Contextual Elements in the Early Legal Concept of Genocide

Koursami, Nasour

doi:10.1007/978-94-6265-225-5_3

Nasour Koursami⁴

Part of the book series: International Criminal Justice Series ((ICJS,volume 17))

591 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter examines the position of contextual elements in the evolution of the early concept of genocide from the pre-codification period; through the lens of the Travaux Préparatoires of the Convention and development in the period following the ratification of the Genocide Convention, with significant focus on the work of the ILC, and on the academic opinions and court decisions of that period. In the pre-codification period, context was assumed within the discourses, because Lemkin constructed the concept of genocide as a response to large-scale massacres perpetrated at that time. Moreover, neither the Nuremberg Charter nor the judgments conceptualized genocide as a separate crime or made any clear dissociation of it from the crime against humanity as far as the objective elements of the crime are concerned. The codification process on the other hand, severed the concept of genocide from the perceived connections to mass crime on the basis that genocide is a novel crime. Therefore, consideration of the Travaux Préparatoires of the Genocide Convention reveals very little guidance. Hence, despite Lemkin’s invention of the word ‘genocide’, his views on this matter were not mirrored in the Genocide Convention’s definition of genocide. Similarly, in the post-Convention discussions, mainly in the ILC’s work, the ICJ’s reasoning, and in academic writing, the same equation of genocide to large-scale state crime continued on the basis of uncorroborated assumptions that the nature of the crime warrants such association while the authoritative definition of the Convention clearly lacks such equation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

