What the ‘Genocide’ Label Means for U.S. Foreign Policy

John B. Bellinger III is adjunct senior fellow for international and national security law at the Council on Foreign Relations. This brief is a slightly updated excerpt of a CFR article from 2021.

How has the U.S. government traditionally made such determinations?

There is no formal procedure for genocide determinations. Previous secretaries of state have announced findings of genocide in at least six other situations: Bosnia (1993), Rwanda (1994), Iraq (1995), Darfur (2004), areas under the control of the self-proclaimed Islamic State (2016 and 2017), and the Xinjiang region of China (2021). The internal procedure for these determinations has varied, but secretaries of state have generally made decisions based on evidence collected by the State Department’s policy and intelligence staff, which is typically assessed by department attorneys.

However, the process has sometimes led to disagreements within the State Department and between the department and Congress. Department attorneys have historically adopted a strict interpretation of what constitutes genocide for purposes of the 1948 Genocide Convention [PDF].

Why has there been such caution about using the genocide label?

There are several reasons. First, State Department lawyers have wanted to be rigorous in ensuring that a genocide determination is consistent with the Genocide Convention’s definition of the term. Second, policy officials have often been reluctant to make genocide determinations because doing so would result in pressure on the U.S. government to stop the genocide, which is often difficult to do. And third, both lawyers and policy officials have not wanted to lessen the impact of genocide determinations by applying the term to atrocities that, however horrific, do not rise to the level of genocide.

In 2019, Avril Haines, now director of national intelligence, and I chaired the advisory committee for a report written by two former State Department officials and published by the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, that explained how the U.S. government makes genocide determinations. The report stated that “determinations viewed as based on doubtful evidence or deviations from the internationally accepted legal definition will be less effective in helping to mobilize support for tangible action to address the atrocities, and the value of such determinations as a means to help establish a historical record or to bear witness will be eroded.”

What is the definition of genocide?

There is a difference between use of the word genocide in common parlance, and even by human rights groups, and the Genocide Convention’s definition, which is quite narrow.

The Genocide Convention, which the United States ratified in 1988, defines genocide as: “any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group, as such: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.”

So the label hinges on the scale of the crimes?

Yes, but also on the intent of the perpetrators. The convention requires that the listed genocidal acts be conducted with an “intent to destroy” the relevant group “in whole or in part,” which the U.S. Senate has interpreted to mean in whole or “in substantial part.” U.S. law implementing the convention provides that “substantial part” means “a part of a group of such numerical significance that the destruction or loss of that part would cause the destruction of the group as a viable entity within the nation of which such group is a part.”

Taken together, these definitions require the U.S. government to find that a government or individuals have engaged in the listed acts with an “intent to destroy” an entire national, ethnic, racial, or religious group, not just some of its members. Showing that a government or individuals acted with the necessary intent is often extremely difficult to do, and this is why State Department lawyers have been reluctant to use the term genocide.

What are the legal consequences of a genocide declaration?

The legal implications are minimal under both international and U.S. law. Parties to the Genocide Convention have agreed that genocide “is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish.” But the U.S. government has long taken the position that the convention only requires it to prevent and punish genocide that occurs in U.S. territory. The United States does not interpret that the convention requires it (or any other country) to prevent and punish genocide in other countries, or to intervene for humanitarian reasons.

However, use of the term still conveys a very powerful moral stigma. Raphael Lemkin, the Polish lawyer who coined the term during the Holocaust, said it must be “treated as the most heinous of all crimes.” A determination of genocide has historically increased pressure on the executive branch from Congress, advocacy groups, the press, and the public to take significant actions to address the genocide, including through sanctions and even military intervention.

This work represents the views and opinions solely of the author. The Council on Foreign Relations is an independent, nonpartisan membership organization, think tank, and publisher, and takes no institutional positions on matters of policy.