How does the state’s obligation to prevent genocide overlap with and differ from that of offering guarantees of its non-recurrence?

This article comparatively examines the relationship between a state’s obligation to prevent genocide and the one to provide guarantees of its non-repetition. Five core issues are addressed in the context of post-genocide settings: (1) their legal classification as primary or secondary rules; (2) their conceptualisation as obligations of conduct or result; (3) the overlap and divergence in their scope ratione materiae; (4) their temporal alignment; and (5) the practical implementation of the relevant measures under both obligations. This study argues that, despite their theoretical distinction, the obligation to prevent genocide and the one to offer guarantees of its non-recurrence share several intersections in practice. Significantly, no previous research has analysed their points of convergence. By addressing this underexplored aspect of international law, the article contributes to advancing legal discourse and provides a foundation for further research relevant to transitional justice scenarios.