the discrepancies that have emerged in defining Genocide
Dear Lauren Solinsky, I see your point about the discrepancies that have emerged in defining Genocide. The definition of Genocide is widely debated. Nevertheless, whatever the controversy and critiques, two elements remain critical to each of these genocide definitions: the purpose of killing a group of people. As a matter of fact, Genocide does not involve a natural catastrophe or a tragedy; instead, it is a pure result of warfare or other acts of aggression, however significant the loss of human life may be. Instead, I believe that Genocide is meant to denote an organized scheme of multiple actions aimed at undermining the fundamental pillars of life of a given community or entity, to eradicate the communities.
Dear Wyatt Floyd, I heartily concur with your point regarding chapter 21. I believe that humanitarian interventions might have adverse consequences if not properly evaluated and implemented. Perhaps to add what you have said, on a broader perspective, some of the motivations underlying humanitarian interventions are not as appropriate as those of the interventions themselves. I presume that the primary role of humanitarian intervention would be to save humanity, and this can be done with or without selfless motivations. Apparently, unfair interventions can also intensify the recipient State’s military involvement rather than financial, political, and social initiatives. Although humanitarian intervention attracts a lot of opposition, it is crucial to understand that humanitarian intervention is required to oversee various human actions and save human lives.