1.
The Nuremberg trials and the subsequent trial by the Control Council and the Eichmann Trial by the Israeli court.
2.
Drost 1959; Robinson 1960.
3.
The treatment of this matter from the 1990s onwards is the subject of this chapter of this book.
4.
In all his writings and campaigns, no reference is made to the need to distinguish the surrounding circumstances of genocide: Lemkin 1944, 1946.
5.
Referred to in Lemkin 1947; Schabas 2000, p. 25; Moses 2004, p. 21.
6.
Lemkin 1946, pp. 227–230; Lemkin 1947, p. 146.
7.
Lemkin 1947.
8.
Ibid., p. 145.
9.
Lemkin 1944, p. 79.
10.
Ibid.
11.
Ibid.
12.
Ibid., pp. 80–82; Quigley 2006, p. 4.
13.
Hovannisian 2011, p. 30; Freeman 2009, p. 32.
14.
Lemkin 1947, p. 147.
15.
Ibid., p. 83, emphasis added.
16.
Lemkin 1944, p. 83.
17.
Ibid., p. 84.
18.
Ibid., p. 86.
19.
Ibid., p. 89.
20.
Ibid., pp. 80–82.
21.
Ibid., xi–xii.
22.
Lemkin 1953.
23.
Lemkin 1944, pp. 90–93.
24.
Ibid., p. 88.
25.
Ibid., p. 89.
26.
Lemkin 2002, p. 371.
27.
Lemkin 1946, p. 227.
28.
UN Doc A/BUR/50, 2 November 1946; Lemkin 2002, p. 236.
29.
Lemkin 1947, p. 149.
30.
Schabas 2010, p. 96.
31.
UN Doc E/447, p. 15. The experts were Mr. Donnedieu de Vabres (Professor at the Paris Faculty of Law), His Excellency, Professor Pella (President of the International Association for Penal Law), and Professor Raphael Lemkin.
32.
Drost 1959, introduction.
33.
Schabas 2008, p. 2.
34.
UN Doc A/AC10/SR29, 1947 (29th meeting).
35.
Ibid.
36.
See Chap. 1, Sect. 1.2.3.
37.
Lemkin 1947, p. 147.
38.
Lemkin 1946, p. 230.
39.
For instance, the addition of ‘in whole or in part’ was proposed by the Norwegian delegate, the inclusion of ‘as such’ was from the Venezuelan delegate, and ‘causing serious mental harm’ was added by the Indian delegate.
40.
Prosecutor v Kambanda, Judgment, 4 September 1998, ICTR-97-23, para 16; Cryer et al. 2007, pp. 166–167.
41.
HB Phillips (ed) 1955, The Reminiscences of Sidney S Alderman. Columbia University Oral History Research Office, p. 818, cited in Barrett 2010, p. 45. Also see Schabas 2012, p. 107.
42.
The Justice Case was the only case in which the court engaged in detailed discussion on genocide, but in the other judgments the court completely avoided the word genocide. See USA v Josef Altstoetter, III Trial of War Criminals before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals Under Control Council Law No. 10 954, 1951, pp. 174–181.
43.
ICJ in 1951, in an Advisory Opinion on the reservations to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide acknowledged that the Genocide Convention had attained customary law status, 28 May 1951, ICJ Rep 15, ICGJ 227.
44.
Barrett 2010, p. 35. Note, Lemkin was also acting as adviser to Justice Robert of the United States.
45.
United States v Hermann Goering, Trial of the Major War Criminals before the International Military Tribunal, Nuremberg, 14 November 1945–1 October 1946, Nuremberg, 1947, vol. I, pp. 27–92 (listing charges in indictment). http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/NT_Vol-I.pdf. Accessed 28 May 2016. (Hereinafter Trial of the Major War Criminals). There are those who claim that genocide was charged as crimes against humanity; see for example, Lippman 1998, pp. 426, 429.
46.
Ibid.
47.
Cryer et al. 2007, p. 167.
48.
Trial of the Major War Criminals, pp. 43–44.
49.
Ibid., p. 43.
50.
The court talked about the enormous proportional mortality rate in the camp (ibid.); see also Lippman 1998.
