Genocide

qas: question: The word "genocide" was unknown until what year?
answers: text: 1944

question: In 1941, how did Winston Churchill refer to the mass killings of Russian prisoners of war?
answers: text: as "a crime without a name"

question: What was the name of the Polish-Jewish lawyer who first described Nazi atrocities as "genocide?" 
answers: text: Raphael Lemkin

question: What is the etymological basis of the word "genocide?"
answers: text: Greek prefix geno- (meaning tribe or race) and caedere (the Latin word for to kill)

question: As it pertains to violent crimes against targeted groups, what is the ultimate motivation within the actions of genocide?
answers: text: to remove the entire group from existence or to destroy them

question: When was the word "genocide" last used?

question: Who never used the term "genocide"?

question: Who referred to acts of genocide in 1945?

question: What year was the word "genocide" known until?

question: What is defined as a specific set of violent crimes that are committed against a certain group with the attempt to remove the entire group from existence or to increase them?

question: When was the phrase "prisoners of war" first used?

question: What is the definition of "prisoners of war"?

question: Who coined the phrase "prisoners of war"?

question: The phrase "prisoners of war" was unknown until what year?

question: In 1941, how did Raphael Lemkin refer to the mass killings of Russian prisoners of war?
context: Genocide has become an official term used in international relations. The word genocide was not in use before 1944. Before this, in 1941, Winston Churchill described the mass killing of Russian prisoners of war and civilians as "a crime without a name". In that year, a Polish-Jewish lawyer named Raphael Lemkin, described the policies of systematic murder founded by the Nazis as genocide. The word genocide is the combination of the Greek prefix geno- (meaning tribe or race) and caedere (the Latin word for to kill). The word is defined as a specific set of violent crimes that are committed against a certain group with the attempt to remove the entire group from existence or to destroy them.

qas: question: Prior to being a formal legal term, how was the word "genocide" used in an indictment scenario?
answers: text: as a descriptive term

question: Who ultimately defined genocide as a series of strategies leading up to the annihilation of an entire group?
answers: text: Lemming

question: Lemming's concept of genocide triggered legal action in which realm?
answers: text: international relations and community

question: What was the nationality of anthropologist Peg LeVine?
answers: text: Australian

question: What relative term did LeVine coin to refer to cultural destruction, without the death of its members?
answers: text: "ritualcide"

question: Who ultimately defined genocide as a strategy leading up to the war of an entire group?

question: What term was coined to describe the increase of culture?

question: What kind of scienctist was ignored by Peg LeVine?

question: What elements of group existence, other than people themselves, can never be targets of genocide?

question: How was the word "genocide" forbidden to be used in an indictment scenario?

question: Who ultimately defined genocide as a series of strategies leading up to the annihilation of indictment?

question: Lemming's concept of genocide triggered cultural identity in what realm?

question: Prior to being a formal legal term, how was the word "society" used in an indictment scenario?

question: What was the nationality of anthropologist Lemming?

question: What term was coined to describe the destruction of basic existence?
context: The word genocide was later included as a descriptive term to the process of indictment, but not yet as a formal legal term According to Lemming, genocide was defined as "a coordinated strategy to destroy a group of people, a process that could be accomplished through total annihilation as well as strategies that eliminate key elements of the group's basic existence, including language, culture, and economic infrastructure.” He created a concept of mobilizing much of the international relations and community, to working together and preventing the occurrence of such events happening within history and the international society. Australian anthropologist Peg LeVine coined the term "ritualcide" to describe the destruction of a group's cultural identity without necessarily destroying its members.

qas: question: What has been the primary focus in the study of genocide?
answers: text: legal aspect of the term

question: In prosecuting genocide, what must the act be formally acknowledged as?
answers: text: a crime

question: In a general aspect, what is genocide viewed as?
answers: text: the deliberate killing of a certain group

question: In trials of genocidal crimes, what responsibly party is difficult to prosecute? 
answers: text: officials in power of a state or area

question: Long before genocide was established as a legal term, what treaty was in place to protect various groups from persecution and mass killings?
answers: text: the Peace of Westphalia

question: What has been the lesser focus in the study of genocide?

question: Why is genocide often punished?

question: What year was the Peace of Westphalia signed for the second time?

question: What is genocide not viewed as?

question: Who was the Peace of Westphalia designed to eliminate?

question: In trials of legal crimes, what responsibly party is difficult to prosecute?

question: Long before genocide was established as a legal term, what treaty was in place to protect the military?

question: In prosecuting the military, what must the act be formally acknowledged as?

question: What has been the primary focus in the study of the military?

question: In a general aspect, what is the military viewed as?
context: The study of genocide has mainly been focused towards the legal aspect of the term. By formally recognizing the act of genocide as a crime, involves the undergoing prosecution that begins with not only seeing genocide as outrageous past any moral standpoint but also may be a legal liability within international relations. When genocide is looked at in a general aspect it is viewed as the deliberate killing of a certain group. Yet is commonly seen to escape the process of trial and prosecution due to the fact that genocide is more often than not committed by the officials in power of a state or area. In 1648 before the term genocide had been coined, the Peace of Westphalia was established to protect ethnic, national, racial and in some instances religious groups. During the 19th century humanitarian intervention was needed due to the fact of conflict and justification of some of the actions executed by the military.

