On August 2, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) commemorates Genocost Aboodi Vesakaran/Unsplash, CC BYOn August 2, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) commemorates Genocost Day, a nationalday of remembrance dedicated to the millions of victims of the violence that has affected the country since the outbreak of the First Congo War in 1996. First promoted by Congolese civil society in 2013, the commemoration was officially established under Congolese law in December 2022.The term Genocost may be unfamiliar to many people outside Central Africa. Yet in the DRC, it has become an increasingly powerful symbol of collective memory and a rallying cry for justice. Combining the words “genocide” and “cost”, it seeks to draw attention to the human suffering associated with decades of armed conflicts, while highlighting the role played by the exploitation of natural resources in sustaining violence.The concept emerged at a time when eastern DRC was — and remains — trapped in cycles of insecurity. Armed groups continue to operate, including in mineral-rich regions, while civilians bear the brunt of the violence and millions have been displaced. Against this backdrop, Genocost has become both a powerful vehicle for remembrance and a political demand for recognition.But what exactly does it mean, and can it be understood as a legal category underinternational law?Why August 2 mattersThe choice of August 2 is not accidental. It marks the day the Second Congo War broke out in 1998. Often described as “Africa’s world war”, it transformed a regional crisis into one of the deadliest conflicts of modern times.Although estimates vary, millions of people are believed to have died as a direct or indirect consequence of the conflicts that have affected the DRC since the mid-1990s. These deaths resulted not only from direct violence, but also from disease, hunger and the collapse of essential services, often following displacement.In recent years, Congolese authorities, building on civil society initiatives, have turned the anniversary into a broader day of remembrance for victims of conflict-related violence. The commemoration reflects a growing determination to preserve collective memory and secure greater recognition of the suffering endured by Congolese communities.Why did the concept of Genocost emerge?The origins of the concept lie in the long and devastating armed conflicts that the DRC has experienced for nearly three decades. Although their causes are complex, the control and exploitation of natural resources have played an important role in financing and prolonging violence. Eastern DRC contains significant deposits of coltan, cobalt, gold, tin and other strategic minerals that are essential to global industries, including electronics and renewable energy technologies.For decades, United Nations reports, academic studies and investigations by civil society organisations have documented how armed groups, criminal networks and regional actors have benefited from the extraction and illicit trade of these resources. In many cases, competition for control of mining areas has fuelled violence and contributed to wider regional instability.It was against this background that Genocost took shape. Its supporters argue that the suffering endured by Congolese communities cannot be understood solely through the conventional lenses of ethnic tensions, political rivalries and military confrontation. They contend that economic predation — and particularly competition over natural resources — has also been a major driver of violence. Genocost thus foregrounds the immense human cost of resource-linked conflicts.When minerals fuel violenceOne of the most distinctive aspects of the Genocost concept is the attention it draws to the destruction of livelihoods and the conditions necessary for survival, rather than to direct killing alone.Violence in conflict zones is not limited to massacres. Entire communities can be progressively weakened through forced displacement, loss of access to land, destruction of local economies and disruption of essential services. Together, these processes can undermine their ability to survive and rebuild their lives.This perspective is particularly relevant to the situation in eastern DRC. In conflict-affected areas, access to agricultural land, water, healthcare and economic opportunities is often severely restricted. Repeated displacement and persistent insecurity further weaken communities and hinder recovery and reconstruction efforts.Supporters of the Genocost concept argue that these realities should be viewed not simply as consequences of war, but as integral components of systems of exploitation and domination. In their view, the pursuit of economic gain can create conditions in which large-scale human suffering is tolerated and, in some cases, becomes profitable.Whether or not one accepts this interpretation in its entirety, it highlights an important dimension of contemporary conflicts: economic interests and violence are frequently interconnected.Is Genocost a legal concept?The growing prominence of Genocost raises an important legal question: can Genocost fall within the legal definition of genocide under international law?Genocide is one of the most serious crimes recognised under international law. Under the 1948 Genocide Convention and the 1998 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, it comprises certain prohibited acts — including killing, causing serious bodily or mental harm, and deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about a group’s physical destruction — committed with the specific intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.This requirement is crucial. International tribunals have consistently emphasised that genocide is distinguished from other international crimes by this specific intent. The fact that atrocities produce catastrophic consequences is not enough: it must be demonstrated that the perpetrators intended to destroy a protected group as such. This is where attempts to bring Genocost within the legal definition of genocide encounter significant limitations.Economic exploitation, however harmful, does not automatically amount to genocide.Individuals or groups may commit grave crimes in pursuit of profit without possessing the specific intent required by international law. Conversely, an economic motive does not exclude genocidal intent: the two may coexist. This does not mean that acts associated with resource predation escape international law. Depending on the circumstances, they may constitute war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide, provided that the relevant legal requirements — including, for genocide, the specific intent to destroy a protected group — are established. Interpreting the definition of genocide too broadly could undermine the precision of international criminal law and blur the distinctions between different international crimes. The particular legal significance of genocide lies in its precisely defined elements, especially the requirement of specific intent.Genocost therefore remains, at least for now, a political, memorial and analytical concept rather than an autonomous category of crime recognised under international law.A powerful tool for memory and recognitionYet these legal limitations do not diminish the broader significance of the Genocost concept.One of its principal functions is to provide a framework for remembrance. For many Congolese citizens, the term offers a language through which decades ofsuffering can be acknowledged and remembered. It reflects a desire to ensure that victims are not forgotten and that the scale of the tragedy receives international attention.The concept also challenges narratives that reduce the conflicts in the DRC to ethnic tensions alone. By emphasising their economic dimensions, it encourages a broader reflection on the structural factors that contribute to violence.In this sense, Genocost can be situated within a broader global trend towards recognising historical and contemporary forms of collective suffering. Around the world, many societies have developed concepts and commemorative practices to preserve the memory of atrocities and honour victims. Memory, after all, is not only about the past. It is also about the values societies choose to uphold in the present.Beyond remembrance: a warning for the futureThe significance of Genocost extends beyond commemoration.The concept also serves as a warning about the risks associated with resource-fuelled conflicts in an increasingly interconnected world. As global demand for strategic minerals continues togrow, questions surrounding responsible sourcing, corporate accountability and conflict prevention are becoming ever more important.International organisations, including the United Nations, recognise that mass atrocities rarely emerge suddenly. They are often preceded by patterns of exclusion, dispossession, exploitation and structural violence that gradually weaken communities and increase their vulnerability.By drawing attention to these dynamics, Genocost promotes a preventive approach. It reminds policymakers, international institutions and civil society actors that peace cannot be achieved by military means alone. Addressing the economic interests and structures that sustain violence is equally essential.For many Congolese citizens, the commemoration is not only about remembering the dead. It is also about demanding recognition, accountability and greater international attention to the violence that has too often been overlooked.On August 2, as the DRC marks Genocost Day, the debate surrounding the concept is likely to continue. Whether or not it eventually influences legal thinking, its broader message remains clear: behind abstract terms such as “conflict minerals” and “displacement” are human lives and communities whose suffering deserves recognition.Remembering those lives is not only a matter of justice for the past. It is also a necessary step towards preventing similar tragedies in the future.Les auteurs ne travaillent pas, ne conseillent pas, ne possèdent pas de parts, ne reçoivent pas de fonds d'une organisation qui pourrait tirer profit de cet article, et n'ont déclaré aucune autre affiliation que leur organisme de recherche.