Crimes Against Humanity in Contemporary International Law

I. Conceptual Origins and Legal Evolution of Crimes Against Humanity

Crimes against humanity entered international law as a response to atrocities that could not be adequately captured by traditional war crimes doctrine. The concept emerged to address large-scale violence committed against civilian populations as a matter of policy, including acts carried out by a state against its own population. Its development reflects a gradual shift from episodic moral condemnation to a structured body of international criminal law grounded in legal accountability.

The earliest roots of crimes against humanity can be traced to late nineteenth- and early twentieth-century efforts to regulate warfare and protect civilians. Instruments such as the Hague Conventions invoked the “laws of humanity,” but they did not define a distinct crime nor establish mechanisms for individual criminal responsibility. These early references were normative signposts rather than enforceable legal rules. The decisive legal break occurred after the Second World War, when the Allied Powers established the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg.

The Nuremberg Charter marked the first formal codification of crimes against humanity. It defined the crime to include murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and persecution against civilian populations, committed before or during the war. This formulation was revolutionary for two reasons. First, it detached criminal responsibility from the legality of conduct under domestic law. Second, it recognized that certain atrocities offend the international community as a whole, even when committed within a state’s own territory. Although the Nuremberg definition was limited by its connection to armed conflict and to other crimes within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, it established the conceptual foundation for later developments.

Following Nuremberg, the evolution of crimes against humanity entered a prolonged period of stagnation. Geopolitical divisions during the Cold War constrained both codification and enforcement. Atrocities continued to occur, but there was little appetite for developing permanent international criminal mechanisms. During this period, the concept survived primarily through scholarly analysis and United Nations resolutions affirming the Nuremberg Principles, rather than through judicial practice.

This impasse ended in the 1990s with the establishment of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. These tribunals played a decisive role in transforming crimes against humanity into an operational legal category. Through extensive jurisprudence, they clarified the contextual elements of the crime, rejected the necessity of a link to international armed conflict under customary international law, and refined the distinction between widespread and systematic attacks. Their case law demonstrated that crimes against humanity could be committed in both war and peacetime, provided that the requisite attack against a civilian population was established.

The adoption of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court in 1998 represented the most comprehensive consolidation of the crime. Article 7 codified crimes against humanity with a detailed list of underlying acts and precise contextual requirements. Unlike earlier instruments, the Rome Statute expressly grounded the crime in a policy-driven attack and emphasized the mental element of knowledge. While the Court’s jurisdiction is limited, the Statute has become the primary reference point for contemporary interpretation.

More recently, the work of the International Law Commission has signaled a renewed effort to close normative gaps. Its draft articles on the prevention and punishment of crimes against humanity recognize the prohibition as a peremptory norm of general international law and seek to strengthen domestic enforcement. Together, these developments illustrate an ongoing evolution: crimes against humanity have moved from moral outrage to a mature legal framework aimed at preventing and punishing the most serious abuses of civilian populations.

II. The Legal Definition: Contextual Thresholds Under International Law

International law sets strict contextual thresholds that must be met for certain acts to qualify as crimes against humanity. These thresholds ensure that only conduct committed within a specific factual and legal context can be prosecuted under this category. The definition is designed to distinguish crimes against humanity from both ordinary domestic crimes and other international crimes.

The Requirement of an “Attack” Against a Civilian Population

Crimes against humanity must be committed as part of an “attack” directed against any civilian population. In this context, an “attack” refers to a course of conduct involving the multiple commission of acts against civilians. This requirement ensures that isolated or random acts of violence do not qualify. Instead, the prohibited acts must form part of a broader pattern of violence.

Widespread or Systematic Nature of the Attack

The attack must be either widespread or systematic. These are alternative thresholds. An attack is considered widespread if it is large in scale, involving a substantial number of victims or a large geographic area. It is considered systematic if it is carried out as part of a deliberate plan or policy, reflecting organised and patterned conduct rather than random or spontaneous acts.

Directed Against a Civilian Population

The attack must be directed specifically against a civilian population. This means that civilians must be the primary target of the attack, not incidental victims. The definition of a civilian population includes any group of people who are not taking part in hostilities. The presence of some combatants among the civilian population does not remove its civilian character.