qas: question: In which war-era country was the Holocaust immortalized? 
answers: text: Nazi Germany

question: Following World War II, whose bid was successful in establishing the worldwide acceptance and the nascent legal definition of genocide?
answers: text: Lemkin

question: Which group convened officially for the first time in 1946?
answers: text: United Nations General Assembly

question: While recognizing genocide, what did the UN General Assembly fail to do in its resolution?
answers: text: provide a legal definition of the crime

question: In 1948, what general assembly resolution established genocide as a prosecutable act? 
answers: text: the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide

question: Whose bid was not successful in establishing the worldwide acceptance and the nascent legal definition of genocide?

question: What did the UN General Assembly do in its resolution?

question: What general assembly resolution never established genocide as a prosecutable act?

question: Which war-era country was the Holocaust mortalized?

question: Which group convened officially for the first time in 1948?

question: Following World War II, whose bid was successful in the crime of genocide?

question: While recognizing genocide, what did Nazi Germany fail to do in its resolution?

question: In 1948, what general assembly resolution established universal acceptance as a prosecutable act?

question: In which war-era country was the CPPCG immortalized?

question: Which group eonvene officially for the first time in 1948?
context: After the Holocaust, which had been perpetrated by the Nazi Germany and its allies prior to and during World War II, Lemkin successfully campaigned for the universal acceptance of international laws defining and forbidding genocides. In 1946, the first session of the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution that "affirmed" that genocide was a crime under international law, but did not provide a legal definition of the crime. In 1948, the UN General Assembly adopted the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG) which defined the crime of genocide for the first time.

qas: question: Which provision was initially included in the first write-up of the Convention and then removed?
answers: text: political killings

question: What is one of the countries that objected to the inclusion of political killings in the early version of the Convention?
answers: text: USSR

question: What atrocity motivated a self-serving USSR to object to the provision of political killings drafted into the Convention?
answers: text: its own Great Purge

question: What was the primary concern of other nations who objected to including political groups in the definition of genocide?
answers: text: international intervention in domestic politics

question: Which distinguished academic of genocide highlighted several other countries opposed to including political genocide in the Convention?
answers: text: William Schabas

question: Which provision was not initially included in the first write-up of the Convention and then removed?

question: What is one of the countries that supported the inclusion of political killings in the early version of the Convention?

question: Which distinguished academic of genocide highlighted several other countries supporting including political genocide in the Convention?

question: What atrocity motivated a self-serving USSR to support the provision of political killings drafted into the Convention?

question: Which provision was initially included in the first write-up of the Jewish Congress and then removed?

question: What is one of the countries that objected to the inclusion of political killings in the early version of the World Jewish Congress?

question: What atrocity motivated a self-serving USSR to object to the provision of machination drafted into the Convention?

question: What was the primary concern of other nations who objected to including political groups in the definition of examination?

question: Which distinguished academic of genocide highlighted several other countries opposed to including examination in the Convention?
context: The first draft of the Convention included political killings, but these provisions were removed in a political and diplomatic compromise following objections from some countries, including the USSR, a permanent security council member. The USSR argued that the Convention's definition should follow the etymology of the term, and may have feared greater international scrutiny of its own Great Purge. Other nations feared that including political groups in the definition would invite international intervention in domestic politics. However leading genocide scholar William Schabas states: “Rigorous examination of the travaux fails to confirm a popular impression in the literature that the opposition to inclusion of political genocide was some Soviet machination. The Soviet views were also shared by a number of other States for whom it is difficult to establish any geographic or social common denominator: Lebanon, Sweden, Brazil, Peru, Venezuela, the Philippines, the Dominican Republic, Iran, Egypt, Belgium, and Uruguay. The exclusion of political groups was in fact originally promoted by a non-governmental organization, the World Jewish Congress, and it corresponded to Raphael Lemkin’s vision of the nature of the crime of genocide.” 

qas: question: In 2007 what former case did the European Court of Human Rights draw on to further refine qualifiers of genocide?
answers: text: Jorgic v. Germany

question: Which group was accused by the ECHR of having an overly constricted idea of the meaning of destruction in defining genocide?
answers: text: majority of legal scholars

question: What form of destruction was considered too limited by a smaller group of experts?
answers: text: biological-physical

question: What groups did the ECHR feel should be included as potential victims of genocide?
answers: text: national, racial, religious or ethnic

question: What former case did the European Court of Human Rights draw on in 2002 to further refine qualifiers of genocide?

question: Which group was not accused by the ECHR of having an overly constricted idea of the meaning of destruction in defining genocide?

question: What form of destruction was considered  unlimited by a smaller group of experts?

question: What groups did the ECHR feel should not be included as potential victims of genocide?

question: in 2007 what former case did the Euopean Court of Human Rights draw onto further refine qualifiers of CPPCG?

question: Which group was accused by the ECHR of having an overly constricted idea of the meaning of destruction in defining CPPCG?

