On 17 July, as the world marks the Day of International Criminal Justice, the International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute (IBAHRI) calls on the United Kingdom’s government to ensure that the UK fulfils its legal obligations to prevent and respond to genocide by supporting the Genocide Determination Bill.

The Day of International Criminal Justice commemorates the adoption of the Rome Statute in 1998, the treaty that established the International Criminal Court (ICC) and created the modern international legal framework for prosecuting genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and crimes of aggression. The Day of International Criminal Justice is a crucial day in supporting justice, promoting the rights of, and justice for, victims/survivors and standing against human rights violations and abuses around the world.

This year’s observance comes at a significant moment for the UK as the House of Lords prepared for, then passed, the Genocide Determination Bill’s second reading. The IBAHRI says that Parliament has an opportunity to address a longstanding gap in UK law that has left successive governments unable to implement their own policy on genocide determination.

The UK government has consistently maintained that genocide should be determined by a court rather than by politicians. However, UK courts currently have no statutory power to make such determinations. As a result, the IBAHRI argues that the government’s policy cannot operate in practice, undermining the UK’s ability to act promptly when there is evidence or a serious risk of genocide.

The Genocide Determination Bill

The Genocide Determination Bill, introduced by Lord Alton of Liverpool, will ‘provide for the High Court in England, Wales and Northern Ireland and the Court of Session in Scotland to make preliminary determinations of genocide or the serious risk of genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.’ Where such a determination is made, Clause 3 of the Bill provides that the Secretary of State must refer the situation to the ICC, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and other relevant international bodies.

The IBAHRI is of the opinion that the legislation would bring UK law in line with the government’s long-standing position that determining genocide is a decision that should be left to the courts while strengthening the UK’s ability to meet its obligations under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

Recommendations

As the Bill went for its second reading, the IBAHRI made the below recommendations:

• support the Genocide Determination Bill to give legislative effect to the government’s long-standing policy and confer capabilities to the court to determine genocide;
• ensure that the UK’s policy is in line with its international legal obligations under the Genocide Convention; and
• ensure that the UK’s law and policy on genocide determination provide justice for victims/survivors of this crime.

IBAHRI Director, Baroness Helena Kennedy LT KC, commented: ‘Around the world, we are witnessing an alarming rise in allegations of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. Yet the UK continues to maintain that only courts should determine genocide while failing to give those courts the legal authority to do so. That contradiction weakens accountability, delays action and ultimately fails victims and communities facing the most serious international crimes. The Genocide Determination Bill offers Parliament the opportunity to close this gap. It would strengthen the rule of law, reinforce the UK’s commitment to the Genocide Convention and be a vital step in placing victims and survivors at the heart of the justice process. The Day of International Criminal Justice is not simply a day of remembrance. It is a reminder that justice depends on institutions having the legal powers to act when the gravest crimes occur.’

IBAHRI senior programme lawyer, Dr Ewelina Ochab, said: ‘The UK Government cannot continue to rely on a long-standing policy that has no legal mechanism for implementation. Either Parliament provides the courts with the powers required to determine genocide, or the Government must reconsider its position. Every delay risks allowing perpetrators to act with greater confidence that the UK authorities will fail to respond to the apex crime of genocide. Effective prevention begins with the ability to recognise when genocide or a serious risk of genocide exists.’

The IBAHRI also renews its call for wider reforms to strengthen accountability for international crimes, including introducing universal jurisdiction for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes under the International Criminal Court Act 2001. Previous recommendations by the UK Parliament’s Joint Committee on Human Rights have highlighted the need to remove jurisdictional barriers that can allow perpetrators of the world’s gravest crimes to evade justice.

There is no better time than the International Day of Criminal Justice to remind states and the international community of the importance of supporting human rights, upholding justice and preventing international crimes, and to discuss the importance of recognising genocides.

