Read on Twitter
1/9 Thread on legal issues in reply to @PaulGoodmanCH on #GenocideAmendment. Declaration: not campaigner in any Uyghur cause nor taken any position on China. https://twitter.com/PaulGoodmanCH/status/1351093668145491971
2/9 UK courts often hear complex cases. Under universal jurisdiction, UK courts can and do hear cases against individuals who committed crimes abroad.
3/9 UK courts don’t gather evidence. Int’l courts don’t either. Parties present evidence and judges decide. Int’l courts generally operate same way. Investigation powers of judge rarely used where exist.
4/9 #GenocideAmendment deals with preliminary determination on genocide. Similar to advisory opinions. Not a criminal process as no individuals tried. No trials at all!
5/9 #GenocideAmendment makes determination on a state of affairs. Deals with international obligations of States. No suggestion replacing ICJ (which cannot be used in certain cases anyway).
6/9 It is correct that UK courts do not withdraw or terminate international agreements. No one suggested that happens under #GenocideAmendment. Executive can withdraw / terminate. Provisions in agreements and secondary legislation can deal with this.
7/9 Universal jurisdiction already allows individuals to be tried for crimes committed abroad: torture, genocide etc. Happening in Germany, Spain, Sweden right now. International law permits it and national courts deal with it.
8/9 #GenocideAmendment very narrow - deals with narrowly defined crime with a precise tool - preliminary determination. Fulfils international obligations of UK to prohibit, prevent, and punish genocide. All examples you use are not within scope.
9/9 Kitchen-sink approach sadly on the #GenocideAmendment in your piece. Read the #IBAHRI briefing - deals comprehensively with legal considerations. Clarifies any legal difficulties.
.IBAHRI Briefing on Legal Considerations Arising from the #GenocideAmendment here: https://twitter.com/IBAHRI/status/1350167905078546432?s=20