Nexus and Knowledge Requirements

There must be a link, or nexus, between the individual acts and the broader attack. The perpetrator does not need to orchestrate the entire attack but must contribute to it through their actions. Additionally, the perpetrator must have knowledge that their conduct is part of the larger attack on the civilian population. This mental element does not require the perpetrator to understand all details of the attack, only that they are aware that their actions are part of a widespread or systematic campaign directed at civilians.

III. Underlying Prohibited Acts: From Murder to Apartheid

Crimes against humanity are anchored in a defined catalogue of underlying prohibited acts. These acts do not exist in isolation; they become crimes against humanity only when committed within the contextual framework of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population. The enumeration of acts serves a dual function. It constrains judicial discretion by preserving legality and foreseeability, while also capturing the forms of violence that have historically been central to mass atrocities. The law does not criminalise cruelty in the abstract; it criminalises specific forms of harm that, when deployed collectively, undermine the most basic conditions of human existence.

Murder and Extermination

Murder is the intentional killing of one or more civilians as part of the broader attack. It mirrors homicide in domestic law but is distinguished by its embeddedness in collective violence. The international character of murder as a crime against humanity does not derive from the act itself, but from its function within a pattern of violence directed at civilians.

Extermination represents an aggravated form of lethal violence. It encompasses mass killing as well as conduct that deliberately imposes conditions of life calculated to bring about the destruction of part of a population. This may include the systematic denial of food, water, medical care, or shelter. Extermination therefore captures indirect methods of killing that rely on predictability rather than immediacy. The distinction between murder and extermination lies primarily in scale and structural impact, not in the moral gravity of the conduct.

Enslavement, Deportation, and Forcible Transfer

Enslavement refers to the exercise of powers attaching to the right of ownership over a person. It includes practices such as forced labour, trafficking, and sexual exploitation. The defining feature is the reduction of the victim to a status of control and domination that strips them of autonomy. Enslavement as a crime against humanity reflects the law’s recognition that exploitation on a massive or organised scale constitutes a form of collective violence.

Deportation and forcible transfer address the coercive displacement of civilians from areas in which they are lawfully present. Deportation typically involves displacement across national borders, while forcible transfer occurs within a state’s territory. Both acts criminalise practices aimed at reshaping populations through coercion rather than individual violence. These crimes often function as tools of ethnic cleansing, political repression, or demographic engineering.

Imprisonment and Severe Deprivation of Physical Liberty

This category targets arbitrary detention carried out in violation of fundamental international norms. The crime is not the mere fact of detention, but its unlawful, severe, and systematic character. Mass internment, prolonged detention without due process, and detention in secret or unofficial facilities may fall within this act when used as instruments of repression against civilian populations. The focus is on the abuse of institutional power to remove individuals from society as part of a broader campaign of control.

Torture

Torture involves the intentional infliction of severe physical or mental pain or suffering upon a person under the control of the perpetrator. As a crime against humanity, torture is understood not as an isolated abuse, but as a method of intimidation, punishment, coercion, or domination deployed within an organised attack. Its inclusion reflects the reality that torture is often embedded in systems of repression, where suffering is inflicted to break individuals and terrorise communities rather than to extract information alone.

Sexual and Gender-Based Violence

Sexual and gender-based crimes are expressly recognised as autonomous underlying acts. These include rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilisation, and other forms of comparable gravity. Their explicit codification marked a decisive shift away from earlier approaches that marginalised sexual violence or treated it as incidental to other crimes. International law now recognises sexual violence as a deliberate strategy of domination, humiliation, and social destruction, capable of fracturing families, communities, and collective identity.

Persecution

Persecution occupies a distinctive position among the underlying acts. It consists of the intentional and severe deprivation of fundamental rights against an identifiable group on discriminatory grounds such as political belief, race, religion, ethnicity, or gender. Unlike other acts, persecution must be linked to another prohibited act or to another international crime. This reflects its compound nature: persecution criminalises not only harm, but harm inflicted because of who the victims are. It captures the structural logic of exclusion that often underpins crimes against humanity.

Enforced Disappearance

Enforced disappearance involves the arrest, detention, or abduction of persons followed by a refusal to acknowledge their fate or whereabouts. Its defining feature is the removal of individuals from the protection of the law. The harm extends beyond the immediate victim to families and communities, who are left in a permanent state of uncertainty. Enforced disappearance functions as a tool of terror and control, designed to eliminate opposition while denying accountability.

