Hindering the prevention and intervention of genocide, sovereignty and realpolitik stand in the way. It is likely that for this reason 'how” the perpetrators, including the state, will be punished through the Convention is not clarified. As a result, the form of punishment and legal mechanism, national or international, used becomes a matter of who decides to take the task. At the national level trials can be inclusive and efficient but they can also be deeply personal, compromised and underdeveloped. When it is the latter, wrongful convictions can result with those who actually perpetrated the crime getting away. This was demonstrated in the Rwanda Gacca trials. Instead, perpetrators of genocide should be held to the same level through the standardized and universal legal system of the International Criminal Court, in which all signatories must be obliged to follow. This would allow the ICC to set an example…show more content… This excludes political groups, economic groups and gender groups. Which time and time again we have seen be targets of genocide such as Stalin’s systematic targeting of political enemies, the Hutu targeting of Tutsis partly as a result of their economic status, and female infanticide in India and China. The notion that these four groups – national, ethnical, racial and religious – are static does not hold up. In a globalized world, identities are fluid and ever-changing. During the International Criminal Tribunal of Rwanda it was difficult to distinguish and define differences between Hutus and Tutsis because they shared the same language, religion and common history. Because this article completely excludes three other groups of people and identities are becoming increasing fluid, I would revise this article to adopt the Katz/Jones definition of genocide that would read “in whole or in part, a group as defined by the
