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?

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.

Answer: entire human groups

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. <hl> 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." <hl> 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.

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 <hl> entire human groups <hl>, 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.

The aim of the Genocide Convention is to prevent the intentional destruction of <hl> entire human groups <hl> , and the part targeted must be significant enough to have an impact on the group as a whole."


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

Answer: that group

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. <hl> 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 . <hl> 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.

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 <hl> that group <hl>. 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.

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 <hl> that group <hl> .


Question: Which phrase is especially contentious within international humanitarian law?

Answer: "in whole or in part"

<hl> The phrase "in whole or in part" has been subject to much discussion by scholars of international humanitarian law. <hl> 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.

The phrase <hl> "in whole or in part" <hl> 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.


Question: What 2001 case was declared genocide by the International Criminal Tribune for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY)?

Answer: Prosecutor v. Radislav Krstic

The phrase "in whole or in part" has been subject to much discussion by scholars of international humanitarian law. <hl> 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. <hl> 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.

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 <hl> Prosecutor v. Radislav Krstic <hl> – 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.


Question: Who contributed to guiding the Appeals chamber in its conclusion?

Answer: opinions of respected commentators

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." <hl> 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. <hl>

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 <hl> opinions of respected commentators <hl> on the Genocide Convention to explain how they came to this conclusion.


Question: Two bodies of the United Nations agreed with what restricted provision in defining genocide?

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".

Answer: that biological-physical destruction was necessary

In the same judgement the ECHR reviewed the judgements of several international and municipal courts judgements. <hl> 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. <hl> 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".

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, <hl> that biological-physical destruction was necessary <hl> 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".


Question: A definition of what, by the States, was necessary to preserve and expand genocidal law?

Answer: the type of group destruction

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. <hl> 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". <hl>

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 <hl> the type of group destruction <hl> the perpetrator must have intended in order to be found guilty of genocide".


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

Answer: Germany

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. <hl> 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". <hl>

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 <hl> Germany <hl> 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".


Question: The ECHR found most states to have largely undefined definitions of group destruction, despite what factor?

Answer: Convention States municipal laws

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. <hl> 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". <hl>

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 <hl> Convention States municipal laws <hl> 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".


Question: In its preparations, what was the source of other considerations by the ECHR?

Answer: the judgements of several international and municipal courts

<hl> In the same judgement the ECHR reviewed the judgements of several international and municipal courts judgements. <hl> 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".

In the same judgement the ECHR reviewed <hl> the judgements of several international and municipal courts <hl> 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".


Question: In 1948, what general assembly resolution established genocide as a prosecutable act?

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.

Answer: the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide

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. <hl> 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. <hl>

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 <hl> the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide <hl> (CPPCG) which defined the crime of genocide for the first time.


Question: In which war-era country was the Holocaust immortalized?

Answer: Nazi Germany

<hl> 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. <hl> 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.

After the Holocaust, which had been perpetrated by the <hl> Nazi Germany <hl> 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.


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

Answer: Lemkin

<hl> 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. <hl> 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.

After the Holocaust, which had been perpetrated by the Nazi Germany and its allies prior to and during World War II, <hl> Lemkin <hl> 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.


Question: Which group convened officially for the first time in 1946?

Answer: United Nations General Assembly

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. <hl> 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. <hl> 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.

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 <hl> United Nations General Assembly <hl> 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.


Question: While recognizing genocide, what did the UN General Assembly fail to do in its resolution?

Answer: provide a legal definition of the crime

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. <hl> 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 . <hl> 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.

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 <hl> provide a legal definition of the crime <hl>. 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.

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 <hl> provide a legal definition of the crime <hl> .


Question: Which provision was initially included in the first write-up of the Convention and then removed?

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.”

Answer: political killings

<hl> 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. <hl> 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.”

The first draft of the Convention included <hl> political killings <hl>, 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.”

The first draft of the Convention included <hl> political killings <hl> , but these provisions were removed in a political and diplomatic compromise following objections from some countries, including the USSR, a permanent security council member.


Question: What is one of the countries that objected to the inclusion of political killings in the early version of the Convention?

Answer: USSR

<hl> 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. <hl> 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.”

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 <hl> USSR <hl>, 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.”

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 <hl> USSR <hl> , a permanent security council member.


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

Answer: international intervention in domestic politics

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. <hl> Other nations feared that including political groups in the definition would invite international intervention in domestic politics . <hl> 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.”

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 <hl> international intervention in domestic politics <hl>. 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.”

Other nations feared that including political groups in the definition would invite <hl> international intervention in domestic politics <hl> .


Question: Which distinguished academic of genocide highlighted several other countries opposed to including political genocide in the Convention?

Answer: William Schabas

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. <hl> 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. <hl> 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.”

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 <hl> William Schabas <hl> 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.”


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

Answer: its own Great Purge

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. <hl> 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 . <hl> 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.”

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 <hl> its own Great Purge <hl>. 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.”

The USSR argued that the Convention's definition should follow the etymology of the term, and may have feared greater international scrutiny of <hl> its own Great Purge <hl> .