51.
Ibid., p. 65; Van der Vyver 1999, p. 286; Lippman 1998, pp. 426–428.
52.
Trial of the Major War Criminals, p. 65.
53.
Lemkin 1944, p. 79.
54.
Lippman 1998, pp. 427–428.
55.
Trial of the Major War Criminals.
56.
Ibid.
57.
Ibid.; also see USA v Otto Ohlendorf, Trial of the Major War Criminals (Einsatzgruppen judgment), pp. 32, 412, 415–416, 427.
58.
Lippman 1998, p. 430.
59.
Champetier de Ribessee, XIX Trial of the Major War Criminals, p. 498, 1950, at p. 531.
60.
USA v Hermann Goering, Trial of the Major War Criminals, 1945–1946, 1947, p. 497.
61.
Ibid.
62.
Case No. 74, Trial of Gauleiter Artur Greiser. Supreme National Tribunal of Poland, 21 June 1946–7 July 1946, reproduced in Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals, United Nations War Crimes Commission, vol. XIII (London 1949), pp. 70, 112.
63.
Ibid., p. 114.
64.
Control Council Law No. 10, Punishment of Persons Guilty of War Crimes, Crimes against Peace and against Humanity, 20 December 1946, Official Gazette Control Council, 3, 1946, pp. 50–55.
65.
Barrett 2010, p. 45; Korey 2001, p. 26.
66.
The Justice Case, 17 February 1946–4 December 1947, vol. VI.
67.
Ibid., p. 83, n. 3, p. 99, p. 48, p. 75.
68.
Ibid., p. 83, n. 3.
69.
Ferencz 1947.
70.
The Justice Case, p. 48.
71.
Ibid., p. 75.
72.
Ibid.
73.
Ibid., p. 99.
74.
Case No. 73, Trial of Ulrich Greifelt and Others, US Military Tribunal, Nuremberg, 10 October 1947–10 March 1948, Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals, United Nations War Crimes Commission, vol. XIII (London 1949), pp. 1, 2 (hereinafter the RuSHA Case).
75.
Ibid., p. 6.
76.
Lemkin 1944, p. 79.
77.
RuSHA Case, pp. 37–39.
78.
Ibid., p. 40(ii).
79.
Ibid., p. 36.
80.
Einsatsgruppen Case, vol. 4, p. 30.
81.
Ibid.
82.
Trial of Obersturmbannführer Rudolf Franz Ferdinand Hoess, 7 (Supreme National Tribunal of Poland), 1947.
83.
Ibid., p. 25.
84.
Ibid., pp. 24–25.
85.
Ibid., p. 25.
86.
Ibid., p. 26.
87.
Prosecutor v Kambanda, para 16.
88.
Lemkin 1947, pp. 146–148; Lemkin 2002, p. 384. Lemkin himself later wrote that ‘the evidence produced at the Nuremberg trial gave full support to the concept of genocide’ (Lemkin 1947, p. 147).
89.
Schabas 2008, p. 1.
90.
See Chap. 1, Sect. 1.2.3 above.
91.
On 29 May 1962, the Supreme Court of Israel confirmed the conviction of Adolf Eichmann by the District Court in Jerusalem in December 1961 for crimes against humanity, war crimes, and crimes against the Jewish people (genocide) during World War II: Israel Supreme Court, Attorney-General of the Government of Israel v Eichmann, 1962 [1968], 36 Intl L Rep 277 (English translation).
92.
Articles 31 and 32 of the United Nations Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 23 May 1969, 1155 UNTS 331. http://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b3a10.html. Accessed 28 January 2015.
93.
Lemkin 1944, p. 79.
94.
A/C.6/84, 22nd meeting of the Sixth Committee, 22 November 1946.
95.
Schabas 2006.
96.
UN Doc A/AC.20/29.
97.
UN Doc A/C.6/SR.39 (Shawcross, United Kingdom).
98.
UN Doc E/AC.25/SR.26, 1948, Mr. Morozov (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics).
99.
Ibid.
100.
Resolution 96(I), even though the Resolution’s reference to past genocides represented the starting point for a much narrower definition.
101.
UN Doc A/AC.10/41, 6 June 1947.
102.
UN Doc A/C.6/261.
103.
3 UN GAOR C.6 (109th mtg), 1948, 489 (Mr. Perez Perozo, Venezuela).
104.
UN Doc E/794, p. 7.
105.
