Andrukhiv O. The principle of “dolus specialis” and the problem of proving the genocidal actions of the russian federation in Ukraine

DOI: https://doi.org/10.33098/2078-6670.2024.18.30.8-14

Purpose. The purpose of our study is to investigate the content and legal significance of the principle of «dolus specialis» in international law, to analyze its application in proving genocidal acts, and to determine the specifics of challenges and prospects for the legal qualification of the actions of the Russian Federation in Ukraine as genocide in the context of modern international legal practice and norms. Method. The methodology includes the integrated use of general scientific methods of analysis and synthesis, as well as comparative legal analysis of international judicial practices on proving genocide. The method of historical and legal analysis was also used to study the development of the genocide doctrine and the formal logical method to assess the evidence base of the Russian Federation’s actions in Ukraine. Results. It is established that the critical condition under the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide of 1948 for qualifying actions as genocide is the principle of «dolus specialist,» which allows qualifying the actions of the accused party as a specific intent. To fully prove «dolus specialist,» it is necessary to establish the direct intent of the leadership of the Russian Federation to wholly or partially destroy the Ukrainian national group as such. This requires the collection of evidence that would confirm the link between the statements of Russian officials about the «denazification» of Ukraine and the war crimes committed. The critical aspect is to analyze public statements, official orders, and documents demonstrating these actions’ systematic nature. At the same time, it is essential to continue documenting actions that demonstrate the systematic nature and scale of crimes for further use in international trials. The principle of «dolus specialis» remains fundamental to the legal mechanism for combating genocide, ensuring the effectiveness of prosecution and prevention of crimes against humanity. Scientific novelty. The author makes a comparative legal analysis of international judicial practices on proving genocide and provides examples that allow qualifying the actions of Russians in Ukraine as an act of genocide. Practical significance. The results of the study can be used in further theoretical legal and criminal law research, as well as in the preparation of special courses.

Key words: genocide, dolus specialis, special intent, international law, Convention, Ukraine.

References

1.      Antonovych, M. (2019). Spetsialnyi namir (dolus specialis) u Virmenskomu henotsydi, Holodomori ta Holokosti: porivnialnyi analiz [Special Intent (dolus specialis) in the Armenian Genocide, the Holodomor, and the Holocaust: A Comparative Analysis]. Naukovi zapysky NaUKMA. Yurydychni nauky, 3, 19–25. Available at: https://doi.org/10.18523/2617-2607.2019.3.19-25. (in Ukrainian)

2. Ishchenko, N. Ostannii vyrok trybunalu v Haazi: serbskyi heneral vidpovist za henotsyd [The last verdict of the Hague Tribunal: Serbian general to answer for genocide]. Yevropeiska pravda. Available at: https://www.eurointegration.com.ua/articles/2017/11/22/7074039/. (in Ukrainian).

3.      Bahinskyi, A. V., Linichenko, V. V. (2023). Oznaky henotsydu v rosiisko-ukrainskii viini [Signs of genocide in the Russian-Ukrainian war.]. Visnyk NTUU «KPI». Politolohiia. Sotsiolohiia. Pravo, 2 (58), 29–39. (in Ukrainian).

4.      Borovyk, A., Mazepa, D. (2024). Oznaky henotsydu v rosiisko-ukrainskii viini ХХI st. Kryminalno-pravovyi aspekt [Signs of Genocide in the Russian-Ukrainian War of the XXI Century: Criminal Law Aspect]. Naukovyi visnyk KhDU Seriia Yurydychni nauky, 2, 42-47. Available at: https://doi.org/10.32999/ksu2307-8049/2024-2-8. (in Ukrainian).

5.      Zelenchuk, V. Henotsyd ukraintsiv: pytannia polityky i mizhnarodnoho prava [The Genocide of Ukrainians: Issues of Politics and International Law]. Instytut masovoi informatsii. Available at: https://imi.org.ua/monitorings/genotsyd-ukrayintsiv-pytannya-polityky-i-mizhnarodnogo-prava-i56377. (in Ukrainian).

6.      Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Available at: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/995_155#Text (in Ukrainian).Ambos, K. (2009). What does «intent to destroy». in genocide mean? International review of the Res Cross. Vol. 91, Number 87, 833-858. doi:10.1017/S1816383110000056. Available at: https://international-review.icrc.org/sites/default/files/irrc-876-ambos.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com

7. Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2007, 201 p. Available at: https://www.icj-cij.org/public/files/case-related/91/091-20070226-JUD-01-00-EN.pdf

8. Clark, J.N. (2015). Elucidating the Dolus Specialis: An Analysis of ICTY Jurisprudence on Genocidal Intent. Crim Law Forum, 26, 497–531. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10609-015-9260-5

9. Dadrian, V.N. (2005). Patterns of Twentieth Century Genocides: The Armenian, Jewish, and Rwandan Cases. Genocide and Mass Violence in the 20th and 21st Centuries: An Introduction. Criteria, Common Elements, and Patterns. Comparative Genocide Studies.  (Vol. 1). C.P. Scherrer (Ed.). Moers: IFEK-IRECOR. https://doi.org/10.1080/1462352042000320583

10. Karadžić (IT-95-5/18). United Nations International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. Available at: https://www.icty.org/en/case/karadzic?utm_source=chatgpt.com

11. The Prosecutor v. Jean-Paul Akayesu (Trial Judgement), ICTR-96-4-T, International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), 2 September 1998. Available at https://www.refworld.org/jurisprudence/caselaw/ictr/1998/en/19275.