Apartheid and Other Inhumane Acts

Apartheid is recognised as a crime against humanity when inhumane acts are committed within an institutionalised regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over another. Its inclusion underscores that crimes against humanity may be perpetrated through enduring legal and political structures, not only through episodic violence. Apartheid criminalises systems of domination that normalise inequality and abuse over time.

The category of other inhumane acts serves as a residual clause, capturing conduct of similar gravity that intentionally causes great suffering or serious injury but does not fall neatly within the enumerated acts. Courts approach this category with caution to preserve the principle of legality and prevent uncontrolled expansion of criminal liability.

Taken together, these underlying prohibited acts define the material scope of crimes against humanity. Their significance lies not only in the severity of the conduct, but in their role within organised patterns of violence that target civilians as a group. This structure ensures that crimes against humanity remain focused on collective harm while preserving doctrinal coherence and legal certainty.

Also Read

• The Evolution of Universal Jurisdiction in Human Rights Enforcement

• What Are Human Rights?

• International Responsibility in Public International Law

• The Responsibility to Protect: Law, Practice, and Limits

• Legal Theory and International Law

IV. Crimes Against Humanity Without Armed Conflict

Crimes against humanity are not confined to situations of war. One of their defining features under contemporary international law is their applicability to large-scale or systematic violence committed in peacetime. This characteristic distinguishes crimes against humanity from war crimes and reflects the understanding that mass atrocities are not limited to armed conflict but may arise from state repression, authoritarian governance, or organised campaigns of persecution carried out under the guise of internal order.

Historically, the association between crimes against humanity and armed conflict stemmed from their initial articulation in the aftermath of the Second World War. Early formulations linked such crimes to wartime conduct, largely because international criminal law itself developed within the context of armed conflict. Over time, however, judicial interpretation and state practice clarified that this connection was neither conceptually necessary nor legally justified. Modern international law recognises that the defining harm addressed by crimes against humanity is the systematic or widespread attack against civilians, not the existence of hostilities.

The removal of the armed-conflict requirement significantly expanded the protective scope of international criminal law. Crimes against humanity now encompass patterns of violence committed by state authorities against their own populations, including campaigns of arbitrary detention, torture, enforced disappearance, and persecution carried out during periods of nominal peace. This evolution reflects the reality that some of the most severe abuses of human dignity occur outside traditional battlefield settings, often through bureaucratic or legal mechanisms designed to suppress dissent or marginalise targeted groups.

This peacetime applicability also underscores the close relationship between crimes against humanity and international human rights law. While human rights law primarily imposes obligations on states and focuses on prevention and accountability through non-criminal mechanisms, crimes against humanity introduce individual criminal responsibility for the most extreme violations. The two bodies of law operate on different planes but intersect where violations become systematic or widespread and are carried out as part of an organised attack against civilians.

Importantly, recognising crimes against humanity without armed conflict does not lower the legal threshold for criminal liability. The contextual requirements remain stringent. The conduct must still form part of a widespread or systematic attack, be directed against a civilian population, and be carried out with the requisite knowledge. This ensures that ordinary human rights violations, even when serious, do not automatically trigger international criminal responsibility unless they are embedded in collective patterns of abuse.

The peacetime dimension of crimes against humanity has particular relevance for addressing structural violence. Authoritarian regimes may employ legal frameworks, administrative practices, or security institutions to implement policies of repression while maintaining an appearance of legality. Crimes against humanity provide a legal lens capable of penetrating these formal structures and exposing the criminal nature of organised violence against civilians.

By severing the conceptual dependence on armed conflict, international law has positioned crimes against humanity as a central tool for confronting mass repression in all its forms. This development reinforces the preventive and expressive functions of international criminal law, affirming that systematic violence against civilian populations is unacceptable regardless of the presence or absence of war.

V. Individual and Superior Responsibility

Crimes against humanity are grounded in the principle of individual criminal responsibility. International law rejects the notion that large-scale or systematic violence can be attributed solely to abstract entities such as states or organisations. Instead, it holds natural persons criminally accountable for their participation in collective crimes, regardless of official status or position within a hierarchy. This approach reflects the understanding that crimes against humanity are implemented through human decision-making, even when carried out within complex institutional structures.

Individual responsibility extends beyond those who physically commit the underlying acts. International criminal law recognises that crimes against humanity are typically the product of coordinated action involving planners, organisers, and facilitators. Liability, therefore, encompasses conduct such as ordering, soliciting, inducing, aiding, and abetting the commission of crimes. Contribution to the execution of the attack, even at a lower operational level, may suffice when the individual’s acts form part of the broader pattern of violence directed against civilians.

