Ten Years After the Yezidi Genocide: Gaps in U.S. Law Expose Lack of Corporate Accountability

This year was the tenth anniversary of the Ezidi genocide. Legal experts and survivors alike are grappling with a critical issue: the lack of corporate accountability under U.S. law. In his July 2024 article, Charles Johnson explores the legal shortcomings that have hindered the pursuit of justice for Ezidi victims and survivors, particularly when it comes to holding corporations complicit in genocide accountable.

The 2014 genocide, carried out by ISIS in Sinjar, Iraq, saw the mass slaughter of thousands of Ezidis and the capture and enslavement of many more. While the U.S. government has taken steps to hold ISIS members accountable for these atrocities—primarily through terrorism-related charges—there have been no significant efforts to prosecute corporations that supported ISIS or enabled its genocidal campaign. This glaring gap in U.S. genocide law is particularly troubling given the role companies like the French cement manufacturer Lafarge played in assisting ISIS, providing material support in exchange for securing a factory in Syria.

Although the U.S. legal system theoretically allows for the prosecution of corporations under the Genocide Convention Implementation Act, several legal and political hurdles have prevented meaningful action. Johnson points out that the language of the law itself is problematic.

18 U.S. Code § 1091 – Genocide

(a)Basic Offense.—Whoever, whether in time of peace or in time of war and with the specific intent to destroy, in whole or in substantial part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group as such—

(1) kills members of that group;

(2) causes serious bodily injury to members of that group;

(3) causes the permanent impairment of the mental faculties of members of the group through drugs, torture, or similar techniques;

(4) subjects the group to conditions of life that are intended to cause the physical destruction of the group in whole or in part;

(5) imposes measures intended to prevent births within the group; or

(6) transfers by force children of the group to another group;

shall be punished as provided in subsection (b).

For example, the law’s requirement for “substantial” destruction of a group or “permanent impairment” of mental faculties excludes many forms of harm that would traditionally fall under international definitions of genocide. Additionally, the law’s narrow scope and lack of political will have left the door open for corporations to escape liability, even when they knowingly facilitate genocidal acts.

One of the most notable cases which Charles Johnson mentions in his article involves Lafarge, which pled guilty in 2022 to charges of providing material support to ISIS, paying millions of dollars in fines. However, the company has not been held accountable for its direct role in the genocide itself. Similarly, activists have filed lawsuits against tech giants like Facebook, WhatsApp, and YouTube, alleging they were complicit in the trafficking and enslavement of Ezidi women on their platforms. While these cases may bring some accountability, they fall short of addressing the broader issue of corporate involvement in genocide.

The article stresses that legal reforms are needed to close these gaps. Simplifying language around what constitutes genocide, expanding the scope of mental harm, and creating clearer standards for prosecuting corporations are all essential steps in ensuring that companies are held accountable for their complicity in such horrific crimes.

In addition to legal changes, Johnson argues that prosecutors must actively pursue genocide charges, backed by political will to ensure that those responsible for the Ezidi genocide, including corporate enablers, face justice. With ongoing genocidal conflicts in regions like Sudan and Gaza, the U.S. legal system must rise to the challenge of addressing corporate complicity in modern-day atrocities.

Ultimately, as Johnson’s article illustrates, the legal framework for holding companies accountable for genocide remains insufficient. It’s time for U.S. law to evolve and meet the reality of global justice in the 21st century. Because what is the use of laws which are never applied in the courts? A law which doesn’t protect and vindicate victims of their suffering is just another victory for the perpetrators and a second act of genocide against the victims.

This article references Charles Johnson’s MENASource piece, “Ten Years On, Yezidi Cases Expose a Lack of Corporate Accountability in US Genocide Law,” published on July 24, 2024. For a more in-depth analysis of the legal issues surrounding corporate accountability in the Ezidi genocide, please read the original article here.