7/26/2019 Denationalization Reference Denationalization

1/2

Denationalization

The Commission on the Responsibility of the Authors of War and on Enforcement of Penalties first used the termdenationalization in 1919 in an early effort to describe crimes similar to genocide that were committed during World War !t cited many e"amples of #ulgarian$ %erman$ and Austrian official attempts to &denationalize the inhabitants of theoccupied territory& in 'erbia! Among the specific (iolations mentioned were the prohibition of the 'erb language) the

destruction of archi(es$ churches$ monasteries$ and law courts) and the closure of schools!

%enocide was first described as the destruction of the national pattern or character of the (ictimized group and replacing itwith the national pattern or character of the oppressor! Therefore$ genocide in(ol(ed a two*stage process! t was the firststage$ which entailed the destruction of the national pattern of the (ictimized group$ for which the word denationalizationwas used! The national pattern or character would include the political and social institutions) the culture$ language$ nationalfeelings$ religion$ and economic e"istence) and the personal security of national groups$ as well as such basic concepts aslife$ liberty$ health$ and dignity! The destruction of these was tantamount to the destruction of a nation$ or of an ethnic group$through a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of life within the group$with the aim of destroying the group itself!

There are many features of the concept of denationalization that are also e(ident in the crime of genocide$ war crimes$ orcrimes against humanity as they are defined today! +ne distinction$ howe(er$ is that e(en these shared features are$ indenationalization$ specifically related to the treatment of national groups rather than groups in general! Another distinction

between denationalization and genocide in particular is that genocide is seen in more e"plicitly physical termshe ,illing ofgroups of peoplehereas denationalization includes the destruction of the foundations of national groups$ such as the group-sculture!

An e"ample of denationalization can be found in the 19./ 0uremburg trial of lrich %reifelt and +thers! 2uring theproceedings$ reference was made to the war crime of denationalization$ citing the policy of forcibly &%ermanizing& somegroups within the local population of occupied Poland! Among the groups so treated were Poles$ Alsace*3orrainers$ and'lo(enes$ as well as others deemed eligible for %ermanization under the %erman People-s 3ist!

4istory+(er the years and in numerous international documents$ (arious attempts ha(e been made to define genocide! n manyinstances$ what is now ,nown as the international crime of genocide o(erlaps with other war crimes and crimes againsthumanity! Recognition of denationalization as a war crime had its origins in the 4ague Con(ention 5 of 196/$ whichattempted to create proper di(isions between the responsibility of the state at war and the treatment of innocent ci(ilian inoccupied territories! This Con(ention now forms a part of established international humanitarian law$ and applies only intimes of armed conflict! 3egal scholar William A! 'chabas has noted that 'ection of the 4ague Con(ention might ser(eas a legal basis for acts related to denationalization as a war crime! This section deals with military authority o(er theterritory of the hostile state$ and includes a pro(ision that ma,es it illegal to &compel the inhabitants of an occupied territoryto swear allegiance to the hostile power& and another which e"horts respect for &the li(es of persons and pri(ate property$ aswell as religious con(ictions and practice!&

The preamble of the 4ague Con(entions of 196/ further promises broad protection under international humanitarian law$stating that &the inhabitants and the belligerents remain under the protection and the principles of the law of nations$ deri(edfrom the usages established among ci(ilized peoples from the laws of humanity and the dictates of public conscience!&

The go(ernments of 7rance$ %reat #ritain$ and Russia declared on 8ay .$ 191:$ that they would hold all members of theTur,ish go(ernment personally responsible for &crimes against humanity& for the massacre of Armenians that was ongoingat the time! Earlier$ the nternational Commission to n;uire into the Causes and Conduct of the #al,an Wars hadenumerated thirty*two broad categories of (iolations committed during that conflict$ among them? &Attempts to

denationalize the inhabitants of occupied territory!&

At the second plenary session of the Paris Peace Conference$ on @anuary :$ 1919$ the Commission on the Responsibility ofthe Authors of the War and on Enforcement of Penalties was established! The tas, of this Commission was to in;uire intoand report upon the (iolations of international law committed by %ermany and its allies during World War ! At this time$howe(er$ there was no mention of indi(idual prosecutions for atrocities against ci(ilians$ because the Commission-smembers were more preoccupied with de(eloping offenses against the laws of war and felt that the principle of so(ereigntyre;uired them to focus their e"amination on the atrocities committed by a go(ernment against peoples within its own

borders!

n 19.1 0azi %ermany passed a decree that denationalized %erman @ews$ stripping them of their property and$ later$ their

7/26/2019 Denationalization Reference Denationalization

2/2

li(es! t was not until 19.:$ howe(er$ after the atrocities committed against the @ews by the 0azis$ that the 0urembergCharter defined crimes against humanity to include acts against a ci(ilian population whether they occurred before or duringthe war! The offenses included murder$ e"termination$ ensla(ement$ deportation$ imprisonment$ torture$ and persecution!'ubse;uent international legislation has further refined and e"tended the definition of war crimes and crimes againsthumanity$ including protections not only for national groups but to all groups at ris, of (ictimization!

