3 Points<\/p>\n
1) The Convention’s definition of genocide encompasses a much broader array of offenses than I had considered. In addition to “killing members of the group,” genocide includes the forced relocation of children and the prevention of reproduction.
\n2) Accused parties could be charged with a number of punishable acts, including “conspiracy to commit genocide” and “complicity in genocide.” They should be judged by those with authority in the state in which the crimes were committed.
\n3) If the number of representatives serving the Convention should at any point fall below 16, then the Convention would renounce its authority.<\/p>\n
Questions<\/p>\n
1) In what situations did the Convention exercise its power to arrest criminals?
\n2) Were there any revisions made to the original Convention document?<\/p>\n
Observation<\/p>\n
The Convention articles are very thorough, and I believe they would be effective preventing and punishing genocidal activities. Opposition to the document would be unfounded unless said opponents had intentions of committing genocide themselves.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
3 Points 1) The Convention’s definition of genocide encompasses a much broader array of offenses than I had considered. In addition to “killing members of the group,” genocide includes the forced relocation of children and the prevention of reproduction. 2) … Continue reading