There is the UN with its ICJ. That’s what pretty much the whole world agrees on.
They are the final deciders, but we can agree that it will take time for a decision.
What might be interesting, is what happens and how various people (including the scholars or you) react, if the ICJ decided differently. But that’s just speculation at this point.
Be careful with the words here. The ICJ is the final decider about one specific definition of genocide. However, there is nothing that says that is the sole valid definition of genocide. In fact:
According to Ernesto Verdeja, associate professor of political science and peace studies at the University of Notre Dame, there are three ways to conceptualise genocide other than the legal definition: in academic social science, in international politics and policy, and in colloquial public usage.
The academic social science approach does not require proof of intent,[11] and social scientists often define genocide more broadly.[12]
The international politics and policy definition centres around prevention policy and intervention and may actually mean “large-scale violence against civilians” when used by governments and international organisations.
Lastly, Verdeja says the way the general public colloquially uses “genocide” is usually “as a stand-in term for the greatest evils”.[11] This is supported by political scientist Kurt Mundorff who highlights how to the general public genocide is “simply mass murder carried out on a grand scale”.[13]
The definition you insist on is not the only one with consequences. Arguably, in the Trump-Netanyahu era, the legal one might be the one with the least amount of consequences…
It also not the one used for the English Wikipedia. I told you to be careful with words because you were using the legal definition to argue against the scholarly one. Sticking to the legal definition doesn’t make you careful per se. And I’m not sure I understand what “throwing around” is happening here. This is not the Lord’s name to not be taken in vain.
There is the UN with its ICJ. That’s what pretty much the whole world agrees on.
They are the final deciders, but we can agree that it will take time for a decision.
What might be interesting, is what happens and how various people (including the scholars or you) react, if the ICJ decided differently. But that’s just speculation at this point.
Be careful with the words here. The ICJ is the final decider about one specific definition of genocide. However, there is nothing that says that is the sole valid definition of genocide. In fact:
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_definitions
You are saying “Be careful with the words here” and that there a different definitions…
I am the one here who is careful with the G-word. Others just throw that word in (of course without mentioning which definition they refer to)…
Let’s be honest: In the end, the legal definition (and therefore the legal decision) is the one that has actual consequences.
The definition you insist on is not the only one with consequences. Arguably, in the Trump-Netanyahu era, the legal one might be the one with the least amount of consequences…
It also not the one used for the English Wikipedia. I told you to be careful with words because you were using the legal definition to argue against the scholarly one. Sticking to the legal definition doesn’t make you careful per se. And I’m not sure I understand what “throwing around” is happening here. This is not the Lord’s name to not be taken in vain.