Genocide and the Courts: A Brief Review of Jurisprudence on the Crime of Genocide from Nuremberg to Today

In this January 2026 report, Genocide and the Courts: A Brief Review of Jurisprudence on the Crime of Genocide from Nuremberg to Today, Ambassador David Scheffer narrates how courts around the world, and over decades, have understood the crime of genocide.

Published 80 years after the start of the Nuremberg trials, this report takes readers through court judgments that have grappled with questions of intent, protected groups, prohibited acts, and individual and state responsibility. We hope that teachers, students, and others will benefit from this concise summary of how courts have addressed questions about the definition of genocide over time.

Over the past eight decades, “genocide” has gone from being an idea in Raphael Lemkin’s mind to being a universally recognized international crime, accompanied by a growing body of jurisprudence. Judicial rulings have been a critical means of addressing ambiguities about the definition of genocide that are found in the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Courts have gone a long way toward clarifying, for example, what must be established to find that a genocidal “intent to destroy” has been present. Reviewing the history of how courts have ruled on genocide cases, is therefore an important way to promote greater understanding of the meaning of this singular crime.

The report begins with the Nuremberg trials—where judgments regarding Nazi war crimes and crimes against humanity during the Holocaust laid a foundation for future understanding of genocide—and the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, which codified the crime.

Mass atrocities in the second half of the 20th century devastated millions, from Cambodia and Guatemala to Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia, and the report describes how trials grappling with those crimes refocused our understanding of genocide.  

As important as understanding past jurisprudence around genocide is, Ambassador Scheffer makes clear that it does not supplant the importance of working to prevent and effectively respond to genocide. We hope that this resource will not only deepen readers’ understanding of genocide but also inspire people to rededicate themselves to ending this horrible scourge.