UN Doc E/AC.25/3. Lebanon stated that Nuremberg dealt with crimes against humanity and not genocide E/AC25/SR.23, p. 4.
106.
UN Doc, E/AC.25/3.
107.
Ibid.
108.
Schabas 2007, p. 36.
109.
3 UN GAOR C.6 (94th mtg), 1948, 344 (Mr. Fitzmaurice, United Kingdom); 3 UN GAOR C.6 (92nd mtg) 308 (Mr. Zourek, Czechoslovakia), see also Raafat of Egypt.
110.
Dadrian 1998, p. 553.
111.
UN Doc A/C.6/84.
112.
UN Doc E/447, Articles II(1)(b), II(1)(d), and II(2).
113.
Resolution 96(I) provided for the punishment of private individuals, public officials and statesmen, and recommended that States cooperate to ensure punishment for the crime of genocide; Drost 1959, p. 24.
114.
UN Doc E/447, pp. 15–16.
115.
UN Doc E/AC.25/2, and E/AC.25/SR1-28, 1 April 1948.
116.
UN Doc E/794, pp. 8–9.
117.
US Delegate, E/AC.25/SR.4, p. 3.
118.
E/AC.25/SR.4, p. 6.
119.
UN Doc E/AC.25/SR18.
120.
E/AC.25/SR.4; Abtahi and Webb 2008, pp. 712, 715.
121.
Ibid.
122.
Ibid.
123.
Abtahi and Webb 2008, p. 714.
124.
Ibid., p. 715.
125.
UN Doc E/AC.25/SR.4, pp. 3–4; UN Doc E/AC.25/SR.18.
126.
UN Doc A/C.6/211.
127.
Haiti in A/C.6/SR.74,.
128.
The United Kingdom, in A/C.6/SR.69 and A/C.6/SR.74.
129.
UN Doc A/C.6/78.
130.
UN Doc A/C.6/78.
131.
Ibid.
132.
UN Doc A/C.6/SR.97.
133.
UN Doc A/C.6/78. This fear has now been addressed by the ICC.
134.
Note that such an institution was envisaged in the Genocide Convention, and the ILC initiated such discussion back in the 1940s.
135.
UN Doc A/C.6/SR.63.
136.
UN Doc A/C.6/SR.63. The Indian representative, Mr. Sundaram, replied in the 64th meeting of the committee (A/C.6/SR64) that the Pakistani accusations were merely an attempt to divert attention from Pakistan’s own guilt in Kashmir and these accusations were not based on fresh facts but mere propaganda.
137.
A/C.6/SR.79; Abtahi and Webb 2008, p. 1456.
138.
A/C.6/SR.79.
139.
Resolution 96(I) requires punishment for public officials, statesmen and private individuals.
140.
A/C.6/SR.79. The Iranian delegate clearly stated that the French proposal created two crimes by treating two similar acts differently as genocide and murder.
141.
A/C.6/SR.79; Abtahi and Webb 2008, p. 1458.
142.
A/C.6/SR.79.
143.
UN Doc A/C.6/SR.80, 1948, p. 166.
144.
UN Doc A/C.6/SR.98 (Mr. Fitzmaurice).
145.
UN Doc A/C.6/SR.98 (Mr. Makato). In the ad hoc committee draft the United States was of a different opinion, which was abandoned: UN Doc E/AC.25/SR.4, pp. 3–4.
146.
UN Doc A/C.6/132 (Mr. Fitzmaurice).
147.
UN Doc E/477, pp. 29–30.
148.
UN Doc E/AC.25/SR.1-28.
149.
A/C.6/217. See also Lebanon UN Doc A/C.6, at 32.
150.
A/C.6/SR.73.
151.
A/C.6/SR.73; Abtahi and Webb 2008, p. 1381.
152.
A/C.6/SR.73; Abtahi and Webb 2008, p. 1382.
153.
UN Doc A/C.6/SR.79.
154.
A/C.6/SR.80. Abtahi and Webb 2008, p. 1469.
155.
UN Doc E/477 p 24; E/AC.25/SR13, p. 7.
156.
UN Doc E/447, p. 25.
157.
UN Doc E/447, pp. 15–16.
158.
Drost 1959, p. 8; UN Doc E/447, pp. 115–116.
159.
UN Doc A/AC.10/SR.29, 24 June 1947.
160.
UN Doc A/AC.10/SR.30; A/401, 7 October 1947.
161.
UN Doc E/AC.25/7.
162.
UN Doc E/AC.25/SR.10, p. 16.
163.
UN Doc E/AC.25/SR.24, p. 4.
164.
Drost 1959, p. 84; UN Doc A/C.6/SR.81, p. 8.
165.
UN Doc A/C.6/228.
166.
UN Doc A/C.6/224.
167.
UN Doc A/C.6/SR.73.
168.
A/C.6/SR.73; Abtahi and Webb 2008, p. 1383.
169.
E/AC.25/W.1, 26 April 1948, p. 2.
170.
Ibid., p. 3.
171.
UN Doc A/C.6/217.
172.
Drost 1959, p. 82.
173.
