|
Criticism of Genocide Definition and Intervention
Page history
last edited
by Don Pogreba 11 years, 1 month ago
Criticisms of the Definition of Genocide
- No legally binding requirement for intervention.
- Each genocide is different; no definition can possibly capture these differences.
- Exclusion of political/social groups is a failure of the definition.
- Gender/sex are not included, making womyn vulnerable to genocide.
- The International Community lacks the force to respond in any case.
Arguments Against Genocide
- Realism: American foreign policy should be based on American interests, not vague notions about obligation or morality. Each nation's most pressing concern is maximizing its interests.
- Genocide is often an irrational action, so believing that rational actions will prevent it is absurd.
- The risks of preventing/intervening outweigh the benefits.
- American soldiers could lose their lives.
- Other countries could become upset about American intervention.
- Genocide is very difficult to define. Countries may use the looseness of the definition to justify intervention or it may be challenging to know when genocide is imminent.
- Intervening in genocide may require the United States to ally itself with bad actors like militia groups/unallied countries.
- Innocent lives will be taken.
- The knowledge that the United States will intervene will encourage countries to rise up against their oppressors, leading to their potential death/increased reprisals.
- The Kurds/Shi'ite in Iraq after the first Gulf War.
-
Criticism of Genocide Definition and Intervention
|
Tip: To turn text into a link, highlight the text, then click on a page or file from the list above.
|
|
|
Comments (0)
You don't have permission to comment on this page.