Serious question: to legally qualify as genocide, there has to be genocidal intent, but the intent can not be determined from the actions or the consequences -- only from statements of intent. Is my understanding correct on that?
If so... does no one else see the... uh... issue with that?
Being able to commit genocide as long as you aren't as honest as Hitler about your intent?
So there are 2 ways to prove genocidal intent: (1) explicitly saying that's your plan (e.g., Hitler). This is super rare in practice. (2) a pattern of behaviour. If a state consistently says and does things that point toward destroying a group, and there is no other reasonable explanation, courts can infer genocidal intent. So they look at many actions together
You know this is why everyone hates lawyers, right?
The four countries that are arguing against genocide are really just the US, with a couple of Trump's board of peace countries being good lackies - two of which have no real cities OR militaries. Seems like the court should throw that shit right out on its face.
Great question! Article 63 is easier because countries technically have a right to ask to intervene and you just have to be a party to the relevant treaty to do so. Article 62 is way more difficult: there's no right to ask to intervene here and there are stricter conditions: you must show the Court that you have a real legal claim (not just a political interest), that could be affected by the outcome, that you have a legitimate specific purpose in joining, and that there is some legal connection between you and the parties. The ICJ very rarely accepts an Art 62 request! Interestingly in this case, Belize and Palestine have applied through both Article 63 AND 62. So we'll see what the Court says!
Serious question: to legally qualify as genocide, there has to be genocidal intent, but the intent can not be determined from the actions or the consequences -- only from statements of intent. Is my understanding correct on that?
If so... does no one else see the... uh... issue with that?
Being able to commit genocide as long as you aren't as honest as Hitler about your intent?
So there are 2 ways to prove genocidal intent: (1) explicitly saying that's your plan (e.g., Hitler). This is super rare in practice. (2) a pattern of behaviour. If a state consistently says and does things that point toward destroying a group, and there is no other reasonable explanation, courts can infer genocidal intent. So they look at many actions together
You know this is why everyone hates lawyers, right?
The four countries that are arguing against genocide are really just the US, with a couple of Trump's board of peace countries being good lackies - two of which have no real cities OR militaries. Seems like the court should throw that shit right out on its face.
Hahaha I didn’t know everyone hated lawyers 🥺🤣🤣!
How different is this intervention from an Article 62 intervention.....and what are the requirements of an Article 62 intervention?
Great question! Article 63 is easier because countries technically have a right to ask to intervene and you just have to be a party to the relevant treaty to do so. Article 62 is way more difficult: there's no right to ask to intervene here and there are stricter conditions: you must show the Court that you have a real legal claim (not just a political interest), that could be affected by the outcome, that you have a legitimate specific purpose in joining, and that there is some legal connection between you and the parties. The ICJ very rarely accepts an Art 62 request! Interestingly in this case, Belize and Palestine have applied through both Article 63 AND 62. So we'll see what the Court says!