CLA News / CLA President’s Message on the occasion of the International Day of Commemoration in memory of the victims of the Holocaust (27 January 2026)
A Crime Against All: The Universal Responsibility to Prevent Genocide
“Preventing genocide is a collective and individual responsibility. We must do everything in our power to ensure that our children may live free from the fear of being killed because they belong to an ethnic, national, religious or racial group.”
~ Ban Ki-moon, then-Secretary General of the United Nations (8 December 2008)
Why Remembrance Matters
Today, 27 January 2026, marks the International Day of Commemoration in memory of the victims of the Holocaust, observed annually on the anniversary of the liberation of the Auschwitz-Birkenau Nazi concentration and extermination camp. Established by the United Nations General Assembly in 2005, this day calls on the world not only to honour the six million Jewish victims of the Holocaust and the millions of others murdered under Nazi persecution, but also to defend the dignity and human rights of all people everywhere.
The United Nations’ chosen theme for 2026, ‘Holocaust Remembrance for Dignity and Human Rights’, underscores that remembrance is not a passive act of looking back, but an active commitment to counter hatred, antisemitism, dehumanisation, denial, and distortion, wherever they arise. By reflecting on the systematic annihilation that took place during the Holocaust, and on the enduring lessons its history holds, we affirm our shared humanity and our duty to confront the forces that make genocide possible: hatred, indifference, division, and silence.
Yet remembrance, however solemn, is empty if it is not accompanied by vigilance in the present. The promise embodied in the refrain ‘never again’ rings hollow when the very patterns that enabled past transgressions — deliberate dehumanisation, normalisation of violence, and the quiet consent of indifference — reappear in new forms and new places. History warns us that genocide does not erupt suddenly or without warning; it advances when societies fail to recognise disturbingly familiar tell-tale precursors and when moral outrage is deferred until it is too late. The distance between past atrocity and present reality, in truth, is far shorter than we would like to believe.
Genocide is not an aberration confined to the past, but an ever-present moral emergency that tests whether our intellectual progress will ever be matched by our humanity.
Learning from History: The Duty to Prevent Mass Atrocities
From massacres in Namibia, Nanking, Cambodia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Rwanda, and Darfur, to atrocities committed by the Ottoman Empire and during the Holocaust as well as the transatlantic slave trade, to name but a few, the modern era reveals a recurring pattern of mass violence in which ordinary people became agents of extermination, and devastating crimes were perpetrated against humanity.
Each of these genocides, different in time, place, and scale, shares a common anatomy of hatred, indifference, and dehumanisation. They remind us that genocide does not begin with mass graves, but with words, division, exclusion, fear, and silence. These historic failures underscore the vital role of international law and the responsibility of states, institutions, and legal actors to prevent mass atrocities and hold perpetrators accountable. Our moral responsibility, as lawyers and citizens of the world, is to break that silence and uphold justice.
Defining, Preventing, and Punishing Genocide
The 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (‘Genocide Convention’) stands as a cornerstone of international criminal law, obligating all States Parties to prevent, punish, and abstain from committing, genocide. The International Court of Justice (‘ICJ’) reaffirmed this commitment in its 2007 Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro judgment.
Genocide is defined as acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group through, among others, killing, inflicting harm, or imposing destructive conditions of life. Scholarly debate continues to surround key elements, particularly the scope of “intent to destroy”, “in whole or in part”, and “group”. The Genocide Convention also extends liability to include conspiracy, incitement, attempts, and complicity in genocide.
The Genocide Convention’s definition of genocide marked a turning point in international law by applying to both wartime and peacetime atrocities, challenging the traditional notion of absolute state sovereignty.
The drafting of the Genocide Convention also sparked intense debate about the establishment of an international criminal court capable of adjudicating genocide cases. Such a court was envisioned, yet it took half a century before the International Criminal Court (‘ICC’) was created. Initially, major powers, including the Soviet Union, opposed an international tribunal, insisting that national courts prosecute genocide cases. This proved insufficient, given the widespread reluctance by many states to try domestic perpetrators. The principle of complementarity later emerged, giving primacy to national courts unless they failed to act. However, questions of jurisdiction and impartiality persisted.
