Pagina dettaglio corso numero uno

by Martina Caslini, PhD student at La Sapienza University of Rome  

The 1994 genocide in Rwanda constitutes one of the most tragic episodes in recent history, yet it also serves as a starting point for reflection on mass atrocities, often linked to armed conflicts, that continue to mark contemporary society. In just over one hundred days, hundreds of thousands of Tutsi, along with moderate Hutu and other opponents, were brutally slaughtered in a campaign of systematic violence. 

To preserve the memory of this tragedy, in 2003 the United Nations General Assembly established what is now known as the International Day of Reflection on the 1994 Genocide against the Tutsi in Rwanda (A/72/L.31). Each year, on April 7, this commemoration invites the international community not only to honour the memory of the countless victims but also to consider the mechanisms necessary to prevent the recurrence of such collective violence. 

The Rwandan genocide has often been described as “preventable”, representing a dramatic example of the international community’s failure to act in time. As early as 1993, the UN had already issued warnings: the Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions, Bacre Waly Ndiaye, had indicated that at least two of the acts defined as genocide under the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide could be applicable to the situation in Rwanda, marked by episodes of intercommunal violence targeting the Tutsi (E/CN.4/1994/7/Add.1). This suggests that genocides and mass atrocities are not sudden events, but rather the outcome of long-standing processes of propaganda, hatred, and dehumanisation. 

Investing in prevention is therefore of fundamental importance, both in peacetime and during armed conflicts, whether internal or international in nature. Nevertheless, despite the existence of legal instruments designed for this purpose, grave and systematic human rights violations continue to occur, challenging both the authority and the effectiveness of international law. 

This difficulty is largely attributable to the structural nature of the international legal system itself: unlike domestic legal systems, where a breach of the law entails sanctions imposed by a central authority, implementation of international law remains heavily dependent on the political will of sovereign States. This discretionary application inevitably raises the issue of enforceability, a concern that is far from new. 

In 1932, as articulated in Why War?, Albert Einstein wrote to Sigmund Freud asking whether it might be possible to free humankind from the scourge of war, proposing the establishment of a supranational authority with binding powers to resolve interstate conflicts. Einstein admitted, however, that such an organisation would be ineffective without adequate coercive powers and concluded that international security would ultimately require States to relinquish part of their sovereignty. He identified two main obstacles: on the one hand, the resistance of ruling elites and the economic interests tied to war, especially those of the arms industry; on the other hand, the manipulation of the masses, who, despite being the main victims of conflict, are influenced through education, the press, and religion. 

In his response, Freud observed that the creation of the League of Nations represented an attempt to establish a central authority to manage international conflicts. While he acknowledged the organisation’s main shortcoming – namely, its lack of enforcement power – he also recognised the ideal principles upon which it was founded, emphasising that emotional bonds among members form the true cohesive force of a community. 

Building on this line of thought, it is significant to note that, particularly after the Second World War, certain universal values emerged, including the prohibition of genocide, as norms of jus cogens, peremptory in nature and binding erga omnes, thereby constituting obligations enforceable by all States. These developments laid the groundwork for an innovative ethical and legal discourse; however, their practical implementation often clashes with political dynamics and power relations. 

As Salvatore Zappalà notes in Can Legality Trump Effectiveness in Today’s International Law?, a persistent tension exists between these universal values and their actual enforcement. Similarly, Antonio Cassese, in Realizing Utopia: The Future of International Law, argues that despite normative advancements, international law still resembles a set of largely unrealised ideals. From a sociological perspective, Cassese draws upon Ferdinand Tönnies’ distinction between Gesellschaft (society), conceived as a network of utilitarian exchanges, and Gemeinschaft (community), grounded in shared values and mutual support. He highlights how international sociability has not yet led to the emergence of a genuine global community, but instead reflects a society of interests. 

Within the framework of international law, sophisticated though not exempt from critique and in need of reform, the most urgent challenge lies in decisively disincentivising States that, despite having ratified treaties and conventions, fail to comply with the obligations they have undertaken. In other words, States that do not intervene, either within their own territories or in areas under their influence, when faced with a serious risk of genocide, known or knowable to them. 

The prevention of genocide and other mass atrocities requires a multi-dimensional commitment that operates on both symbolic and structural levels. A fundamental measure in this context is the recognition and commemoration of victims, as affirmed by the United Nations (A/RES/58/234). Historical memory plays a central role in preserving collective awareness and reinforcing the imperative to “never forget”, a principle exemplified by the observance of April 7. 

Equally critical is the protection of civil society, given its capacity to exert pressure on governments, monitor institutions, defend human rights, and promote justice. Investment in education is no less essential, as it fosters an informed and engaged citizenry capable of influencing public decisions and advocating for governance aligned with international legal standards. 

In conclusion, only a structured and sustained effort, supported by concrete measures such as victim recognition, the fight against denialism, the strengthening of civil society, and targeted educational initiatives, can genuinely uphold human dignity in the face of violence and indifference, thereby preventing the recurrence of tragedies like the Rwandan genocide. Only in this way can the values emerging from the experience of a denied humanity begin to find, at least in part, their fulfillment.