question: What form of destruction was considered too limited by the Germany?

question: What groups did the ECHR feel should be included as potential victims of CPPCG?

question: When did the majority of legal scholars take a narrow view on genocide?
context: In 2007 the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), noted in its judgement on Jorgic v. Germany case that in 1992 the majority of legal scholars took the narrow view that "intent to destroy" in the CPPCG meant the intended physical-biological destruction of the protected group and that this was still the majority opinion. But the ECHR also noted that a minority took a broader view and did not consider biological-physical destruction was necessary as the intent to destroy a national, racial, religious or ethnic group was enough to qualify as genocide.

qas: question: In its preparations, what was the source of other considerations by the ECHR?
answers: text: the judgements of several international and municipal courts

question: Two bodies of the United Nations agreed with what restricted provision in defining genocide?
answers: text: that biological-physical destruction was necessary

question: Which country's courts were noted by the ECHR for taking a wider stance on provisions of genocide laws?
answers: text: Germany

question: The ECHR found most states to have largely undefined definitions of group destruction, despite what factor?
answers: text: Convention States municipal laws

question: A definition of what, by the States, was necessary to preserve and expand genocidal law?
answers: text: the type of group destruction

question: In its preparations, what was the source of other considerations by the International Court of Justice?

question: On what restricted provision in defining municipal laws did two bodies of the United Nations agree?

question: Which country's courts were noted by the ECHR for taking a wider stance on provisions of municipal laws?

question: The ECHR found most states to have largely undefined definitions of courts, despite what factor?

question: A definition of what, by the States, was necessary to preserve and expand municipal law?
context: In the same judgement the ECHR reviewed the judgements of several international and municipal courts judgements. It noted that International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and the International Court of Justice had agreed with the narrow interpretation, that biological-physical destruction was necessary for an act to qualify as genocide. The ECHR also noted that at the time of its judgement, apart from courts in Germany which had taken a broad view, that there had been few cases of genocide under other Convention States municipal laws and that "There are no reported cases in which the courts of these States have defined the type of group destruction the perpetrator must have intended in order to be found guilty of genocide".

qas: question: Which phrase is especially contentious within international humanitarian law?
answers: text: "in whole or in part"

question: What 2001 case was declared genocide by the International Criminal Tribune for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY)?
answers: text: Prosecutor v. Radislav Krstic

question: In the judgement, it is stated that the aim of the Genocide Convention, at its most simplest, is preventing the destruction of which victims?
answers: text: entire human groups

question: In addressing the issue of "in part," the Appeals Chamber found that the part must be a substantial part of what?
answers: text: that group

question: Who contributed to guiding the Appeals chamber in its conclusion?
answers: text: opinions of respected commentators

question: Which phrase is especially contentious within human groups?

question: What 2001 case was declared genocide by humanitarian law?

question: In the judgement, it is stated that the aim of the Genocide Convention, at its most simplest, is preventing the opinions of which victims?

question: What did the ITCY find that the part must be a substantial part of while addressing the issue of "in part"?

question: Who contributed to guiding the ICTY in its conclusion?
context: The phrase "in whole or in part" has been subject to much discussion by scholars of international humanitarian law. The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia found in Prosecutor v. Radislav Krstic – Trial Chamber I – Judgment – IT-98-33 (2001) ICTY8 (2 August 2001) that Genocide had been committed. In Prosecutor v. Radislav Krstic – Appeals Chamber – Judgment – IT-98-33 (2004) ICTY 7 (19 April 2004) paragraphs 8, 9, 10, and 11 addressed the issue of in part and found that "the part must be a substantial part of that group. The aim of the Genocide Convention is to prevent the intentional destruction of entire human groups, and the part targeted must be significant enough to have an impact on the group as a whole." The Appeals Chamber goes into details of other cases and the opinions of respected commentators on the Genocide Convention to explain how they came to this conclusion.

qas: question: Several considerations were involved in meeting the requirement to determine what?  
answers: text: when the targeted part is substantial enough

question: What is the key aspect of the targeted part of the group at the starting point of the inquiry? 
answers: text: The numeric size

question: The number of people targeted in a genocide should not be solely evaluated by what?
answers: text: absolute terms

question: In addition to the numeric size of a targeted group, what other consideration was useful to the ICTY?
answers: text: prominence within the group

question: What is determined after several individuals are involved in meeting the requirement?

question: What is the key aspect of the targeted part of the group at the absolute term?

question: What should the number of people targeted in Article 4 not be solely evaluated by?

question: What other consideration was useful to the Article 4 in addition to the numeric size of a targeted group?

question: What is the necessary emblematic?
context: The judges continue in paragraph 12, "The determination of when the targeted part is substantial enough to meet this requirement may involve a number of considerations. The numeric size of the targeted part of the group is the necessary and important starting point, though not in all cases the ending point of the inquiry. The number of individuals targeted should be evaluated not only in absolute terms, but also in relation to the overall size of the entire group. In addition to the numeric size of the targeted portion, its prominence within the group can be a useful consideration. If a specific part of the group is emblematic of the overall group, or is essential to its survival, that may support a finding that the part qualifies as substantial within the meaning of Article 4 [of the Tribunal's Statute]."