Recent ses of 2enationalizationAnother legal scholar$ @ohn 2ugard$ has maintained that the 'outh African apartheid go(ernment-s official plan to assign all

blac,s to homelands effecti(ely constituted an act of denationalization! The apartheid laws meant that blac,s ceased to benationals of 'outh Africa$ thus depri(ing them of political and ci(il rights in the land of their birth! nstead$ blac,s werereassigned to fictitious nationalities$ of Trans,ei$ #ophuthutswana$ 5enda$ and Cis,ei$ ostensibly because of theirassociation by birth$ language$ or culture with one or another of those territories! This was contrary to the prohibition ondenationalization on grounds of race that has been confirmed by the ni(ersal 2eclaration of 4uman Rights$ theCon(ention on the Reduction of 'tatelessness$ and the nternational Con(ention on the Elimination of All 7orms of Racial2iscrimination! Apartheid$ including its denationalizing aspects$ is a crime against humanity and is now recognised as such

by the Rome 'tatute!

Current 'tatus of 2enationalization2enationalization is presently listed in the Ethiopian Criminal Code in Article ! #oth Australia and the 0etherlandsalso ma,e it a specific offense to attempt &to denationalize the inhabitants of occupied territory& within their respecti(e

borders! Whether or not a state-s domestic law recognizes the offense$ howe(er$ that state may still be charged with warcrimes in cases of denationalization! The nited 'tates 2epartment of Army 7ield 8anual$ in section /6$ &The 3aw of3and Warfare$& recognizes the 0uremberg principles of nonimmunity for go(ernment officials and disallows any defense

based on domestic law &for an act which constitutes a crime under international law!& The 3ist of War Crimes prepared bythe Responsibilities Commission of the Paris Peace Conference of 1919$ as a schedule attached to the 8anual$ contains thecrime of denationalization!

0ationality and 'tatelessnessnder international law$ a state has the discretion to withdraw nationality from its citizens! 4owe(er$ this discretion haslimitations$ largely limiting such withdrawals to a case*by*case basis! The wholesale depri(ation of nationality from anentire group or denationalization on grounds of race$ as occurred in 0azi %ermany and apartheid 'outh Africa$ is prohibited

by the Con(ention on the Reduction of 'tatelessness of 19B1! et the problem still persists! E(ents in the 8iddle East ha(eled to the denationalization of =!/ million Palestinians and the confiscation of their property! At the start of the twenty*firstcentury$ it remained as yet unclear whether there would be any political will within the international community to resol(ethis situation!

'EE A3'+ Commission on Responsibilities) 4ague Con(entions of 196/

##3+%RAP4A(alon ProDect! &3aws of War? 3aws and Customs of War on 3and ) +ctober 1$ 196/!& A(ailable fromhttp?www!yale!edulawweba(alonlawofwarhague6.!htm!

Commission on Responsibilities ! &Commission on the Responsibility of the Authors of the War and on Enforcementof Penalties! Report presented to the Preliminary Peace Conference$ 8arch 9$ 1919!& American @ournal of nternational3aw 1.?9::.!

2ugard$ @ohn ! nternational 3aw? A 'outh African Perspecti(e! Cape Town? @uta 3aw!

3em,in$ Raphael ! A"is Rule in +ccupied Europe! Washington 2!C!? Carnegie Endowment for nternational Peace!

3em,in$ Raphael ! &%enocide as a Crime under nternational 3aw!& American @ournal of nternational 3aw .1?1.::1!

'chabas$ William A! ! %enocide in nternational 3aw! Cambridge? Cambridge ni(ersity Press!

5inodh @aichand

'ource? %enocide and Crimes Against 4umanity$ F66: %ale Cengage! All Rights Reser(ed! 7ull copyright!

http?www!enotes!comdenationalization*referencedenationalization