Article IX of the genocide convention gives the International Court of Justice jurisdiction over disputes between states about “the interpretation, apllication or fulfilment” of the convention. Wheter this provision encompasses charges that a state has actually committed genocide has been a matter of some dispute over the years. In a general sense, the International Court of Justice opted for a restrictive and conservative constraction of the definition of genocide in the Bosnia v. Serbia case in february 2007. It observes, that “ethnic cleaning” and genocide should not be confounded. Still it is the most important and positive contribution of the internatioal court’s judgement that states have a responsibility to prevent gonocide. This provides further support for the entrenchment of this doctrine within customary international law.

ln the Case of Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro (2007), the International Court of Justice ruled that Serbia had violated the Genocide Convention through its failure to “prevent” genocide when it was in a position to do so, and that it had also failed to meet its duty to “punish” by its refusal to arrest war criminals who were within its territorial boundaries. However, in terms of the major issue raised by the case- whether Serbia was “responsible” for “aiding and assisting” Bosnian Serbs engaged in genocide - the Court continued its practice of applying impossibly high standards. This article critiques the manner in which the ICJ approached the issue of “aiding and assisting.” It argues that the Court repeatedly ignored the treaty’s object and purpose, and that its use of the Draft Articles on State Responsibility was erroneous due to the fact that the responsibilities of state parties are clearly set forth in the Genocide Convention itself.

Despite the media attention and the condemnations by politicians, the culture of thought which accommodated-and in many ways-engendered the torture at Abu Ghraib has not been analysed systematically; neither by scholars of ‘lnternational Relations (IR), nor by students of contemporary ‘Middle Eastern’ Studies. This is the point of departure of ‘Abu Ghraib and insaniyat’. I move on to argue that the torture could not have happened without a particular racist current in the US, that the individuals who committed the atrocities against the detainees were not isolated, that they were part of a larger constellation with its own signifying ideational attitudes towards Muslims and Arabs. To those ends, both the type of torture and the ways of legitimating it legally and politically are discussed. Reviewing the thoughts of Ali Shariati on the subject of humanity, the article concludes that Abu Ghraib must be treated as an historic revolt against the tenets of insaniyat.

Violence against women constitutes a violation of women’s human rights. This article examines how the existing human rights machinery can be used to contribute to the elimination of this phenomenon. International supervisory organs play an important role in the interpretation of international human rights law. These norms provide a useful framework for combating violence against women in the public and the private sphere, if women’s experiences are adequately included.

The undeniable reality in the international arena and the undisputable fact about the quality of interactions among the international actors is the necessity of consideration of human rights norms. The enhancement of the liberal societies positions in shaping the goals and procdures in defining the nature of relations among states has to be viewed as the essential cause of the gaining importance of human rights norms. This doesn’t imply that consideration of norms change the direction of actions and activities. of the actors. Human rights norm occupy a respectable position in the dynamic of the international relations. But the idea of human rights has an instrumental characteristic. The idea of human rights is used as a useful instrument in helping to reach foreign policy goals. Human rights norms are not yet become part of identity and belief system of the actors. The human rights norms are not basic and foundamental aspect of “ public law of mankind”.