Universal jurisdiction, allowing states to prosecute genocidaires regardless of where the crime occurred, was notably absent from the original Genocide Convention, but later adopted by some states, such as Belgium. These developments reflected the evolution of genocide from an internal matter to a crime of universal concern, even as political realities continue to constrain enforcement.
Gaza: The Imperative of Accountability
On 7 October 2023, Hamas and allied Palestinian armed groups launched a brutal assault on Israel, killing over 1,250 Israelis and foreign nationals, including at least 815 civilians. Armed militants stormed homes, kibbutzim, and communities, committing war crimes and crimes against humanity, including summary executions, the taking of hostages, mutilation, and wrongful imprisonment. Around 250 people, among them women, children, and the elderly, were abducted into Gaza. These shocking attacks were deliberate and coordinated, with the killing of civilians and taking of hostages as central aims.
In response, Israel launched an extensive military campaign in Gaza, striking entire residential blocks, schools, hospitals, and refugee camps. Gaza, already besieged for years, was plunged into a deeper humanitarian catastrophe: supplies of food, water, fuel, and medicine were cut off, leaving millions in desperate conditions. As of September 2025, the Gaza Health Ministry reported more than 66,000 deaths, most of them women and children, although these figures likely understate the true scale of loss, as thousands remain buried beneath the rubble of bombed homes, schools, and shelters.
As two United Nations Special Rapporteurs reminded us, “The lawless massacres, hostage taking and torture carried out by Hamas must be unequivocally condemned by all and those responsible must face justice. But Palestinian civilians cannot be made to pay the price for the acts of terrorism carried out by Hamas.” Yet, for all the strength of these words, none thought it prudent to act on this basis, and so the cycle of atrocity was left to deepen. The toll of retribution in Gaza stands among the gravest humanitarian crises of our time.
After nearly two years of investigation, the United Nations Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and Israel determined that Israeli authorities and security forces carried out four of the five genocidal acts enumerated in the Genocide Convention. The Commission concluded that “the State of Israel bears responsibility for the failure to prevent genocide, the commission of genocide and the failure to punish genocide against the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip”.
Responding to Genocide: Our Role
In light of the acts of mass violence that have occurred and continue to unfold, CLA members cannot remain passive.
Evolving jurisprudence — including the ICJ’s Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro judgment — has clarified that the duty to prevent and punish genocide is erga omnes. This universal obligation also imposes a moral responsibility on all who serve the law to uphold justice and reject complicity in atrocities. CLA members can give this mandate substance and effect.
First, we can act as advocates, pressing governments to halt transfers of arms and resources that could facilitate genocidal acts, engaging with international bodies, and pursuing public interest litigation. We can support prosecutions by advising national or international prosecutors, assisting non-governmental organisations, or contributing to amicus briefs.
Second, we can strengthen justice through documentation and evidence preservation — collecting and safeguarding witness testimony, digital records, and other materials for future judicial processes. This is not only a task of international prosecutors but a responsibility that civil society lawyers and bar associations can shoulder together.
Third, we can sustain awareness and education, keeping the human face of genocide in the collective awareness through writing, teaching, and public advocacy — thus building resistance to the corrosive effect of indifference, and affirming that each life matters.
We can also help build legal capacity through training, support law and policy reform, monitor compliance with international obligations, and foster professional networks for coordinated and decisive action.
In fulfilling these roles, we transform the law from a passive instrument into an active force for accountability, and the defence of human dignity. We also uphold the central purpose of our profession: to speak for those whose voices have been silenced.
As members of the CLA, we must never cease to remind the world that genocide is not an abstraction, but a lived reality for thousands of families and individuals.
Steven Thiru
President
Commonwealth Lawyers Association
27 January 2026
Steven Thiru records his appreciation to Jaishanker Sadananda and Chin Oy Sim for their assistance in preparing this article for publication.
