UK Genocide Determination Bill Passes 2nd Reading in House of Lords

Undated file photo of the UK's Houses of Parliament in London. (Stefan Rousseau/PA)

Legislation that would give the English high court power to make preliminary determinations on genocide passed its second reading in the House of Lords on Oct. 28.

The private members’ bill, introduced by crossbench peer Lord David Alton of Liverpool, sailed through the stage unopposed, despite the lack of government support.

Successive UK governments have maintained the position that the determination of genocide should be made by a “competent court” such as the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the International Court of Justice (ICJ). However, the two routes are effectively blocked in many cases, such as in the case of the alleged Uyghur genocide in China, which can’t be determined owing to the Beijing regime’s veto power in the United Nations Security Council and that it isn’t a signatory to the Rome statute, which establishes the ICC’s functions, jurisdiction, and structure.

Citing human rights atrocities against the Yazidis in Iraq, the Uyghurs in China, the Rohingya in Burma, the Tigrayans in Ethiopia, Christians in Nigeria and North Korea, the Hazara in Afghanistan, and the Ukrainians under Russia’s invasion, Alton told the House of Lords that his measure would “empower victims of genocidal atrocities to have the genocide determined by a competent court” and “ensure checks and balances, transparency and oversight over the government’s response to genocide globally.”

If the bill becomes law, the High Court of England and Wales will have the power to make preliminary findings on cases of alleged genocide, crimes against humanity, or war crimes.

Any individual or group of alleged victims or an organisation representing such a group can apply to the High Court to make a preliminary finding.

If the court determines that crimes have been committed, the foreign secretary will be required to refer the finding to the prosecutor of the ICC, U.N., or any other U.N. mechanism. If the court deems there is insufficient evidence to make a determination, it may request the foreign secretary to collect evidence through various channels.

The bill will now enter the committee stage, in which a Committee of the Whole House will scrutinise it in detail.

Catch 22

Among peers who spoke to support the bill was Baroness Liz Sugg, who articulated the policy of leaving genocide determination to international judicial systems on behalf of the government while she was a Foreign Office minister.

Sugg said she “was uncomfortable with that policy at the time, and no longer believe[s] it to be correct.”

Lord David Hannay of Chiswick, who served as the UK’s ambassador and permanent representative to the U.N. during the 1990s, said the bill “helps to fill a gap in the implementation of our British international obligations under the 1948 genocide convention.”

He also criticized the government’s policy to leave genocide determination to the ICC and ICJ, calling it a “Catch-22, a convoluted way of ensuring that nothing is done to determine whether a genocide is taking place, even when we know that it is.”

“As someone whose conscience was scarred by sitting as Britain’s representative on the U.N. Security Council during the Rwanda and Srebrenica genocides, I say that this excuse—that is what it is—is shameful,” he said.

Lord John Mann supported “the principle of the bill” while arguing the details pose “difficult dilemmas.”

He also argued that nationalising the issue will give the green light to other states, which may not be able to make judgements “on a rational, unbiased and impartial basis.”

Stating the government’s position on the bill, Foreign Office minister Lord Tariq Ahmad of Wimbledon said that “the government today are not persuaded that the current bill is the right way forward.”

Ahmad said the government’s overarching policy “remains to maximise our ability to take effective action, call out atrocities, and prevent them from happening again.”

He also said the ministers are “looking carefully at whether our current policy achieves the overarching aim and intent.”

Previous Attempt

While the House of Lords last year overwhelmingly supported Alton’s previous legislative attempt on genocide determination during the passage of the Trade Bill, the amendment was ultimately replaced in the House of Commons with the government’s version, which allows a select committee to be set in motion if it finds evidence that a prospective free trade agreement (FTA) counter-party has committed genocide, and isn’t satisfied with the ministerial response to such findings.

During the debate in March 2021, MPs supporting the Alton amendment argued that the government’s version wasn’t strong enough, and that it excludes Uyghur Muslims and other victims of genocide in China because it only deals with prospective FTA partners, which the UK government said China was not.

In August, then-Foreign Secretary Liz Truss said she had been “actively looking at” ways for the UK to deal with genocidal regimes.