Genocide must be named and punished as genocide, taking into account the full range of methods used to destroy a nation, including attacks on culture, language, education, and institutions. Justice requires accountability not only for those who directly carry out such crimes, but also for those who make the decisions and shape the policies of destruction.
The team at the Raphael Lemkin Society has prepared an explainer on why amendments to the Criminal Code of Ukraine are necessary to ensure the proper prosecution of Russia for the crime of genocide in Ukraine.
1) What do we mean when we talk about “amendments to the Criminal Code”?
This refers to updating the definition of the crime of genocide in the Criminal Code of Ukraine so that it reflects the actual practices used by Russia to destroy the Ukrainian nation. The goal is to ensure that these acts can be prosecuted specifically as genocide rather than being treated as “related” or lesser crimes.
2) Why has this issue become urgent now?
Russia’s war against Ukraine clearly has a genocidal character. However, international mechanisms for response and accountability are slow to act, in part because of the lack of political will within the international community.
As a result, existing mechanisms cannot currently be used effectively either to ensure the immediate punishment of perpetrators or to provide compensation for victims.
3) What is the problem with the current legal approach to genocide?
In international legal practice, as well as in most national legal systems, genocide is often narrowed to physical destruction, especially the killing of members of a group. This creates space for manipulation and for the misclassification of genocidal acts as war crimes or crimes against humanity.
4) Why is genocide more than mass killing?
Raphael Lemkin understood genocide as a comprehensive state policy aimed at destroying national groups as such. This destruction can be carried out through both direct and indirect methods. These include the suppression of language and culture, the elimination of national elites and institutions, the forcible transfer of children, dehumanization, and the imposition of narratives of inferiority.
While studying Soviet policies in Ukraine, Lemkin emphasized that physically killing forty million people is impossible. Yet a nation can still disappear if the identity of those who survive, even after famine and repression, is erased.
5) Why was Lemkin’s full definition of genocide not adopted internationally?
During the negotiations leading to the adoption of the 1948 Genocide Convention, the concept of genocide was narrowed largely to physical destruction. Participants in the negotiations stated at the time that indirect methods, including the destruction of culture, could be added to the Convention later. This never happened.
As a result, political compromises made during the drafting of the 1948 Convention created a gap in the legal framework that authoritarian regimes continue to exploit today.
6) What role does the Declaration of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine on the Genocide Committed by the Russian Federation in Ukraine play
The Declaration adopted by the Verkhovna Rada in April 2022 recognized the actions of the Russian armed forces and the Russian military and political leadership as genocide against the Ukrainian people. It also described a system of both direct and indirect methods of destruction.
The document highlights the historical and cultural context of the aggression and the systematic erasure of identity in occupied territories, including attacks on language, books, education, and ideology.
The logic of the Declaration effectively returns to Raphael Lemkin’s original understanding of genocide as a systematic policy aimed at destroying a nation.
7) What exactly would the proposed amendments change?
The amendments would:
- align legal instruments with the state’s recognition of the genocidal nature of Russia’s actions;
- allow genocide to be prosecuted as a coherent system of acts rather than as isolated incidents;
- make it possible to hold accountable not only direct perpetrators but also those who design and implement policies of destruction.
8) Why does responsibility currently tend to fall only on lower-level perpetrators?
Within the current legal framework, it is often easier to prove individual crimes tied to specific incidents than to demonstrate a comprehensive policy aimed at destroying a group as such.
This leads to a situation in which punishment is focused on lower-level perpetrators, while the political and military leadership of the aggressor state remains outside the full scope of accountability.
9) How are crimes against culture connected to proving genocidal intent?
The destruction of language, culture, education, institutions, and historical memory is not a secondary front. In Raphael Lemkin’s framework, and increasingly in contemporary international legal debates, attacks on culture can serve as evidence of an intent to destroy a group in whole or in part by dismantling its identity.
10) Why does this matter not only for Ukraine but also for international security
Accurate legal qualification is not a technical formality. It determines:
- who can be held accountable and for what crimes;
- the legal framework for future justice;
- whether the law can actually prevent the repetition of such crimes.
If a crime is not punished, it will almost certainly be repeated. Genocide is no exception.