An amendment in the House of Lords to the Trade Bill would nullify a UK trade agreement if the High Court makes a "preliminary determination" that the other signatory has committed genocide under the Genocide Convention. Random thoughts. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/dec/06/ministers-face-double-defeat-in-lords-over-china-trading-links

Firstly, genocide is one of the many types of crimes against humanity, and it is notoriously the hardest to prove. There are requirements for intent ("with intent to destroy") magnitude ("in whole or in part") and target ("a national, ethnical, racial or religious group").

For instance, in the Bosnian genocide case, the International Court of Justice found that the Srebrenica massacre was genocide, but that the other "massive killings" by Serb forces were not since genocidal intent could not be proven, nor could Serbian state responsibility.

In the Croatian genocide case, the ICJ declined to find either Serbia or Croatia guilty of genocide, despite evidence of both sides having committed the constitutive acts. Serbia "only" committed ethnic cleansing; Croatia didn't kill enough Serbs to show genocidal intent.

The High Court could adopt a more relaxed definition of genocide, as some other national courts (notably Germany) have done, but it's not obvious whether they would be willing to do so.

If the High Court sticks to the most commonly accepted standards for genocide and finds that the actions of a government haven't met the threshold, this could be used as evidence that nothing nefarious was going on, even though the acts could still be crimes against humanity.

But as Philippe Sands says, obsessing over whether something is a genocide or "merely" another crime against humanity the point. The underlying act is the same, so "why does it matter if we call it a genocide, and is it less bad if it’s just a crime against humanity?"

Secondly, the amendment only refers to acts which fall under Article II of the Genocide Convention. I could be wrong, but this would mean that none of the genocide-related crimes in Article III (b)-(e) is covered.

Finally, it's not clear to me whether Parliament should abdicate its legislative responsibility to the courts this way. If it thinks the UK ought not to trade with one country or another, it can exercise its power to stop it. To punt the issue to the courts seems an easy way out.