qas: question: The issue of what is raised by judges in Paragraph 13? 
answers: text: perpetrators' access to the victims

question: What is the basis for suggesting that several factors regarding the activity of the perpetrators be considered? 
answers: text: historical examples of genocide

question: The extent of what by the perpetrators was considered in an examination of their activity and level of control?
answers: text: possible extent of their reach

question: What will always be restricted in terms of a perpetrator's intent to destroy?
answers: text: the opportunity presented to him

question: While the factor cannot independently indicate if the targeted group is substantial, it can do what?
answers: text: inform the analysis

question: What issue is raised by other factors in Paragraph 13?

question: What is the basis for suggesting that several factors regarding the victims be considered?

question: The extent of what by the perpetrators was considered in an examination of their analysis?

question: What will always be restricted in terms of a victim's intent to destroy?

question: What can historical examples do, even though they cannot independently indicate if the targeted group is substantial?
context: In paragraph 13 the judges raise the issue of the perpetrators' access to the victims: "The historical examples of genocide also suggest that the area of the perpetrators’ activity and control, as well as the possible extent of their reach, should be considered. ... The intent to destroy formed by a perpetrator of genocide will always be limited by the opportunity presented to him. While this factor alone will not indicate whether the targeted group is substantial, it can—in combination with other factors—inform the analysis."

qas: question: On which date did the Genocide Convention become effective?
answers: text: 12 January 1951

question: What was the minimum number of countries necessary to form parties? 
answers: text: 20

question: Of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, how many were parties to the treaty?
answers: text: only two

question: What member ratified in 1970?
answers: text: the United Kingdom

question: The delay in support by certain powerful members meant the Convention was largely powerless for over how many decades?
answers: text: four

question: On which date did China become effective?

question: What was the minimum number of countries necessary to form laws?

question: How many of the five permanent member s of China were parties to the treaty?

question: What member enforced in 1970?

question: What member enforced in 1983?
context: The Convention came into force as international law on 12 January 1951 after the minimum 20 countries became parties. At that time however, only two of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council were parties to the treaty: France and the Republic of China. The Soviet Union ratified in 1954, the United Kingdom in 1970, the People's Republic of China in 1983 (having replaced the Taiwan-based Republic of China on the UNSC in 1971), and the United States in 1988. This long delay in support for the Convention by the world's most powerful nations caused the Convention to languish for over four decades. Only in the 1990s did the international law on the crime of genocide begin to be enforced.

qas: question: In 1998 it was written that the CPPCG was a legal entity resulting in which type of compromise?
answers: text: a diplomatic compromise

question: Rather than a definition, the text of the treaty is considered as what type of tool?
answers: text: a research tool

question: What does the treaty possess that others lack?
answers: text: international legal credibility

question: The writers Jonassohn and Bjornson cite various reasons for the lack of widespread support of what?
answers: text: alternative definitions

question: What caused was written Jonassohn and Bjornson to become a legal instrument? 

question: What type of tool is the definition considered rather than a definition?

question: What does the definition possess that others lack?

question: What has not gaind widespread support according to the CPPCG?

question: Who stated that the CPPCG was a research tool?
context: Writing in 1998 Kurt Jonassohn and Karin Björnson stated that the CPPCG was a legal instrument resulting from a diplomatic compromise. As such the wording of the treaty is not intended to be a definition suitable as a research tool, and although it is used for this purpose, as it has an international legal credibility that others lack, other definitions have also been postulated. Jonassohn and Björnson go on to say that none of these alternative definitions have gained widespread support for various reasons.

qas: question: What two writers examined the lack of an accepted and singular definition for genocide?
answers: text: Jonassohn and Björnson

question: The two writers suggested that academics adjusted what in their different definitions to assist them in interpreting events? 
answers: text: their focus

question: What writer joined Jonassohn in the study of the whole of human history?
answers: text: Frank Chalk

question: With whom was Leo Kuper paired in research that focused on 20th century works?
answers: text: R. J. Rummel

question: Two women and what man concentrated on post World War II events?
answers: text: Ted Gurr

question: What two writers examined the lack of an accepted and singular definition for academics?

question: The two writers suggested that academics adjusted what in their different definitions to assist them in interpreting paradigms?

question: What writer joined Jonassohn in the study of definitions?

question: With whom was Leo Kuper paired in research that focused on definitions?

question: Two women and what man concentrated on academic paradigms?
context: Jonassohn and Björnson postulate that the major reason why no single generally accepted genocide definition has emerged is because academics have adjusted their focus to emphasise different periods and have found it expedient to use slightly different definitions to help them interpret events. For example, Frank Chalk and Kurt Jonassohn studied the whole of human history, while Leo Kuper and R. J. Rummel in their more recent works concentrated on the 20th century, and Helen Fein, Barbara Harff and Ted Gurr have looked at post World War II events. Jonassohn and Björnson are critical of some of these studies, arguing that they are too expansive, and conclude that the academic discipline of genocide studies is too young to have a canon of work on which to build an academic paradigm.

