FAQ

The Dictionary of Terms is an online resource published by the International Legal Forum (ILF). For each term it sets out the definition under international law, the term's legal and historical background, cases that meet the legal threshold, and documented examples of the term being hijacked, redefined, inverted, and weaponized, with links to primary sources.

The Dictionary of Terms is powered by the International Legal Forum (ILF), a non-governmental organization dedicated to remembering, reclaiming, and renewing the foundational principles of law vital to confronting rising extremism, and the antisemitism that signals it. More information is available at www.ilfngo.org.

The Dictionary of Terms currently covers: Apartheid, Colonialism, Crimes Against Humanity, Ethnic Cleansing, Famine, Genocide, The IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism, Rape, War Crimes. More terms are being added and you can submit a term / case using our "submit a term / case" button.

Pursuant to Article II of the 1973 United Nations International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid, the crime of apartheid is defined as:“Similar policies and practices of racial segregation and discrimination as practised in southern Africa, shall apply to the following inhuman acts committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them: a. Denial to a member or members of a racial group or groups of the right to life and liberty of person: i. By murder of members of a racial group or groups; ii. By the infliction upon the members of a racial group or groups of serious bodily or mental harm, by the infringement of their freedom or dignity, or by subjecting them to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment …

Apartheid carries specific legal and historical weight. Today, some international organizations and advocates apply the term ‘apartheid’ far beyond its established legal meaning, treating any difference in legal status or treatment within a country as evidence of apartheid. However, distinctions based on citizenship are common in democratic states and are not, in and of themselves, apartheid. Efforts that misuse, misappropriate, hijack, and/or weaponize the term minimize the experiences of Black South Africans who lived under apartheid.

Colonialism does not have a singular legally binding definition, however, General Assembly resolution 1514, which states that colonization is “The subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights,” is widely regarded as the leading definition of colonialism. General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV), the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, adopted on December 14, 1960, sets out a framework for the international definition and dismantling of colonialism. It declares that: - “The subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights, is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations and is an impediment to the promotion of world peace and co-operation.

Labelling a country as colonialist carries distinct responsibilities under international law, including the obligation to dismantle colonial systems. In recent decades, classifying countries as colonialist has also been weaponized to deny countries their historic sovereignty, while simultaneously denying the historic presence of ethnic groups by deeming them colonialist. The frequent characterization that specific countries are engaged in colonial enterprises, when these populations themselves have been colonized and displaced, weakens the efforts of anti-colonial movements.

Article 7 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, adopted in 1998, states: - For the purpose of this Statute, “crime against humanity” means any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack: - Murder; - Extermination; - Enslavement; - Deportation or forcible transfer of population; - Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law; - Torture; - Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity; - Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as defined in paragraph 3 …

The legal elements that comprise crime against humanity have been misconstrued and l assumed, instead of proven with evidence. Organizations are attempting to weaken the legal threshold of what constitutes a crime against humanity. These declarations frequently undermine legal certainty and allow for the misuse of legally significant terms to shape the conversation on what constitutes crimes against humanity.

To date, ethnic cleansing has not been recognized as a separate crime under international law and falls under the categories of “crimes against humanity” and/or “war crime.” The term carries a specific meaning that has been widely used in international legal frameworks. For example,following the dissolution of the former Yugoslavia in 1991, Bosniaks, Serbs, and Croats were brutally targeted by the Bosnian Serbian Army. In a 1994 letter by then UN Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali regarding UN Security Council Resolution 780, Boutros-Ghali explains that ethnic cleansing is "rendering an area ethnically homogeneous by using force or intimidation to remove persons of given groups from the area.”

The misuse, misappropriation, and hijacking of the term ethnic cleansing blurs the line between legitimate efforts to evacuate civilians that are in line with international law and the forced removal of civilians through violent methods, including ethnic cleansing. Ethnic cleansing is carefully outlined by international bodies and carries a specific historical meaning, particularly in relation to the dissolution of the former Yugoslavia. Victims of ethnic cleansing discuss experiences of rape, abuse, and watching their families be murdered while being forcibly removed from their homes. When these experiences are conflated with justified efforts to evacuate civilians from active military zones, the historic meaning of ethnic cleansing becomes diluted.

According to the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification, famine (IPC Phase 5) is defined as:“A situation in which widespread starvation and destitution, acute malnutrition, and deaths are occurring concurrently. More specifically: - 20% of households in an area face an extreme lack of food and a near complete collapse of their livelihoods and depletion of their assets. (These definitions refer strictly to the observed conditions and do not imply causality, intent, or alignment with any legal definitions. - At least 30% of children under five suffer from acute malnutrition measured by Weight-for-Height (WHZ) and/or bilateral oedema, or approximately 15% of children under five suffer from acute malnutrition measured by Mid-Upper Arm Circumference (MUAC), and/or bilateral oedema.

Famine is an ongoing global concern that requires collaborative efforts, including substantial financial resources and humanitarian aid. When these resources are disproportionately applied to one location, other communities facing famine suffer.

According to Article II of the 1948 United Nations Genocide Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, genocide is: “Any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.”

International human rights organizations and public officials have blurred the lines between accusation and legal fact through the political use of the term genocide. By misusing, misappropriating, hijacking, and/or weaponizing the term, these individuals and bodies diminish codified international law by interpreting genocide without meeting the threshold of intent. Furthermore, this politicized use of the term genocide across the globe has not only minimized the experiences of genocide survivors but has also taken vital resources and attention away from substantiated genocides.

“Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.” The IHRA definition includes 11 examples to illustrate the above definition: - Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion. - Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.

The pushback against this widely adopted comprehensive definition and tool that identifies all permeations of an ancient hate that has morphed over millennia diminishes social justice efforts, including the notion that individuals facing prejudice define how they experience it. Dismantling this resource designed to identify all forms of antisemitism leaves individuals and communities without a framework to protect themselves. Furthermore, criticism of this tool has obstructed parts of the definition, misconstrued guidance as law, and confused real hatred, including conduct fuelled by it, as free speech.

The First Geneva Convention (1949) provides a legal duty to protect civilians against rape during conflict. Article 27 of the Geneva Convention states:“Women shall be especially protected against any attack on their honour, in particular against rape, enforced prostitution, or any form of indecent assault.” Additionally, Article 7 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (1998) defines rape as a “crime against humanity,” stating: 1. For the purpose of this Statute, “crime against humanity” means any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack… (g) Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity …”

Unsubstantiated claims of rape, without due process, undermine established legal process and diminish the credibility of genuine rape claims.

Article 8 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, adopted in 1997, is the most comprehensive codification of war crimes in international law. It states: “2. For the purpose of this Statute, ‘war crimes’ means: (a) Grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, namely, any of the following acts against persons or property protected under the provisions of the relevant Geneva Convention: (i) Willful killing; (ii) Torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments; (iii) Wilfully causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or health; (iv) Extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly; (v) Compelling a prisoner of war or other protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile Power”

Today, despite the clear legal definition of “war crimes” and how this differs from legitimate acts of war, there is a growing trend to label legitimate military activities as war crimes. At the same time, vast resources are focused on specific countries, while failing to hold grave human rights violators accountable.