The Drėlingas case, the limits of law, and new avenues for repair of and resistance to genocide
ENThe Drėlingas decision corrected the failure of the Vasiliauskas case to establish that the Soviet Union committed genocide through its targeting of Lithuanian resisters to a campaign of denationalization. This approach was required because of the UN Genocide Convention’s limitations, but the cost of success was ignoring the political aspect of this genocide, which is inseparable from its national aspect. The decision also reinforced the Convention’s flawed focus on individuals rather than the social formations that actually commit genocide – in this case, the Soviet Union. The most significant implication of Drėlingas, however, is its determination that those who engaged in armed resistance to a process less than genocidal could themselves be victims of genocide. The Drėlingas decision thus provides a profoundly important counterbalance to the prevailing tendency to treat resistance to oppression as participation in a mutual conflict disallowing genocidal victimization and the pervasive prejudicial preference for helpless victims. Keywords: Genocide law, Soviet genocide, Lithuania, Drėlingas case, antinationalism, victims’ resistance. [From the publication]