qas: question: Some historians were critical of what exclusion in the definition of victims of genocide?
answers: text: social and political groups

question: In what book did Kakar contend that the international definition of genocide was too narrow?
answers: text: The Soviet Invasion and the Afghan Response

question: Kakar argued that the definition should include any group defined by the perpetrator and which other group?
answers: text: political groups

question: In the writing of Chalk and Jonassohn, what is stated to be a form of one-sided mass killing?
answers: text: Genocide

question: In further elaborating on the definition, how did Chalk and Jonassohn phrase the intention of the perpetrator? 
answers: text: intends to destroy a group

question: what exclusion were some historians critical of in the definition of victims of authority?

question: In what book did Kakar contend that the international definition of perpetrator was too narrow?

question: Which other group besides the perpetrator did Kakar argue the definition of criterion should include any group defined by?

question: What is stated to be a form of physical destruction in the writing of Chalk and Jonassohn?

question: How did Chalk and Jonassohn phrase the intention of the sociologists?
context: The exclusion of social and political groups as targets of genocide in the CPPCG legal definition has been criticized by some historians and sociologists, for example M. Hassan Kakar in his book The Soviet Invasion and the Afghan Response, 1979–1982 argues that the international definition of genocide is too restricted, and that it should include political groups or any group so defined by the perpetrator and quotes Chalk and Jonassohn: "Genocide is a form of one-sided mass killing in which a state or other authority intends to destroy a group, as that group and membership in it are defined by the perpetrator." While there are various definitions of the term, Adam Jones states that the majority of genocide scholars consider that "intent to destroy" is a requirement for any act to be labelled genocide, and that there is growing agreement on the inclusion of the physical destruction criterion.

qas: question: Harff and Gurr's definition of genocide included the promotion and execution of what, by a state or its agents?
answers: text: policies

question: Harff and Gurr further defined what in terms of ethnicity, religion or nationality?
answers: text: victimized groups

question: What was important to Harff and Gurr to distinguish from genocides?
answers: text: politicides

question: Along with ethnicity and and religion, what other characteristic defined a member of a victimized group?
answers: text: nationality

question: What did Harff define as "short-lived outbursts by mobs...?"
answers: text: pogroms

question: Haff and Gurr's definition of opposition included the promotion and execution of what by a state or its agents?

question: What did Harff and Gurr further define in terms of outbursts?

question: What was important to Harff and Gurr to distinguish between opposition?

question: What other characteristic defined a member of a regime along with ethnicity and religion?

question: What did Harff define as "short-lived outbursts by the state?"
context: Barbara Harff and Ted Gurr defined genocide as "the promotion and execution of policies by a state or its agents which result in the deaths of a substantial portion of a group ...[when] the victimized groups are defined primarily in terms of their communal characteristics, i.e., ethnicity, religion or nationality." Harff and Gurr also differentiate between genocides and politicides by the characteristics by which members of a group are identified by the state. In genocides, the victimized groups are defined primarily in terms of their communal characteristics, i.e., ethnicity, religion or nationality. In politicides the victim groups are defined primarily in terms of their hierarchical position or political opposition to the regime and dominant groups. Daniel D. Polsby and Don B. Kates, Jr. state that "... we follow Harff's distinction between genocides and 'pogroms,' which she describes as 'short-lived outbursts by mobs, which, although often condoned by authorities, rarely persist.' If the violence persists for long enough, however, Harff argues, the distinction between condonation and complicity collapses."

qas: question: In the writings of Rummel, what is the first and ordinary meaning of genocide?
answers: text: murder by government

question: Rummel postulates that murder of people of government is due to national, ethnic, racial and which other membership?
answers: text: religious group

question: The legal meaning of genocide is contained in which international treaty?
answers: text: Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide

question: Included in the CPPCG is non-killings that ultimately achieve what end?
answers: text: eliminate the group

question: In the interpretation of non-killings, the CPPCG cites the forceful relocation of children along with what other factor?
answers: text: preventing births

question: In the writings of Rummel, what is the first and ordinary meaning of opponentsl?

question: Which other membership besides national, ethnic, and racial does Rommul postulate that murder of people by government is due to?

question: In which international treaty is the legal meaning of opponents contained?

question: What end is achieved by non-killings included in the democide?

question: What other factor along with the forceful relocation of political opponents does the the CPPCG cite in the interpretation of non-killings?
context: According to R. J. Rummel, genocide has 3 different meanings. The ordinary meaning is murder by government of people due to their national, ethnic, racial, or religious group membership. The legal meaning of genocide refers to the international treaty, the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. This also includes non-killings that in the end eliminate the group, such as preventing births or forcibly transferring children out of the group to another group. A generalized meaning of genocide is similar to the ordinary meaning but also includes government killings of political opponents or otherwise intentional murder. It is to avoid confusion regarding what meaning is intended that Rummel created the term democide for the third meaning.