The doctrine of superior responsibility addresses accountability within hierarchical structures, both military and civilian. Superiors may be held criminally responsible for crimes committed by their subordinates when they knew, or had reason to know, that such crimes were being committed or were about to be committed, and failed to take necessary and reasonable measures to prevent them or to punish those responsible. This form of liability reflects the reality that authority and control create obligations to act, particularly in contexts where systemic violence depends on tolerance or encouragement from above.

Superior responsibility does not require direct participation in the underlying crimes. It is premised on the failure to exercise control appropriately in situations where such control exists. The standard of knowledge incorporates both actual awareness and constructive knowledge, recognising that wilful blindness cannot shield superiors from responsibility when information indicating criminal conduct is available.

International law further reinforces accountability by rejecting traditional defences rooted in authority. Acting pursuant to orders of a government or a superior does not exclude criminal responsibility for crimes against humanity. At most, such orders may be considered in mitigation of punishment. Similarly, official capacity, including the status of head of state or senior government official, does not provide immunity from prosecution. These principles underscore the idea that crimes against humanity violate fundamental norms that override claims of official authority.

Another defining feature of responsibility for crimes against humanity is the absence of statutory limitations. These crimes are considered so grave that the passage of time cannot extinguish criminal liability. This ensures that accountability remains possible even decades after the commission of the crimes, reflecting their enduring impact on victims and societies.

The doctrines of individual and superior responsibility ensure that crimes against humanity are addressed at all levels of participation. They prevent accountability from being confined to low-level perpetrators while shielding those who design, authorise, or tolerate mass violence. By focusing on personal responsibility within collective systems, international law affirms that participation in crimes against humanity is never a neutral or excusable act.

VI. Enforcement Gaps: From International Courts to Domestic Jurisdictions

Despite the normative consolidation of crimes against humanity, enforcement remains the most fragile element of the legal framework. The gap between legal recognition and effective accountability persists at both international and domestic levels. This tension reveals a structural paradox: crimes against humanity are universally condemned, yet consistently under-prosecuted.

International criminal courts play a central symbolic and legal role, but their practical reach is limited. Jurisdictional constraints significantly narrow the universe of prosecutable cases. International courts depend on state consent, territorial jurisdiction, or referral mechanisms that are often shaped by political considerations. As a result, many situations involving widespread or systematic attacks against civilian populations fall outside international judicial reach, not because they fail to meet legal thresholds, but because jurisdiction cannot be established or enforced.

Resource limitations further restrict international prosecutions. International courts are designed to address a small number of high-level cases rather than to function as comprehensive enforcement bodies. This selective model prioritises symbolic accountability and the articulation of legal standards but leaves the vast majority of perpetrators beyond direct international prosecution. While this approach reinforces the expressive function of international criminal law, it also generates criticism regarding selectivity and uneven application.

Complementarity places primary responsibility for prosecuting crimes against humanity on domestic jurisdictions. In theory, this decentralised model strengthens enforcement by embedding international crimes within national legal systems. In practice, however, domestic prosecution faces persistent obstacles. Many states lack adequate legislation criminalising crimes against humanity or fail to incorporate the full scope of international definitions and modes of liability. Even where legal frameworks exist, political interference, lack of judicial independence, and institutional weakness often undermine effective prosecution.

Universal jurisdiction offers a potential mechanism to bridge enforcement gaps by allowing states to prosecute crimes against humanity regardless of where they were committed or the nationality of the perpetrators or victims. While conceptually powerful, universal jurisdiction remains unevenly applied. Political sensitivities, diplomatic pressure, evidentiary challenges, and resource constraints frequently limit its practical use. As a result, universal jurisdiction operates more as an exceptional tool than as a systematic solution.

Extradition and mutual legal assistance present additional challenges. States may be reluctant to extradite suspects accused of crimes against humanity, particularly when political or security interests are implicated. Procedural barriers, inconsistent evidentiary standards, and concerns over fair trial guarantees further complicate cooperation. These obstacles allow alleged perpetrators to exploit jurisdictional fragmentation and avoid accountability through mobility.

