The past decade has seen increased scholarly attention on the practice and latent potential of the United Nations General Assembly (‘Assembly’) to secure accountability for atrocity crimes. This increased focus has arisen primarily due to growing frustration over permanent member deadlock in the Security Council in the face of documented atrocities. One aspect of this nascent research agenda yet to be analysed is the invocation of the crime of genocide in Assembly resolutions and practice. Studies have shown the Security Council to have applied the genocide label selectively and only where aligned with the permanent members’ interests. Can the same be said about the Assembly? This article tracks the use of the genocide norm in Assembly resolutions, revealing two major functions: prescriptive and quasi-judicial. It notes that Resolution 96(I) (1946) has had a pervasive influence on the development of the crime of genocide. Still, later attempts in the Assembly to develop the genocide definition have enjoyed less success. Although the Assembly has been beset with political selectivity in the use of the genocide label, the rise of commissions of inquiry in UN practice can usefully augment a closer dialogue between their outputs and Assembly resolutions, as recent resolutions concerning alleged crimes against the Rohingya show.

中文翻译：

---

大会决议中的种族灭绝罪：法律基础和影响

过去十年，学术界越来越关注联合国大会（“大会”）确保对暴行罪追究责任的做法和潜在潜力。之所以引起这种关注，主要是由于面对记录在案的暴行，安理会常任理事国陷入僵局越来越令人沮丧。这一尚待分析的新兴研究议程的一个方面是在大会决议和实践中援引种族灭绝罪。研究表明，安理会有选择地使用种族灭绝标签，而且只在符合常任理事国利益的情况下使用。大会也可以这样说吗？本文跟踪了大会决议中种族灭绝规范的使用，揭示了两个主要功能：规定性和准司法性。它注意到第 96(I) (1946) 号决议对种族灭绝罪的发展产生了普遍影响。尽管如此，后来在议会中制定种族灭绝定义的尝试却不太成功。尽管大会在使用种族灭绝标签时受到政治选择性的困扰，但调查委员会在联合国实践中的兴起有助于加强其产出与大会决议之间的更密切对话，正如最近关于涉嫌针对罗兴亚人犯罪的决议所显示的那样。