ENDS

Contact: IBApressoffice@int-bar.org

Background notes:  

1. Currently, the UK does not have a formal process for making a determination of genocide and instead maintains the position that this decision should be left to the courts. This policy is neither enshrined in international or domestic law, but has been repeated by successive governments time and time again. The position has been recently repeated during the House of Lords debate on Combating Atrocity Crimes, Crimes Against Humanity and Genocide on the 4th June 2026, that ‘as of today, the UK does not officially recognise that genocide, as it is not for governments to decide whether genocide has been committed as this is a complex legal question’. Despite being the government’s default position for several decades, the government has failed to introduce any legislation that would give effect to the policy. 
2. The UK government has officially recognised five instances of genocide following decisions by external national and international courts. This includes the Holocaust, the genocides in Rwanda, Srebrenica, Cambodia and the genocide against the Yazidi people. The government recognised the Darfur genocide, but in August 2023, it had quietly removed this determination.
3. The UK government maintains that to make a determination of genocide poses difficult evidential and procedural issues that only a court would have the ability to deal with, and that it could be ‘politically controversial.’ The government cited the United Nations Guidance Note on When to Refer to a Situation as Genocide which claims that an examination of genocide ‘must be done by a competent international or national court of law with the jurisdiction to try such cases’ so that the investigation that meets ‘appropriate due process standards.’ However, this guidance note refers to individual criminal responsibility, and not a determination for the purposes of states acting upon their duties under the Genocide Convention.
4. The UK is bound by its international legal obligations under the Genocide Convention. Article I of the Genocide Convention states that states have a duty to prevent and punish genocide. The government maintains that the determination of genocide should be a legal, not political decision; however, they fail to enact any legislation to this effect. The fact that the UK does not have the legal framework to be able to determine a genocide or whether there is a serious risk of genocide could be in direct contravention of their obligations under the Genocide Convention. 
5. The UK is bound by its international legal obligations under the Genocide Convention. Article I of the Genocide Convention states that states have a duty to prevent and punish genocide. The government maintains that the determination of genocide should be a legal, not political decision; however, they fail to enact any legislation to this effect. The fact that the UK does not have the legal framework to be able to determine a genocide or whether there is a serious risk of genocide could be in direct contravention of their obligations under the Genocide Convention.
6. The ICJ confirmed in the Bosnia and Herzegovina v Serbia and Montenegro case that the duty to prevent genocide is triggered when the state ‘learns of, or should normally have learned of, the existence of a serious risk that genocide will be committed.’ Identifying the serious risk of genocide is a vital prerequisite to trigger the duty to prevent genocide. As it stands, UK courts lack the power to do so, which risks evading international legal obligations seemingly in contravention of the spirit of the Genocide Convention itself.  
7. Universal Jurisdiction: The UK has enacted legislation that allows courts to prosecute individuals for their involvement in international crimes, such as genocide. The ICC Act 2001 (ICCA 2001) domesticated the Rome Statute. However, the ICCA 2001 only pertains to active personality jurisdiction which means that the perpetrators of such crimes must be British citizens or residents to be investigated and prosecuted in the UK. Limiting the jurisdiction of courts prevents the effective persecution of perpetrators of genocide and other Rome Statute international crimes and allows impunity for grave and serious crimes. 
8. Amending the ICCA 2001 to provide for universal jurisdiction for Rome Statute international crimes has been recommended by the Joint Committee on Human Rights in its report on ‘Accountability for Daesh Crimes’ stating that: ‘The Government should amend the ICCA 2001 to remove the requirements of UK nationality and residency. The relevant guidelines should also be amended to ensure that presence in the UK is not a prerequisite to initiating an investigation. This would help to close the impunity gap by ensuring that the UK can exercise universal jurisdiction over the international crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes.’ These universal jurisdiction amendments were proposed for the Crime and Policing Bill 2026, but they did not proceed. Denying universal jurisdiction in the ICCA 2001 also prevents the courts from being able to make a determination of genocide – as required by the UK government’s long-standing policy.   
9. The International Bar Association (IBA), the global voice of the legal profession, is the foremost organisation for international legal practitioners, bar associations and law societies. Established in 1947, shortly after the creation of the United Nations, with the aim of protecting and promoting the rule of law globally, it was born out of the conviction that an organisation made up of the world’s bar associations could contribute to global stability and peace through the administration of justice.
10. The International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute (IBAHRI), established in 1995 under Founding Honorary President Nelson Mandela, is an autonomous entity working to promote, protect and enforce human rights under a just rule of law, and to preserve the independence of the judiciary and the legal profession worldwide.
11. Find the IBAHRI on social media here:
    • x.com/IBAHRI
    • facebook.com/IBAhumanrights
    • bsky.app/profile/ibahri.bsky.social
    • linkedin.com/in/iba-human-rights-institute/

Website page link for this news release:
Short link: tinyurl.com/4x7y3487
Full link: www.ibanet.org/IBAHRI-urges-UK-governmant-to-close-legal-gap-on-genocide