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

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.

Answer: majority of legal scholars

<hl> 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. <hl> 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.

In 2007 the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), noted in its judgement on Jorgic v. Germany case that in 1992 the <hl> majority of legal scholars <hl> 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.


Question: What groups did the ECHR feel should be included as potential victims of genocide?

Answer: national, racial, religious or ethnic

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 <hl> a national, racial, religious or ethnic group was enough to qualify as genocide. <hl>

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 <hl> national, racial, religious or ethnic <hl> group was enough to qualify as genocide.


Question: In 2007 what former case did the European Court of Human Rights draw on to further refine qualifiers of genocide?

Answer: Jorgic v. Germany

<hl> 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. <hl> 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.

In 2007 the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), noted in its judgement on <hl> Jorgic v. Germany <hl> 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.


Question: What form of destruction was considered too limited by a smaller group of experts?

Answer: biological-physical

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. <hl> 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. <hl>

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 <hl> biological-physical <hl> destruction was necessary as the intent to destroy a national, racial, religious or ethnic group was enough to qualify as genocide.


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

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.

Answer: as a descriptive term

<hl> 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.” <hl> 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.

The word genocide was later included <hl> as a descriptive term <hl> 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.


Question: Who ultimately defined genocide as a series of strategies leading up to the annihilation of an entire group?

Answer: Lemming

<hl> 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.” <hl> 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.

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 <hl> Lemming <hl>, 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.

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 <hl> Lemming <hl> , 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.”


Question: Lemming's concept of genocide triggered legal action in which realm?

Answer: international relations and community

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.” <hl> 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. <hl> Australian anthropologist Peg LeVine coined the term "ritualcide" to describe the destruction of a group's cultural identity without necessarily destroying its members.

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 <hl> international relations and community <hl>, 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.

He created a concept of mobilizing much of the <hl> international relations and community <hl> , to working together and preventing the occurrence of such events happening within history and the international society.


Question: What was the nationality of anthropologist Peg LeVine?

Answer: Australian

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. <hl> Australian anthropologist Peg LeVine coined the term "ritualcide" to describe the destruction of a group's cultural identity without necessarily destroying its members. <hl>

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. <hl> Australian <hl> anthropologist Peg LeVine coined the term "ritualcide" to describe the destruction of a group's cultural identity without necessarily destroying its members.


Question: What relative term did LeVine coin to refer to cultural destruction, without the death of its members?

Answer: "ritualcide"

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. <hl> Australian anthropologist Peg LeVine coined the term "ritualcide" to describe the destruction of a group's cultural identity without necessarily destroying its members. <hl>

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 <hl> "ritualcide" <hl> to describe the destruction of a group's cultural identity without necessarily destroying its members.


Question: What term was coined to describe the destruction of culture?

Answer: ritualcide

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. <hl> Australian anthropologist Peg LeVine coined the term " ritualcide " to describe the destruction of a group's cultural identity without necessarily destroying its members. <hl>

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 "<hl> ritualcide <hl>" to describe the destruction of a group's cultural identity without necessarily destroying its members.

Australian anthropologist Peg LeVine coined the term " <hl> ritualcide <hl> " to describe the destruction of a group's cultural identity without necessarily destroying its members.


Question: What kind of scientist is Peg LeVine?

Answer: anthropologist

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. <hl> Australian anthropologist Peg LeVine coined the term "ritualcide" to describe the destruction of a group's cultural identity without necessarily destroying its members. <hl>

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 <hl> anthropologist <hl> Peg LeVine coined the term "ritualcide" to describe the destruction of a group's cultural identity without necessarily destroying its members.


Question: What elements of group existence, other than people themselves, can be targets of genocide?

Answer: language, culture, and economic infrastructure

<hl> 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 .” <hl> 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.

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 <hl> language, culture, and economic infrastructure <hl>.” 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.

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 <hl> language, culture, and economic infrastructure <hl> .”


Question: What has been the primary focus in the study of genocide?

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.

Answer: legal aspect of the term

<hl> The study of genocide has mainly been focused towards the legal aspect of the term . <hl> 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.

The study of genocide has mainly been focused towards the <hl> legal aspect of the term <hl>. 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.

The study of genocide has mainly been focused towards the <hl> legal aspect of the term <hl> .


Question: In prosecuting genocide, what must the act be formally acknowledged as?

Answer: a crime

The study of genocide has mainly been focused towards the legal aspect of the term. <hl> 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. <hl> 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.

The study of genocide has mainly been focused towards the legal aspect of the term. By formally recognizing the act of genocide as <hl> a crime <hl>, 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.

By formally recognizing the act of genocide as <hl> a crime <hl> , 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.


Question: In a general aspect, what is genocide viewed as?

Answer: the deliberate killing of a certain group

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. <hl> When genocide is looked at in a general aspect it is viewed as the deliberate killing of a certain group . <hl> 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.

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 <hl> the deliberate killing of a certain group <hl>. 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.

When genocide is looked at in a general aspect it is viewed as <hl> the deliberate killing of a certain group <hl> .