UN Doc A/C.6/261. The Soviets called for a link to fascism to be added and to use the recent event as evidence, UN Doc A/C.6/273. France also advocated for reference to Nuremberg, UN Doc A/C.6/267. On the other hand, Egypt rejected such link, UN Doc A/C.6/SR.110 (Mr. Raafat, Egypt).
174.
Drost 1959, p. 75; Kress 2009, p. 301.
175.
UN Doc A/C.6/RS 109 (Mr. Makato, United States).
176.
UN Doc E/447, p. 17.
177.
Schabas 2000, p. 52.
178.
UN Doc E/447, p. 15.
179.
See Chap. 1, Sects. 1.2 and 1.2.1.
180.
A/AC.10/SR.28, 24 June 1947 (Professor PC Jessup).
181.
UN Doc E/794.
182.
Abtahi and Webb 2008, vol. 2, p. 222; Secretariat Draft E/447, Part II, Comment on the Draft Convention, Section I, Introduction.
183.
Heller 2011, p. 389.
184.
See Chap. 6, Sect. 6.2.1.
185.
Draft Code of Offences against the Peace and Security of Mankind, A/CN.4/25, 26 April 1950, Report by J Spiropoulos, Special Rapporteur, Extract from the Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1950, vol. II, p. 253, at P263, paras 65–66. http://legal.un.org/ilc/publications/yearbooks/english/ilc_1950_v2.pdf.
186.
Ibid.
187.
Ibid., vol. II.
188.
Genocide Convention 1948, Article IV.
189.
Lemkin 1953.
190.
Ibid.
191.
Robinson 1960, p. 60.
192.
Attorney-General of the Government of Israel v Eichmann, Judgment, 12 December 1961, 1968, 36 ILR 79.
193.
Ibid., pp. 18, 235; also see Attorney-General of the Government of Israel v Eichmann, 1962, pp. 277, 279.
194.
Attorney-General of the Government of Israel v Adolf Eichmann, 1961, pp. 18, 34, 39.
195.
Ibid. (District Court, Jerusalem), paras 182–183 (on plan, see paras 93–94).
196.
Report of the ILC on the Work of its Forty-Eighth Session, 6 May–26 July 1996, vol. II, Official Records of the General Assembly, Fifty-First Session, Supplement No. 10, Doc A/51/10, pp. 45–47, para 2.
197.
Ibid., para 10.
198.
Quigley 2006, pp. 164, 170.
199.
Amendments UN Doc A/C.6/228; UN Doc A/C.6/224; UN Doc A/C.6/SR.73; UN Doc A/C.6/SR.69.
200.
Draft Code of 1996 with commentaries, Yearbook 1996, vol. II, 2, p. 45, para 10.
201.
Report of the ILC on the Work of its Forty-Eighth Session, p. 125.
202.
Robinson 1960, pp. 59, 62.
203.
Ibid., p. 63.
204.
Genocide Convention, Report of the Committee of Foreign Relations, US Senate, 18 July 1981, p. 22.
205.
Lemkin 1953.
206.
In a letter to The New York Times, Lemkin 1953.
207.
Lemkin 1976, p. 370.
208.
Ibid., 370; see also Prosecutor v Jelisić, Trial Judgment, 14 December 1999, IT-95-10-T, para 82; Schabas 2000, p. 238.
209.
Report of the ILC on the Work of its Forty-Third Session, 29 April–19 July 1991, Official Record of the General Assembly, Supplement No. 10, A/46/10, Yearbook of the ILC 1991, vol. II, 2, p. 102, paras 3 and 6.
210.
Draft Code of 1996 with commentaries, Yearbook 1996, vol. II, 2, p. 45, para 10.
211.
Whitaker 1985, para 29, pp. 20–21; Jelisić, Trial Judgment, para 65 (quoting the report), and para 587.
212.
Report of the ILC on the Work of its Forty-Eighth Session, p. 125.
213.
Drost 1959, p. 85.
214.
Ibid., pp. 85–86.
215.
Report of the ILC on the Work of its Forty-Eighth Session; Whitaker 1985; Report of the ILC on the Work of its Forty-Third Session.
216.
Draft Code of Offences against the Peace and Security of Mankind, Report by J Spiropoulos, p. 255, para 1.
217.
Ibid., paras 1–2.
218.
Draft Statute for an International Criminal Court with commentaries 1994, YILC 1994, vol. II, part 2, p. 38, para 4.
219.
Report of the ILC on the Work of its Forty-Eighth Session, p. 44, paras 1–4.

