a diplomatic compromise a research tool international legal credibility alternative definitions
In 1998 it was written that the CPPCG was a legal entity resulting in which type of compromise? Rather than a definition, the text of the treaty is considered as what type of tool? What does the treaty possess that others lack? The writers Jonassohn and Bjornson cite various reasons for the lack of widespread support of what?
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.
question: In 1998 it was written that the CPPCG was a legal entity resulting in which type of compromise?, answer: a diplomatic compromise | question: Rather than a definition, the text of the treaty is considered as what type of tool?, answer: a research tool | question: What does the treaty possess that others lack?, answer: international legal credibility | question: The writers Jonassohn and Bjornson cite various reasons for the lack of widespread support of what?, answer: alternative definitions