Genocide definitions based on intent become unworkable under diffuse structural forces

Evidence

Similar problems emerge with the concept of “intent.” Lemkin (1944:79) stated that the term he coined was intended “to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves.” The UN Convention also stressed intent in its definition. Nevertheless, Wallimann and Dobkowski (1987:xvi) argue that intentionality is currently hard to demonstrate, given “the anonymous and amorphous structural forces that dictate the character of our world.” — David Theo Goldberg, John Solomos, A Companion to Racial and Ethnic Studies, 262 (#expands, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Genocide differs from ethnic cleansing in requiring intent to destroy the group — Erin K. Jenne and Promise Frank Ejiofor, Ethnopopulism and genocidal…, 82; Genocide always requires organized state or militia planning; Staub’s genocide precondition is too elastic to be discriminating (+1 more)

Broader Connections

• Genocide intent is hard to demonstrate under anonymous structural forces #expands (0.92) — David Theo Goldberg, John Solomos, A Companion to Racial and Ethnic Studies, 262