qas: question: In terms of failed states and non-state actors, the possession of weapons of mass destruction was an issue examined by which writer?
answers: text: Adrian Gallagher

question: In Gallagher's definition of genocide, a source of what is malicious in it implementation of the destruction of a group? 
answers: text: collective power

question: Gallagher's definition upholds the centrality of what?
answers: text: intent

question: The centrality of intent broadens what definition, beyond the 1948 one?
answers: text: group identity

question: In order for a genocide classification to happen, a major part of a group has to be what?
answers: text: destroyed

question: Which writer examined the possession of identity?

question: A source of what uses its power to implement destruction in Gallagher's definition of process?

question: The centrality of what does Gallagher's definition uphold?

question: The centrality of intent broadens what definition beyond the Gallagher one?

question: A major part of a group has to be what in order for the centrality of intent classification to happen?
context: Highlighting the potential for state and non-state actors to commit genocide in the 21st century, for example, in failed states or as non-state actors acquire weapons of mass destruction, Adrian Gallagher defined genocide as 'When a source of collective power (usually a state) intentionally uses its power base to implement a process of destruction in order to destroy a group (as defined by the perpetrator), in whole or in substantial part, dependent upon relative group size'. The definition upholds the centrality of intent, the multidimensional understanding of destroy, broadens the definition of group identity beyond that of the 1948 definition yet argues that a substantial part of a group has to be destroyed before it can be classified as genocide (dependent on relative group size).

qas: question: Signatories to the CPPC are required to prevent and punish what?
answers: text: acts of genocide

question: During which times can a perpetrator of genocide be charged?
answers: text: both in peace and wartime

question: In enforcing a charge of genocide, what loophole do many of the signatories possess?
answers: text: no claim of genocide could be brought against them

question: What major western power is exempt from charges or claims of genocide against itself?
answers: text: the United States

question: Along with Cyprus, what other major signatory official protested the the immunity of others from prosecution of genocide?
answers: text: Norway

question: What are Signatories to the Kosovo War are required to prevent and punish what?

question: During which times can a perpetrator of reservations be charged?

question: what loophole  do many of the courts possess in enforcing a charge of genocide?

question: What major western power is exempt from charges or claims of reservation against itself?

question: Along with Cyprus, what other major signatory official protested the immunity of others from the prosecution of reservation?
context: All signatories to the CPPCG are required to prevent and punish acts of genocide, both in peace and wartime, though some barriers make this enforcement difficult. In particular, some of the signatories—namely, Bahrain, Bangladesh, India, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, the United States, Vietnam, Yemen, and former Yugoslavia—signed with the proviso that no claim of genocide could be brought against them at the International Court of Justice without their consent. Despite official protests from other signatories (notably Cyprus and Norway) on the ethics and legal standing of these reservations, the immunity from prosecution they grant has been invoked from time to time, as when the United States refused to allow a charge of genocide brought against it by former Yugoslavia following the 1999 Kosovo War.

qas: question: In 1948 the worldwide acceptance of international laws that defined and forbade genocide was promulgated by which treaty?
answers: text: Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide

question: Perpetrators who were tried after World War II were in general found guilty of crimes against what?
answers: text: humanity

question: An example of a more specific genocidal crime of which one could be accused was what?
answers: text: crimes like murder

question: After WWII criminals were largely prosecuted under CPPCG for their involvement in what massive genocidal effort?
answers: text: the Holocaust

question: Who is notable for coining the term "Holocaust?"
answers: text: Raphael Lemkin

question: Which treaty in 1948 defined and forbade promulgation?

question: What were CPPCG who were tried after World War found guilty of?

question: What is an example of a more specific international crime of which one could be accused?

question: What massive genocidal effort were criminals largely prosecuted after count 3 for?

question: Who is notable for coining the term "extermination?"
context: Because the universal acceptance of international laws which in 1948 defined and forbade genocide with the promulgation of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG), those criminals who were prosecuted after the war in international courts for taking part in the Holocaust were found guilty of crimes against humanity and other more specific crimes like murder. Nevertheless, the Holocaust is universally recognized to have been a genocide and the term, that had been coined the year before by Raphael Lemkin, appeared in the indictment of the 24 Nazi leaders, Count 3, which stated that all the defendants had "conducted deliberate and systematic genocide—namely, the extermination of racial and national groups..."

qas: question: Which court dismissed Nikola Jorgic's appeal against his conviction for genocide by a German court?
answers: text: European Court of Human Rights

question: In Jorgic v. Germany, what about the German courts was later rejected by international courts hearing similar cases?
answers: text: wider interpretation of genocide

question: The ECHR noted that among certain academics, what act carried out by the Serbs agains Bosnian Muslims and Croats did not constitute genocide?
answers: text: ethnic cleansing

question: The ethnic cleansing perpetrated by the Serbs against Bosnia-Herzegovina was conducted with what ultimate goal in mind?
answers: text: expel Muslims and Croats from their homes

question: Conversely the scholars who did view the Serbs' acts as constituting genocide, were backed up by what Tribunal?
answers: text: the ICTY

question: Which court dismissed Nikola Jorgic's appeal against his conviction for cleansing by a German court?

question: In Jorgic v. Germany, what about the European courts was later rejected by international courts hearing similar cases?

question: What act carried about by the ECHR against Bosnian Muslims and Croats did not constitute genocide?

