Reply #233: Non-legal definitions are not very accurate

[HamdenRice]

Granted, it's a slippery concept. International law is not like physics in which there are clear cut answers.

The definition of an international law concept like genocide is best found in international treaties, the practices of states, decisions of international bodies and the decisions of international courts. Some of these will be similar, some will be different.

But in a way we are asking the wrong question. The right question is: Can or will the actions of the Bush administration in Iraq lead a legitimate international body or tribunal (such as the InternationalCourt of Justice) to decide, in accordance with accepted international law, that the Bush administration has committed genocide in Iraq?

The answer is, most probably yes.

One of the most recent authoritative decisions about genocide we have by a legitimate international tribunal was the decision by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. It ruled the Srebrenica massacre officialy was a genocide. Subsequently, the International Court of Justice confirmed ICTY’s ruling in a judgment of Bosnia vs Serbia.

The decision was based on the murder at Srebrenica of 8,000 to 9,000 Bosnian Muslims men of military age. The total population of Bosnian Muslims was about 2 million. Obviously, genocide does not require the complete destruction of a national group.

Genocide has a complex definition in international law that has been cited upthread. It does not require the total destruction of a group, nor systematic plans, nor complete extermination.

Sorry, but that's just a myth.