The cumulative effect of these enforcement gaps is a persistent culture of impunity. Legal norms alone are insufficient without political will, institutional capacity, and sustained cooperation. Crimes against humanity expose the limits of international criminal law not at the level of definition, but at the level of implementation. Bridging the enforcement gap requires not only stronger international institutions but also genuine domestic commitment to treating these crimes as offences of the highest gravity, regardless of where or by whom they are committed.

VII. Toward a Global Convention on Crimes Against Humanity

Despite the central place of crimes against humanity within international criminal law, their normative framework has long remained incomplete. Unlike genocide and war crimes, crimes against humanity historically lacked a dedicated global convention imposing comprehensive obligations of prevention, punishment, and international cooperation. This structural gap has had significant legal and practical consequences, contributing to fragmented domestic implementation and uneven enforcement across jurisdictions.

The absence of a specialised convention created reliance on customary international law and on indirect treaty regimes. While customary law provides binding norms, it offers limited guidance on procedural obligations such as jurisdiction, extradition, mutual legal assistance, and victim reparations. As a result, states have adopted divergent approaches to criminalisation and enforcement, weakening the universality that crimes against humanity are meant to embody.

Recognising this deficiency, the international legal community initiated renewed codification efforts aimed at strengthening the legal architecture surrounding crimes against humanity. These efforts reflect an understanding that prevention and accountability cannot depend solely on international courts with limited jurisdiction and capacity. Instead, effective enforcement requires harmonised domestic legal frameworks supported by clear international obligations.

A global convention on crimes against humanity would serve several critical functions. First, it would require states to criminalise crimes against humanity under domestic law in accordance with internationally agreed definitions, closing gaps created by incomplete or outdated legislation. Second, it would establish jurisdictional obligations that reduce safe havens for perpetrators, including the obligation to prosecute or extradite suspects found within a state’s territory. Third, it would formalise duties of prevention, recognising that crimes against humanity are not only to be punished after the fact but actively deterred through legal, administrative, and institutional measures.

Such a convention would also strengthen international cooperation. Crimes against humanity are often transnational in their effects, involving displaced populations, cross-border evidence, and perpetrators operating beyond the territory where the crimes occurred. A unified treaty framework would facilitate extradition, mutual legal assistance, and evidence-sharing, reducing the ability of perpetrators to evade justice through jurisdictional fragmentation.

Another significant dimension of a global convention concerns the rights of victims. A comprehensive treaty framework would reinforce obligations related to access to justice, protection of witnesses, and reparations. This would help shift the focus of international criminal law beyond punishment alone, recognising the central role of victims in accountability processes and the long-term impact of crimes against humanity on societies.

The recognition of crimes against humanity as violations of peremptory norms of international law further strengthens the case for a global convention. As offences that concern the international community as a whole, crimes against humanity demand a legal response that is systematic, coherent, and universal. A dedicated convention would align legal form with normative status, reducing the current disparity between the gravity of the crimes and the weakness of enforcement mechanisms.

The movement toward a global convention reflects a broader evolution in international law: a shift from reactive condemnation to proactive legal structuring. While political resistance and concerns over sovereignty continue to pose obstacles, the normative momentum behind a dedicated treaty underscores a growing consensus that crimes against humanity require a comprehensive legal framework equal to their gravity. Such a convention would not replace existing institutions but would reinforce them, anchoring international criminal accountability more firmly within domestic legal systems and strengthening the collective response to mass atrocities.

References

1. Cherif Bassiouni, Crimes Against Humanity in International Criminal Law, 2nd revised ed., Kluwer Law International.

2. William A. Schabas, The International Criminal Court: A Commentary on the Rome Statute, Oxford University Press.

3. Robert Cryer, Håkan Friman, Darryl Robinson, and Elizabeth Wilmshurst, An Introduction to International Criminal Law and Procedure, Cambridge University Press.

4. Kai Ambos, Treatise on International Criminal Law, Volume II: The Crimes and Sentencing, Oxford University Press.

5. Antonio Cassese, International Criminal Law, Oxford University Press.

6. Otto Triffterer and Kai Ambos (eds.), Commentary on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, C.H. Beck / Hart / Nomos.

7. International Law Commission, Draft Articles on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes Against Humanity, with commentaries.

8. International Military Tribunal (Nuremberg), Judgment and Proceedings.

9. Jurisprudence of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia on crimes against humanity.

10. Jurisprudence of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda on crimes against humanity.

11. International Criminal Court, Elements of Crimes.

12. United Nations General Assembly, Affirmation of the Principles of International Law Recognized by the Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal.