Published October 22, 2017 | Version v1
Journal article Open

Understanding Genocide Denial Legislation: A Comparative Analysis

  • 1. Virginia Wesleyan University, United States of America


  • 1. Raksha Shakti University


Several countries touched by the scourge of genocide have responded by criminalizing the denial of this fact.  The motivations for outlawing genocide denial are varied and the legislation coverage differs from state to state.  Some nations are quite narrow in what behavior is criminalized and others are much broader in their coverage of activity. Since a key function of the law is to provide adequate notice to individuals it is important to understand what behavior is prohibited and in which location it is forbidden. One state’s illegal denial behavior may be legal in another country. The scope of denial legislation is often related to the rationale behind the law connecting intent and action. These laws may also serve as guides for other countries desiring to prohibit denial thus creating more continuity among international criminal laws. This article is an attempt to understand genocide denial legislation.  



Files (370.4 kB)

Name Size Download all
370.4 kB Preview Download

Additional details

Related works


  • Alvarez, A. (1997). Adjusting to genocide: The techniques of neutralization and the Holocaust. Social Science History, 21(2), 139-178, Andorra, (2010). Penal Code of 1990 (amended in 2010), Article 457-458. Black, H. C. (1968). Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed.). St. Paul, MN: West Publishing. Brugger, W. (2002). Ban on or protection of hate speech? Some observations based on German and American law. Tulane European and Civil Law Forum, 17, 1-21. Charney, I. W. (2000). Innocent denials of known genocides: A further contribution to a psychology of denial of genocide. Human Rights Review, 1(3), 15-39. Colombia, Penal Code of 2000 (as amended in 2011), Article 102. Devlin, P. (1977). Morals and the criminal law. In K. Kipnis (Ed.), Philosophical issues in law. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Etlis, K. (2008). A Constitutional right to deny and promote genocide? Preempting the usurpation of human rights discourse towards incitement from a Canadian perspective. Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution, 9, 463-477. Gey, S. G. (2008). The First Amendment and the dissemination of socially worthless untruths. Florida State University Law Review, 36, 1-22. Gorton, S. (2015). The uncertain future of genocide denial laws in the European Union. George Washington International Law Review, 47, 421-445. Guroian, V. (1986). Collective responsibility and official excuse making: The case of the Turkish genocide of the Armenians. In R. G. Hovannisian (Ed.), The Armenian genocide in perspective. New Brunswick: Transaction Books. Herman, E. S. & Peterson, D. (2010). The politics of genocide. New York City: Monthly Review Press. Huppke, R. (2016). In fact-free America, maybe millions of Trump supporters voted twice. Chicago Tribune. Retrieved from Jansen, Y. (2014). Denying genocide or denying free speech? A case study of the application of Rwanda's genocide denial laws. Northwestern Journal of International Human Rights, 12(2), 191-213. Lechtholz-Zey, J. (2012). The laws banning Holocaust denial. Genocide Prevention Now, 9. Lewy, G. (2005). The Armenian massacres in Ottoman Turkey: A disputed genocide. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press. Liechtenstein, (1987). Penal Code, Article 283. Lipstadt, D. (1994). Denying the Holocaust: The growing assault on truth and memory. New York: Penguin. Luxembourg. (1997). Penal Code, Article 457(3). McGoldrick, D. and O'Donnell, T. (2006). Hate speech laws: consistency with national and international human rights law. Legal Studies, 18(4), 453-485. Mill, J. S. (1981). On liberty. In M. Curtis (Ed.), The great political theories. New York: Avon Books. Na'amat, T., & Deutch, I. (n.d.). Legislating against Antisemitism and Holocaust denial. Kantor Center for the study of contemporary European Jewry. Nash-Marshall, S., & Mahdessian, R. (2013). Lies, damned lies, and genocide. Metaphilosophy, 44(1-2), 116-144. R. v. Zundel (1992). 2 R.C.S. 731-844. Robinson, P. H. (2005). Fair notice and fair adjudication: Two kinds of legality. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 154. Romania, Emergency Ordinance No. 31 of March 13, 2002. Salomon, T. (2007). Freedom of speech v. hate speech: The jurisdiction of 'direct and public incitement to commit genocide.' In R. Henham and P. Behrens (Eds.), The criminal law of genocide: International, comparative and contextual aspects. Burlington, VT: Ashgate. Smith, R. (2010). Legislating against genocide denial: Criminalizing denial or preventing free speech? Journal of Law and Public Policy, 4(2), 128-137. Stanton, G. (2016). Ten stages of genocide. Genocide Watch. Tsesis, A. (2009). Dignity and speech: The regulation of hate speech in a democracy. Wake Forest Law Review, 44, 497-532. United States v. Alvarez (2012). 567 U.S. ___. Uwizeyimana, D. (2014). Aspects and consequences of the Rwandan law of genocide ideology: A comparative analysis. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 5(23), 2370-2379. Weitz, E. D. (2008). Comment: On the meaning of genocide and genocide denial. Slavic Review, 67(2), 415-421.