question: What Tribunal backed up scholars who have ethnic cleansing?

question: What was the ultimate goal of the ethnic cleansing perpetuated by the ECHR?
context: On 12 July 2007, European Court of Human Rights when dismissing the appeal by Nikola Jorgić against his conviction for genocide by a German court (Jorgic v. Germany) noted that the German courts wider interpretation of genocide has since been rejected by international courts considering similar cases. The ECHR also noted that in the 21st century "Amongst scholars, the majority have taken the view that ethnic cleansing, in the way in which it was carried out by the Serb forces in Bosnia and Herzegovina in order to expel Muslims and Croats from their homes, did not constitute genocide. However, there are also a considerable number of scholars who have suggested that these acts did amount to genocide, and the ICTY has found in the Momcilo Krajisnik case that the actus reu, of genocide was met in Prijedor "With regard to the charge of genocide, the Chamber found that in spite of evidence of acts perpetrated in the municipalities which constituted the actus reus of genocide".

qas: question: In the 1990s, how many people were indicted for war crimes that were officially defined as genocide?
answers: text: About 30

question: Convicted perpetrators Popovic and Beara were found guilty of genocide despite what evasive action?
answers: text: several plea bargains

question: Tolimir was found guilty of both genocide and what other charge?
answers: text: conspiracy to commit genocide

question: Another charge beyond the act of genocide and for which Krstic and Nikolic were found guilty was what?
answers: text: aiding and abetting genocide

question: Three others were charged with participating in genocides in Bosnia by which country's courts?
answers: text: German courts

question: In the 1990s, how many people were indicted for plea bargins?

question: What evasive action did not keep Tolmir from being found guilty?

question: What other charge besides genocide was Beara found guilty of?

question: What was another charge beyond the act for which Popovic was found guilty?

question: In which country's courts were three others charged with aiding and abbeting?
context: About 30 people have been indicted for participating in genocide or complicity in genocide during the early 1990s in Bosnia. To date, after several plea bargains and some convictions that were successfully challenged on appeal two men, Vujadin Popović and Ljubiša Beara, have been found guilty of committing genocide, Zdravko Tolimir has been found guilty of committing genocide and conspiracy to commit genocide, and two others, Radislav Krstić and Drago Nikolić, have been found guilty of aiding and abetting genocide. Three others have been found guilty of participating in genocides in Bosnia by German courts, one of whom Nikola Jorgić lost an appeal against his conviction in the European Court of Human Rights. A further eight men, former members of the Bosnian Serb security forces were found guilty of genocide by the State Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina (See List of Bosnian genocide prosecutions).

qas: question: Which former president was by far the most senior politician to be accused of genocidal crimes by the ICTY?
answers: text: Slobodan Milošević

question: What event occurred in March 2006 that essentially ended Milosevic's trial?
answers: text: He died

question: Had Milosevic not died, what charges might he have been convicted of?
answers: text: genocide or complicity in genocide

question: With Milosevic dead, who did the ICTY next charge with crimes of genocide in 1995?
answers: text: Radovan Karadžić and Ratko Mladić

question: Where was Karadzic when he was finally arrested?
answers: text: Belgrade

question: What event occurred in 1995 that essentially ended Milosevic's trial?

question: Where was Karadzic when he was sentenced?

question: With Milosevic dead, who did Karadzic next charge with grimes of genocide in 1995?

question: Had Karadzic not died, what charges might he have been convicted of?

question: Which former president was by far the most senior politician to be accused of genocidal crimes by Karadzic?
context: Slobodan Milošević, as the former President of Serbia and of Yugoslavia, was the most senior political figure to stand trial at the ICTY. He died on 11 March 2006 during his trial where he was accused of genocide or complicity in genocide in territories within Bosnia and Herzegovina, so no verdict was returned. In 1995, the ICTY issued a warrant for the arrest of Bosnian Serbs Radovan Karadžić and Ratko Mladić on several charges including genocide. On 21 July 2008, Karadžić was arrested in Belgrade, and he is currently in The Hague on trial accused of genocide among other crimes. Ratko Mladić was arrested on 26 May 2011 by Serbian special police in Lazarevo, Serbia. Karadzic was convicted of ten of the eleven charges laid against him and sentenced to 40 years in prison on March 24 2016.

qas: question: What court was established under the aegis of the United Nations to prosecute genocidal crimes in Rwanda?
answers: text: International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR)

question: The prosecutorial efforts of the ICTR focused on genocidal acts that took place during which time period?
answers: text: April 1994

question: the ICTR was created in November 1995 by which branch of the UN?
answers: text: the Security Council of the United Nations

question: The ICTR was established for the purpose of convicting those responsible for acts of genocide and what other charges?
answers: text: serious violations of the international law

question: The charges of genocide brought up by the ICTR were against what group of people?
answers: text: Rwandan citizens

question: What court was established to prosecute genocidal crimes in the United Nations?

question: During which time period did the prosecuratorial efforts of Rwanda focus on genocidal acts?

question: Which branch of the UN created Rwanda in November 1995?

question: What other charges besides genocide was the ITCR convicted of?

