Introduction

• The UN General Assembly’s (UNGA) resolution on December 4, 2024, approving a draft treaty to address Crimes Against Humanity (CAH), marks a significant step in international law.
• This treaty, proposed five years after the International Law Commission’s draft, aims to combat impunity for CAH, complementing existing frameworks on genocide and war crimes.

1. Understanding Crimes Against Humanity

• Definition: CAH includes acts like murder, enslavement, deportation, torture, and rape as part of a systematic attack against civilian populations.
• Existing Framework:
  • Governed under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC).
  • Unlike genocide and war crimes, there is no dedicated treaty addressing CAH.

2. Need for a CAH Treaty

• Accountability Gap:
  • ICC jurisdiction is limited to member states.
  • Rome Statute emphasizes individual responsibility, leaving gaps in state accountability.
• Potential Benefits:
  • Obligates states to adopt preventive measures.
  • Expands CAH definition to include modern issues like gender apartheid, nuclear weapons, and crimes against indigenous populations.
  • Strengthens international justice mechanisms such as the International Court of Justice (ICJ).

3. India’s Position on CAH

• Aversion to ICC and Rome Statute:
  • India is not a party to the Rome Statute.
  • Concerns over ICC prosecutor powers and the inclusion of nuclear weapons as war crimes.
• Domestic Legal Gaps:
  • Indian criminal law lacks specific provisions for CAH or genocide.
  • Calls for incorporation of CAH into domestic legal frameworks remain unaddressed.
• Skepticism Towards CAH Treaty:
  • Fear of duplication with Rome Statute provisions.
  • Advocacy for addressing CAH through national legislations.

4. Recommendations for India

• Update criminal laws to align with international standards.
• Actively participate in CAH treaty negotiations to ensure national interests are safeguarded.
• Promote a balance between territorial jurisdiction and global justice obligations.

Conclusion

• India’s skepticism toward international frameworks like the ICC highlights its focus on sovereignty. However, the absence of robust domestic laws addressing CAH underscores the need for legislative reforms.
• India should adopt a proactive approach to shaping the CAH treaty to combat impunity for grave human rights violations, befitting its global stature.