Question: In trials of genocidal crimes, what responsibly party is difficult to prosecute?

Answer: officials in power of a state or area

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. <hl> 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 . <hl> 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.

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 <hl> officials in power of a state or area <hl>. 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.

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 <hl> officials in power of a state or area <hl> .


Question: Long before genocide was established as a legal term, what treaty was in place to protect various groups from persecution and mass killings?

Answer: the Peace of Westphalia

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. <hl> 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. <hl> 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.

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, <hl> the Peace of Westphalia <hl> 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.


Question: Why does genocide often go unpunished?

Answer: genocide is more often than not committed by the officials in power

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 <hl> that genocide is more often than not committed by the officials in power of a state or area. <hl> 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.

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 <hl> genocide is more often than not committed by the officials in power <hl> 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.


Question: Who was the Peace of Westphalia designed to protect?

Answer: ethnic, national, racial and in some instances religious groups

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. <hl> 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 . <hl> 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.

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 <hl> ethnic, national, racial and in some instances religious groups <hl>. 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.

In 1648 before the term genocide had been coined, the Peace of Westphalia was established to protect <hl> ethnic, national, racial and in some instances religious groups <hl> .


Question: What year was the Peace of Westphalia signed?

Answer: 1648

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. <hl> 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. <hl> 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.

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 <hl> 1648 <hl> 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.


Question: When was the word "genocide" first used?

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.

Answer: 1944

Genocide has become an official term used in international relations. <hl> The word genocide was not in use before 1944 . <hl> 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.

Genocide has become an official term used in international relations. The word genocide was not in use before <hl> 1944 <hl>. 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.

The word genocide was not in use before <hl> 1944 <hl> .


Question: What is the etymology of the term "genocide"?

Answer: The word genocide is the combination of the Greek prefix geno- (meaning tribe or race) and caedere (the Latin word for to kill).

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. <hl> 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. <hl>

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. <hl> The word genocide is the combination of the Greek prefix geno- (meaning tribe or race) and caedere (the Latin word for to kill). <hl> 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.


Question: What is the definition of genocide?

Answer: 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

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). <hl> 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 . <hl>

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 <hl> 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 <hl>.

The word is defined as <hl> 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 <hl> .


Question: Who coined the term "genocide"?

Answer: Raphael Lemkin

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". <hl> In that year, a Polish-Jewish lawyer named Raphael Lemkin , described the policies of systematic murder founded by the Nazis as genocide. <hl> 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.

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 <hl> Raphael Lemkin <hl>, 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.

In that year, a Polish-Jewish lawyer named <hl> Raphael Lemkin <hl> , described the policies of systematic murder founded by the Nazis as genocide.


Question: Who referred to acts of genocide in 1941?

Answer: Winston Churchill

Genocide has become an official term used in international relations. The word genocide was not in use before 1944. <hl> Before this, in 1941, Winston Churchill described the mass killing of Russian prisoners of war and civilians as "a crime without a name". <hl> 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.

Genocide has become an official term used in international relations. The word genocide was not in use before 1944. Before this, in 1941, <hl> Winston Churchill <hl> 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.


Question: The word "genocide" was unknown until what year?

Answer: 1944

Genocide has become an official term used in international relations. <hl> The word genocide was not in use before 1944 . <hl> 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.

Genocide has become an official term used in international relations. The word genocide was not in use before <hl> 1944 <hl>. 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.

The word genocide was not in use before <hl> 1944 <hl> .


Question: In 1941, how did Winston Churchill refer to the mass killings of Russian prisoners of war?

Answer: as "a crime without a name"

Genocide has become an official term used in international relations. The word genocide was not in use before 1944. <hl> Before this, in 1941, Winston Churchill described the mass killing of Russian prisoners of war and civilians as "a crime without a name" . <hl> 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.

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 <hl> as "a crime without a name" <hl>. 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.

Before this, in 1941, Winston Churchill described the mass killing of Russian prisoners of war and civilians <hl> as "a crime without a name" <hl> .


Question: What was the name of the Polish-Jewish lawyer who first described Nazi atrocities as "genocide?"

Answer: Raphael Lemkin

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". <hl> In that year, a Polish-Jewish lawyer named Raphael Lemkin , described the policies of systematic murder founded by the Nazis as genocide. <hl> 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.

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 <hl> Raphael Lemkin <hl>, 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.

In that year, a Polish-Jewish lawyer named <hl> Raphael Lemkin <hl> , described the policies of systematic murder founded by the Nazis as genocide.


Question: What is the etymological basis of the word "genocide?"

Answer: Greek prefix geno- (meaning tribe or race) and caedere (the Latin word for to kill)

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. <hl> The word genocide is the combination of the Greek prefix geno- (meaning tribe or race) and caedere (the Latin word for to kill) . <hl> 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.

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 <hl> Greek prefix geno- (meaning tribe or race) and caedere (the Latin word for to kill) <hl>. 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.

The word genocide is the combination of the <hl> Greek prefix geno- (meaning tribe or race) and caedere (the Latin word for to kill) <hl> .