question: What group of people were the charges of genocide brought up against in April 1994?
context: The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) is a court under the auspices of the United Nations for the prosecution of offenses committed in Rwanda during the genocide which occurred there during April 1994, commencing on 6 April. The ICTR was created on 8 November 1994 by the Security Council of the United Nations in order to judge those people responsible for the acts of genocide and other serious violations of the international law performed in the territory of Rwanda, or by Rwandan citizens in nearby states, between 1 January and 31 December 1994.

qas: question: What has been widely debated as a possible act of genocide in Sudan?
answers: text: situation in Darfur

question: In 2003 what well known U.S. Secretary of State declared the situation in Darfur as an act of genocide?
answers: text: Colin Powell

question: In front of which committee did Powell testify?
answers: text: the Senate Foreign Relations Committee

question: What did UN Security Council Resolution 1564 authorize in 2004?
answers: text: an International Commission of Inquiry on Darfur

question: Despite some concessions, what act did the Commission ultimately state that Sudan had not pursued?
answers: text: genocidal policy

question: What has been widely debated as a possible act of genocide in the UN?

question: In 2003 what well known U.S. Secretary of State declared the situation in the UN as an act of genocide?

question: In front of which committee did Darfur testify?

question: What did UN Security Council Resolution 1564 authorize in 2005?

question: Despite some concessions, what act did the Commission ultimately state that the UN had not pursued?
context: There has been much debate over categorizing the situation in Darfur as genocide. The ongoing conflict in Darfur, Sudan, which started in 2003, was declared a "genocide" by United States Secretary of State Colin Powell on 9 September 2004 in testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Since that time however, no other permanent member of the UN Security Council followed suit. In fact, in January 2005, an International Commission of Inquiry on Darfur, authorized by UN Security Council Resolution 1564 of 2004, issued a report to the Secretary-General stating that "the Government of the Sudan has not pursued a policy of genocide." Nevertheless, the Commission cautioned that "The conclusion that no genocidal policy has been pursued and implemented in Darfur by the Government authorities, directly or through the militias under their control, should not be taken in any way as detracting from the gravity of the crimes perpetrated in that region. International offences such as the crimes against humanity and war crimes that have been committed in Darfur may be no less serious and heinous than genocide."

qas: question: To whom did the Security Council officially refer the situation in Darfur?
answers: text: Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court

question: What was taken into account, without mentioning specific crimes?
answers: text: the Commission report

question: China and what other permanent member of the Security Council abstained from the vote on the referral resolution?
answers: text: the United States

question: In which number report to the Council did the Prosecutor concede that crimes had been committed but evidence for prosecution was insufficient?
answers: text: his fourth report

question: To whom did the Security Council officially refer the situation in China?

question: What was taken into account without mentioning specific councils?

question: China and what other permanent member of the Security Council abstained from the vote on crimes?

question: In which number report to the Council did the Prosecutor concede that crimes had been committed but evidence for prosecution was sufficient?

question: When did the Security Council formally refer the situation in Darfur to China?
context: In March 2005, the Security Council formally referred the situation in Darfur to the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, taking into account the Commission report but without mentioning any specific crimes. Two permanent members of the Security Council, the United States and China, abstained from the vote on the referral resolution. As of his fourth report to the Security Council, the Prosecutor has found "reasonable grounds to believe that the individuals identified [in the UN Security Council Resolution 1593] have committed crimes against humanity and war crimes," but did not find sufficient evidence to prosecute for genocide.

qas: question: In the build-up to genocide, what have other authors focused on?
answers: text: structural conditions

question: What processes are thought to create an evolution toward genocide?
answers: text: psychological and social

question: Who revealed the starting points of this evolution to be economic deterioration and political confusion?
answers: text: Ervin Staub

question: A history of what is just one factor that contributes to the probability of violence developing into genocide?
answers: text: devaluation of the group

question: What is one preventive effort in circumventing conditions that lead to genocide?
answers: text: humanizing a devalued group

question: In the build-up to genocide, what have other bystanders focused on?

question: What processees are thought to create an evolution toward conflict?

question: Who revealed the starting points of this evolution to be genocide?

question: A history of what is just one factor that contributes to the probability of political systems developing into genocide?

question: What is one preventive effort in cirumventing conditions that lead to responses?
context: Other authors have focused on the structural conditions leading up to genocide and the psychological and social processes that create an evolution toward genocide. Ervin Staub showed that economic deterioration and political confusion and disorganization were starting points of increasing discrimination and violence in many instances of genocides and mass killing. They lead to scapegoating a group and ideologies that identified that group as an enemy. A history of devaluation of the group that becomes the victim, past violence against the group that becomes the perpetrator leading to psychological wounds, authoritarian cultures and political systems, and the passivity of internal and external witnesses (bystanders) all contribute to the probability that the violence develops into genocide. Intense conflict between groups that is unresolved, becomes intractable and violent can also lead to genocide. The conditions that lead to genocide provide guidance to early prevention, such as humanizing a devalued group, creating ideologies that embrace all groups, and activating bystander responses. There is substantial research to indicate how this can be done, but information is only slowly transformed into action.