Authors

Discussion

This paper examines Russia’s approach to Genocide. It situates Russia’s approach in the context of international law and shows the way in which discussions around the scope of Genocide have been used by Russia to justify its argumentation. The paper draws on literature from international law as well as from historical cases, and suggests that international law is regularly instrumentalised by Russia to justify certain positions. This instrumentalisation is facilitated by the general lack of agreement and lack of clarity on what does and does not constitute Genocide. The use of the label ‘Genocide’ is increasingly invoked retrospectively to highlight historical grievances, not least in the former USSR (Ukraine; Georgia and others) and is strongly linked to identity. In turn, identity is increasingly linked to security. Russia is the legal continuator state (not just successor) of the USSR and it bears a special responsibility as one of the P5 for international peace and security. This status was achieved by virtue of the Soviet victory over Nazism: therefore the Nuremburg legacy carries particular weight. It is vital for Russia to assert the Holocaust as the ultimate Genocide in particular given that component parts of the former USSR continue to accuse this continuator state of Soviet crimes, making the issue of Genocide not only of international, but also of domestic and regional significance, and arguably a question of ontological security for Russia.