References

Abtahi H, Webb P (2008) The Genocide Convention: The Travaux Préparatoires, vol. 1. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers
Google Scholar
Barrett JQ (2010) Raphael Lemkin and ‘Genocide’ at Nuremberg, 1945–1946. In: Safferling C, Conze E (eds) The Genocide Convention Sixty Years after its Adoption. TMC Asser Press, The Hague
Google Scholar
Cryer R, Friman H, Robinson D (2007) An Introduction to International Criminal Law and Procedure. Cambridge University Press
Google Scholar
Dadrian V (1998) The Historical and Legal Interconnections between the Armenian Genocide and the Jewish Holocaust: From Impunity to Retributive Justice. YJIL 23(2):503–559
Google Scholar
Drost PN (1959) The Crime of State, vol. II Genocide. Penal Protection for Fundamental Freedom of Persons and People. Sythoff-Leyden
Google Scholar
Ferencz BB (1947) Einsatzgruppen Trial: US Prosecution Condemns Genocide Nuremberg. 29 September 1947. United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/media_fi.php?MediaId=221. Accessed 26 February 2016
Freeman J (2009) The Armenian Genocide. The Rosen Publishing Group
Google Scholar
Heller KJ (2011) The Nuremberg Military Tribunals and the Origins of International Criminal Law. Oxford University Press
Google Scholar
Hovannisian RG (ed) (2011) The Armenian Genocide: Cultural and Ethical Legacies, vol. 1. Transaction Publishers
Google Scholar
Korey W (2001) An Epitaph for Raphael Lemkin. Jacob Blaustein Institute for the Advancement of Human Rights, American Jewish Committee
Google Scholar
Kress C (2009) The Crime of Genocide and Contextual Elements: A Comment on the ICC Pre-Trial Chamber’s Decision in the Al Bashir Case. JICJ 7(2):297–306
Google Scholar
Lemkin R (1944) Axis Rule in Occupied Europe, Laws of Occupations, Analysis of Government, Proposals for Redress. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Google Scholar
Lemkin R (1946) Genocide. American Scholar volume 15, no. 2 (April 1946):227–230
Google Scholar
Lemkin R (1947) Genocide as a Crime under International Law. AJIL 41(1):145–151
Google Scholar
Lemkin R (1953) Nature of Genocide: Confusion with Discrimination against Individuals Seen. The New York Times, 14 June 1953
Google Scholar
Lemkin R (1976) Executive Session of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Historical Series
Google Scholar
Lemkin R (2002) Totally Unofficial Man: The Autobiography of Raphael Lemkin. In: Jacobs SL, Totten S (eds) Pioneers of Genocide Studies. Transaction Books
Google Scholar
Lippman M (1998) The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide: Fifty Years Later. Ariz J Intl & Comp L 15:415
Google Scholar
Moses AD (2004) Genocide and Settler Society: Frontier Violence and Stolen Indigenous Children in Australian History. Berghahn Books
Google Scholar
Quigley J (2006) The Genocide Convention: An International Law Analysis. Ashgate
Google Scholar
Robinson N (1960) The Genocide Convention: A Commentary. Institute of Jewish Affairs, World Jewish Congress
Google Scholar
Schabas WA (2000) Genocide in International Law: The Crimes of Crimes. Cambridge University Press
Google Scholar
Schabas WA (2006) The ‘Odious Scourge’: Evolving Interpretations of the Crime of Genocide. Genocide Studies and Prevention 1(2):93–106
Google Scholar
Schabas WA (2007) Origins of the Genocide Convention: From Nuremberg to Paris. Case W Res J Intl L 40:35–47
Google Scholar
Schabas WA (2008) Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. United Nations Audio-visual Library of International Law
Google Scholar
Schabas WA (2010) Commentary on Paul Boghossian, ‘The Concept of Genocide’. Journal of Genocide Research 12(1):91–99
Google Scholar
Schabas WA (2012) Unimaginable Atrocities: Justice, Politics, and Rights at the War Crimes Tribunals. Oxford University Press
Google Scholar
Van der Vyver JD (1999) Prosecution and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. FILJ 23:286
Google Scholar
Whitaker B (1985) Revised and Updated Report on the Question of the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, UN Doc E/CN4/Sub2/1985/6
Google Scholar

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Applied Research, National School of Administration, N’Djamena, Chad
Nasour Koursami

Authors

Nasour Koursami
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nasour Koursami .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Koursami, N. (2018). Contextual Elements in the Early Legal Concept of Genocide. In: The 'Contextual Elements' of the Crime of Genocide. International Criminal Justice Series, vol 17. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-225-5_3

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-225-5_3
Published: 11 February 2018
Publisher Name: T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague
Print ISBN: 978-94-6265-224-8
Online ISBN: 978-94-6265-225-5
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics