In the aftermath of the Ethiopian civil war, which took place from November 2020 to November 2022, the term genocide has been frequently invoked, particularly in reference to Eritrea’s involvement alongside the Ethiopian federal government against the Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF). Such claims, however, often appear disconnected from the international legal framework that governs the use of this word, turning a strictly defined legal category into an instrument of political and propagandistic struggle. It is essential, instead, to restore conceptual and legal precision to the term genocide, avoiding the propagation of narratives that, rather than fostering justice, hinder any prospect of reconciliation. Otherwise, the risk is to entrench permanent hostility between neighboring and historically intertwined peoples by distorting and instrumentalizing concepts that carry profound moral and legal weight.
What the Genocide Convention says
The term genocide has a clear and binding legal definition under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on December 9, 1948. Article II of the Convention 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.” These acts include: killing members of the group, causing serious bodily or mental harm, deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about the group’s physical destruction, imposing measures intended to prevent births, and forcibly transferring children. This definition relies on two constitutive elements: the actus reus (the physical act) and a specific mens rea, that is, the deliberate intent to destroy a group as such. This latter component — the “intent to destroy” — is what sets genocide apart from other serious violations of international law, such as war crimes or crimes against humanity.
Genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes: crucial distinctions
In civil wars and internal armed conflicts, crimes are unfortunately common. However, referring indiscriminately to genocide whenever massacres or systematic violence occur obscures the essential distinctions between different categories of international crimes. War crimes are serious violations of the Geneva Conventions or international humanitarian law and include attacks against civilians, indiscriminate destruction, torture, and sexual violence. Crimes against humanity, as defined by the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, are acts committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack against a civilian population — such as persecution, deportation, and extermination — but do not necessarily involve an intent to destroy an entire group. Only genocide presupposes such an intent. The confusion or conflation of these concepts is often driven by political agendas rather than grounded legal evaluations. And yet, only competent authorities — such as the International Criminal Court or, in inter-state disputes, the International Court of Justice — can determine the existence of genocide through investigations, evidence gathering, witness testimony, and analysis of official orders and documents.
The need for caution and the danger of misuse
Nearly three years after the end of the conflict between the Ethiopian federal government and the TPLF, no formal investigation has been launched by the International Criminal Court, nor has any pronouncement been made by the International Court of Justice regarding the legal qualification of the crimes committed as genocide. Despite this, the term continues to be employed generically and accusatorily by political and intellectual actors, sometimes explicitly to prevent any dialogue between the people of Tigray and Eritrea. However, the political use of the word genocide risks causing long-term damage: it fuels a one-sided traumatic memory, entrenches intercommunal division, and makes any prospect of peace nearly impossible. International justice demands time, rigor, and impartiality. It is necessary to acknowledge the gravity of the crimes committed, pursue truth and accountability, but also avoid an inflated and improper use of legal terms that ultimately delegitimizes the justice process itself. In a post-conflict context, words must be chosen carefully — not to deny suffering, but to honor it with the precision it deserves.
Bibliography
1. United Nations. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Adopted December 9, 1948. https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/documents/atrocity-crimes/Doc.1_Convention%20on%20the%20Prevention%20and%20Punishment%20of%20the%20Crime%20of%20Genocide.pdf
2. Schabas, William A. Genocide in International Law: The Crime of Crimes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009.
3. Power, Samantha. A Problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide. New York: Basic Books, 2002.
4. Straus, Scott. Fundamentals of Genocide and Mass Atrocity Prevention. Washington, DC: United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, 2016.
5. Chalk, Frank, and Kurt Jonassohn. The History and Sociology of Genocide: Analyses and Case Studies. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1990.
6. Totten, Samuel, William S. Parsons, and Israel W. Charny, eds. Century of Genocide: Critical Essays and Eyewitness Accounts. New York: Routledge, 2012.
7. International Criminal Court. Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. The Hague: ICC, 1998. https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/RS-Eng.pdf
