This research provides a comparative analysis of international criminal policy towards the crime of genocide, focusing on its definition and punishment in the practice of international criminal courts. Genocide, as one of the most serious international crimes, has always been the focus of attention of the International Criminal Court, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. The present research, using a descriptive-analytical method and citing fundamental documents and judicial practice, shows that although the definition of genocide includes a material element and a psychological element in international documents is similar, its interpretation and application in courts differ. For example, the Rwandan Tribunal’s case law has recognized sexual violence as an instance of genocide, and the Yugoslav Tribunal has proven specific intent in the Srebrenica massacre, which have played an important role in the evolution of international criminal law. In the area of ​​punishment, international courts have mainly emphasized long-term imprisonment and life imprisonment, and the death penalty has been explicitly excluded from the ICC Statute. Despite a common definitional framework, international criminal policy has been shaped and evolved through comparative jurisprudence, tailored to the circumstances of each case and taking into account the specific historical and legal contexts, and reflects a balance between criminal accountability, justice for victims, and human rights principles.