Prohibition of Eugenic Practices in Europe: Political and Legal Reasons

INTRODUCTION. This article is devoted to the analysis of the complex political and legal reasons behind the prohibition of eugenics in European law. The article examines the contemporary prohibition of eugenics in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union 2000, the ban in international criminal law, the historical regulation of eugenic practices in European countries, as well as new challenges in this area.

MATERIALS AND METHODS. The scientific study examines international treaties, conventions, and judicial practice. General scientific and specific scientific methods of cognition (methods of analysis and synthesis, deduction, induction, comparative legal and formal legal methods) were used in preparing the study.

RESEARCH RESULTS. The author concludes that there are several blocks of reasons for the modern prohibition on the regulation of eugenic practices. The first block of reasons for the prohibition of eugenics is linked to the criminalization of certain eugenic practices, including the deliberate selection of people, at the international level after World War II. The second block of the eugenics ban is due to the failure of the political and legal course in several European countries (primarily Scandinavia), associated with the infringement of reproductive rights of certain vulnerable social groups. The third block of reasons for the prohibition of eugenics is triggered by attempts to apply modern advances in biomedicine and genetics, affecting human reproduction and genome, which could adversely impact the interests of future generations of humanity.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS. New challenges of eugenics are difficult to regulate and are often not covered by any prohibition or legal regulation at all. An obvious threat is that eugenics for the purpose of human selection, facilitated by the development of new biotechnologies, may become an initiative of civil society without any state programs and policies and be based on the activities of non-state actors or the convictions of private individuals.

1. Armstrong C. Thousands of women sterilised in Sweden without consent. – British Medical Journal. 1997. No. 315 (Sept 6). P. 563-568.

2. Boot M., Dixon R., Hall C.K. Article 7: Crimes Against Humanity. – Commentary on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: Observers’ Notes. Ed. O. Triffterer, K. Ambos. München: C.H. Beck. 2008. P. 166-174.

3. Cyranoski С. China Set To Introduce Gene-Editing Regulation Following CRISPR-Baby Furore. – Nature. 2019. (May 20). URL: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-01580-1 (дата обращения: 20.08.2024).

4. Drouard A. À propos de l'eugénisme scandinave. Bilan des recherches et travaux récents. – Population. 1998. 53ᵉ année, n°3. P. 633-642.

5. Eugenics and the welfare state: sterilization policy in Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and Finland. Eds. G. Broberg, N. Roll-Hansen. Michigan: Michigan State University Press. 1996. 294 p.

6. Galton F. Inquiries into the Human Faculty and its Development. London: Macmillan. 1883. 305 p.

7. Haave P. Sterilization Under the Swastika: The Case of Norway. – International Journal of Mental Health. 2007. Vol. 36(1). P. 45-57.

8. Ignatenko G.V. Mezhdunarodnyj ugolovnyj sud kak subekt mezhdunarodnogo prava [International Criminal Court as a Subject of International Law]. – Rossijskij ezhegodnik mezhdunarodnogo prava. Spec. vypusk [Russian Yearbook of International Law. Special. issue]. 2003. S. 8-16. (In Russ.)

9. Kalinichenko P.A., Ponomareva D.V. Jetiko-pravovye aspekty regulirovanija genomnyh issledovanij v mezhdunarodnoj i rossijskoj praktike [Ethical and legal aspects of regulating genomic research in international and Russian practice]. – Medicinskaja radiologija i radia-cionnaja bezopasnost' [Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety]. 2019. № 5(64). S. 69-70. (In Russ.)

10. Kej A. Imperija istreblenija. Istorija massovyh ubijstv, sovershennyh nacistami [Empire of Extermination. The History of Mass Murders Committed by the Nazis]. Moscow: Al'pina non-fikshn. 2024. 528 s. (In Russ.)

11. Lieser H., Sroka R., Falkenstein S., Endlich St. Tiergartenstraße 4. Geschichte eines schwierigen Ortes. Berlin: Metropol Verlag. 2014. 144 s.

12. Malinovskij A.A. Sistema mezhdunarodnogo ugolovnogo prava [The System of International Criminal Law]. – Moskovskij zhurnal mezhdunarodnogo prava [Moscow Journal of International Law]. 2004. No. 4. P. 246-255. (In Russ.)

13. Matta A., Nuzban Ju. Mezhdunarodnyj ugolovnyj sud [International Criminal Court]. – Instituty mezhdunarodnogo pravosudija: uchebnoe posobie [Institutions of International Justice: A Textbook]. Moscow: Mezhdunarodnye otnoshenija. 2014. S. 431-445. (In Russ.)

14. Mattila M. Kansamme parhaaksi: Rotuhygienia Suomessa vuoden 1935 sterilointilakiin asti. Helsinki: Suomen Historialinen Seura. 1999. 429 p.

15. Rossijanov K. Cena progressa i cennosti nauki: novaja kniga po istorii evgeniki. Razmyshlenija nad knigoj “Eugenics and the Welfare State: Sterilization Policy in Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and Finland”. Ed. by Gunnar Broberg and Nils Roll-Hansen. East Lansing: Michigan State U. Pr., 1996 [The Price of Progress and the Values of Science: A New Book on the History of Eugenics. Reflections on the Book “Eugenics and the Welfare State: Sterilization Policy in Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and Finland”. Ed. by Gunnar Broberg and Nils Roll-Hansen. East Lansing: Michigan State U. Pr., 1996]. – Voprosy istorii estestvoznanija i tehniki [Questions of the History of Natural Science and Technology]. 2000. № 1. S. 178-186. (In Russ.)

16. Torkunova E.A., Shherbakova A.I. Pravovoe oformlenie evgeniki i sovremennye pravovye tendencii v svete novejshih biotehnologij [Legal registration of eugenics and modern legal trends in light of the latest biotechnologies]. – Istorija gosudarstva i prava [History of the state and law]. 2020. № 11. S. 51-80. (In Russ.)