Talk:List of parties to the Genocide Convention

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of parties to the Genocide Convention. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121020233944/http://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-1&chapter=4&lang=en to http://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-1&chapter=4&lang=en

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:59, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Russia “as the Soviet Union”
I suspect that the Russian Federation entered the convention by succession, since it was the RSFSR in 1948 and left the USSR, and presumably inherited its treaty obligations. The Soviet Union did not become the USSR and it’s wrong to say “as the Soviet Union.” Anyway, a citation is needed supporting exactly how the RF became a party to the treaty. —Michael Z. 04:51, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I do not quite follow your argument here. The Soviet Union and the USSR ( = Union of Socialist Soviet Republics) were the two most common names for one and the same state. Thus, clearly, the Soviet Union did not become the USSR, since it was the USSR, from the very beginning of the formation of that state.  Or, did you mean "The Soviet Union did not become the Russian Federation..."?  I'll discuss as if this is what you meant.
 * At the dissolution of the USSR, the Russian federation assumed and was generally recognised as the legitime successor of the dissolved union. This involved both rights (as the permanent position in the UN Security council) and obligations (as various international treaties ratified by the USSR being considered binding also for Russia).  This was a little bit stronger than the situation for the remaining Yugoslavian Federation; at the time of dissolution, (old) Yugoslavia happened to be a member of the Security Council, but the remaining federation (of Serbia and Macedonia) was denied to take Yugoslavia's place in the council.  I think that this is the reason for the different treatment of these two cases. JoergenB (talk) 21:45, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I must have meant RF, not USSR.
 * The USSR has twelve successors, who inherited its treaty rights and obligations. I guess a signature of ratification is different.
 * The RSFSR declared the USSR dissolved in several signed agreements and so did not continue its state identity. Yes, it is widely treated as continuator for some purposes like its UN seats, but that is disputed by Ukraine.
 * We need a reference that explicitly states how Russia entered the treaty to remove the tag. —Michael Z. 04:32, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * We do not. The Russian Federation, as stated above, continued on as the primary legitimate successor, inheriting rights and obligations. Handwaving this away with "that is disputed by Ukraine" is preposterous on its face. Parabolist (talk) 07:33, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I had reason (namely, inspecting the motivation for the latest edit of Genocide Convention) to read the interim decision of the International court of justice concerning Ukraina's complaints regarding Russia's genocide accusations against Ukraina. I there found the following, which I think must be considered as a rather authoritative expression of the present legal relation between USSR and RF:
 * "The Russian Federation is a party to the Genocide Convention as the State continuing the legal personality of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, which deposited its instrument of ratification on 3 May 1954 with a reservation to Article IX of the Convention; on 8 March 1989, the depositary received notification that this reservation had been withdrawn."
 * This is fully consistent with the UN listing RF as having ratified the convention in 1954. Ukraine has contested this, as we report in Succession of states).  If you can find a reference to an official protest of Ukraine against this (e. g., directed against RF possessing a position as one of the five permanent members of the Security Council), then we certainly should note this protest in that article, and quite possible in some others, too.  (The Ukrainian protest we now note seemed more to be based on the claim that Russia has broken flagrantly against the statues of the UN than on the state continuation issue, according to our articles.)  However, we should not supplant the opinion expressed in the ICJ or UN documents that RF be the legal continuation of USSR in other places; and especially not where the one or the other is of little factual importance.  (As far as I understand it, both Russia and Ukraine are by their own acts bound by the Genocide convention; whether Russia is an original signer or one by succession is of little legal importance.  Therefore, there is not enough reason to mention this protest here - unless Ukraine actually has made an official protest to the GS against Russia being a ratifying party of this particular convention. On the other hand, for Russia's position in the Security council, the difference is immense, and therefore Ukrainan official protests in that context are noteworthy.)
 * PS: About this edit and its motivation: I found that the ICJ mainly ruled in favour of Ukraine's demand for interim measures, including a stop of the war (or "special operation"). However, your interpretation that ICJ stated that Russia's accusations were false is rather mistaken (or possibly guided more of a sense of what you think they should have sayed than of what they actually sayed).  The court noted that they at that point could not decide on the matter, since they knew too little.  They neither had any knowledge of support for Russias accusations, nor knowledge enough to dismiss them as groundless.  They granted Ukraine's demand for a stop of the warfare more on the grounds that this war indeed was causing irreparable damage to the people killed in the war, and that it indeed (as Ukraine claimed but Russia in this context denied) at least partially was motivated by Russia with references to an Ukrainan genocide.  Their arguments were on the line that even if Russia's accusations after later investigation should turn out to be well-founded, Russia in the first place should have acted in other manners and through international channels in order to stop these (hypothetical) acts of genocide by Ukraine, instead of starting this military activity.  This is very far from your interpretation, I think. (Perhaps you could read the court decision once more, more carefully, and see if you agree with my interpretation of what they actually write.)
 * Ideally, we should put back some text about the ICJ interim decision; but based on what they did say. JoergenB (talk) 21:47, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reference. ¶ 27, p 7, refers to Ukraine depositing its own instruments in 1954, in contrast to Russia “as the state continuing the legal personality”—of the USSR which deposited instruments—a description of succession. Explicitly supports my proposal. Furthermore supports removal of “as the Ukrainian SSR” and “as Byelorussian SSR,” to clarify the difference laid out in the source. Any objections?  —Michael Z. 23:13, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * No, this is not a description of a succession, but rather of a legal continuation.
 * You also wrote: "Furthermore supports removal of “as the Ukrainian SSR” and “as Byelorussian SSR,” to clarify the difference laid out in the source."  I agree that there is a difference laid out in the source.  That paragraph clearifies explicitly that RF is considered as the legal continuation of USSR, but only implicitly that Ukraine of today is the legal continuation of the Ukrainian Socialist Republic.  As I've stated elsewhere, law is not my expertise (I'm a mathematician); and there may be a nuance difference here, which I do not catch.  Or, was there just the fact that the common name was and is "Ukraine" for both the old and the present day continuation, whence the ICJ considered no extra clarification to be necessary?  I don't know.
 * Therefore, I now have no strong opinion about whether or not we should the explanations at these two states; except that I think we should strive after some consistency. (Do you think e. g. the text at DR Congo should be changed, too?)  The explanation at the RF anyhow should be kept; it would otherwise be much too unclear to our readers why RF officially is considered as having signed and ratified the convention in 1949 and 1954, respectively. JoergenB (talk) 16:45, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The source underlines that Ukraine (formerly the Ukrainian SSR) held its UNGA seat in 1954 when it ratified the treaty, but the Russian Federation (formerly the Russian SFSR) did not. “Russia as the USSR” misrepresents that, falsely saying that Russia was the USSR and that the RF/RSFSR ratified the treaty. Using the precisely parallel statements for Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine falsely implies they became party the same way.
 * That is wrong because Belarus and Ukraine became parties to the convention in 1954, but Russia did in 1991. —Michael Z. 20:40, 10 April 2023 (UTC)