Parliamentary Games and the Genocide Amendment

The Genocide Amendment to the Trade Bill 2019-2021 aimed to allow the British High Court to make a Preliminary Determination on whether the UK’s future trading partners are committing, or have committed, genocide. If the High Court finds that is the case, the British Government would be required to present this to Parliament and discuss a proposed course of action. This could lead to terminating any trade agreements with the state concerned, acting as a strong statement of the UK’s condemnation of international genocides.

This Amendment originated in the House of Lords and is currently undergoing the process known as ‘ping-pong’, whereby draft Bills are amended and voted on, then passed between the two Houses of Parliament before being passed as Law or withdrawn. The House of Lords is eager to pass this amendment, however they have been met by opposition from the Government, with concerns about giving too much power to judges when it comes to deciding trade agreements.

THE TRIGGER

The Amendment arises following allegations that Uyghur Muslims are suffering a genocide at the hands of the Chinese government, an issue highlighted following the US’ condemnation of genocidal acts being committed in the Xinjiang province.

Following the “mounting evidence” that the Chinese state is engaged in a campaign of genocide, there have been calls for support both within and outside of Parliament for the UK to take action. There are claims that Uyghur Muslims in the province are subjected to forced sterilisation and brainwashing, whilst there has also been the destruction of mosques, all in an attempt to wipe out their religion and secure their commitment to the Chinese State above all else.

According to the organisation Minority Rights; “the proposed Trade Bill amendment would be an important step in ensuring that the UK strengthens its obligations under the 1984 Genocide Convention”. This Genocide Convention was created following the Second World War, in an attempt to ensure that no similar atrocities would take place again. Under this convention, the prohibition, prevention, and punishment of genocide is a binding obligation on all states who are parties to the Convention, including the UK. It is hoped that the current Amendment would allow the UK to fulfil these international obligations.

“A MOCKERY OF DEMOCRACY”

The Conservative Government opposes the Amendment due to the impact it may have on the separation of powers. It believes that if such an amendment was passed, it would give judges too much of a say in determining the outcome of trade negotiations, which the Government claims is a responsibility exclusive to the democratically elected executive and Parliament. Instead, it wishes to give this power to Select Committees. However, many Conservative backbenchers have rebelled against this stance.

On 9 February, the House of Commons voted on the Amendment. However, the Government manipulated the vote so that the amendment would have to be voted on alongside a Labour-sponsored amendment which would impose human rights audits of trade agreements. This discouraged many Tory MPs who were planning on voting against the government from doing so, meaning the amendment was defeated in the Commons, despite passing in the Lords with a huge majority. Lord Alton described this as a ‘mockery of democracy’, claiming that the government denied MPs the right to vote on the amendment. He has said that he will attempt to re-introduce the amendment.

Whilst the Government did win the last vote, it is clear that the support behind this Amendment both within and outside of Parliament means we have not heard the end of this topic just yet. There are seriously compelling reasons for the UK High Court judges to be given the power to decide whether a State is committing genocide. Their impartiality, and ability to deal with evidence is just one advantage. However, the impact of this on the separation of powers doctrine which underpins the British constitution is an equally interesting point. It is yet to be seen how the debates on this amendment will end, but what is clear is that there is growing support for the UK to take responsibility for their international obligations in relation to genocide.

Image+-+Olivia+Fraser.jpg

Tanya is a Law student heading into the final year of her degree at the University of Manchester. She is interested in bringing attention to human rights issues arising from her Pro-Bono work at University (volunteering at the Legal Advice Centre and taking part in volunteering projects). Her main goal is to become a Barrister practising in either Criminal or Family Law.

LinkedIn