(no subject)
History
1. Raphael Lemkin, in the wake of the Armenian Genocide, pointed out how strange it was that when a single man kills, it is muder, but if a government does so, there is no way to have them prosecuted. He created the phrase "genocide" and tried to bring it to international attention. He Campained at the U.N. to try to get them to ban all forms of genocide, not solely the genocide that occurs durring war. His campaining resulted in a unanimous U.N. decision which condemned genocide. His campaining also lead to the Genocide Convention.
2. One insidence would be the Nuremburg Trials because they show the allies condemning those who took part in what were not yet referred to as genocidal acts. The allies were not stopped by anyone, thus exibiting a worldwide recognition that interfearance is sometimes needed. Another exibit of cooperation was the Genocide Convention which really showed the international community recognizing Genocide as a problem that meritted international intervention.
3. They were accused of crimes against humanity, although Lemkin really wanted the word genocide to be used. This was still the start of international recognition of the problem, and could be viewed as the first step towards the Genocide Convention and other happenings which exibited international understanding that something needed to be done.
4.
1. Anyone who commits what is considered a crime internationally is personally responsible and will be punished.
2. It doesn't matter if the crime in question is illegal in one's country, if it is considered illegal by the international court, the perpetrator will be tried.
3. Just because a person committing a crime is the head of state or part of the government does not excuse them from trial by an international court.
4. Just becaue a person is acting under orders does not excuse them from their crime in the eyes of the international court.
5. State soverienty is the idea the a state can not be controlled by outside forces... it sis something that was lost with all of the new laws about genocide and thinternational law coming abote state law. It is something that was always held in very high regard amoung countries when dealing with international affairs, and was a pretty touchy part about the whole Genocide Convention.
6. The first of the three major points of the Genocide convention was that Genocide was made into a crime. The second of the three major points was that it was decided that it did not matter if genocide was taking place within within a country, or from one country to another, it was still considered genocide and the perpetrators would still be held accountable.
7. First, they thought it was too vague, they wondered how many people did it take to qualify as a Genocide, and did a number even matter? They also worried that with the vague wording the Genocide Convention could lead to interfearance weven without genocide actually taking place... They also worried taht the line about "mental harm" could be applicable to southern segregation that was going on at the time. Furthermore, there was a concern that the treatement of the Indians in the 1800's could be considered Genocide and America would be investigated. What appears to be the main concern, however, is that America, with this convention, would become just as suseptible to investigation and international interfearance as any other country.
8. Because the United States was so hesitant and made sure to protect their own sovreignty earlier it was hypocritical to p