third Session, Part I, Plenary Meetings, pp. 810 ff.; hereafter cited as GA (III/1), Plenary.

   For remarks to the General Assembly in support of the draft convention by Ernest A. Gross, Legal Adviser of the Department of State and at this time also Representative on the U.S. Delegation to the General Assembly, see ibid., pp. 820–821. Mr. Gross, while paying tribute to the original sponsors of the idea of a genocide convention in 1946, Cuba, Panama and India, described the convention as “a milestone in the progress of international law” (ibid., p. 821).

   For text of Resolution 260 (III), embodying the genocide convention, see United Nations, Official Records of the General Assembly, Third Session, Part I, Resolutions, pp. 174 ff.; hereinafter cited as GA(III/1), Resolutions.