1 The answer Lemkin received from his professor reflected the state of international
law in the beginning of the twentieth century: back then there were no laws that gave
states authority to intervene in the internal affairs of other nations. To do so would
undermine the idea of sovereignty, that is, the right of every nation to conduct its
internal affairs independently. What limits would you set on a nation’s sovereignty?
When should the international community impose laws on other countries?
The limit should be when the majority of people are suffering, like if even just 1 or .1 in the percent of poverty is over 50%. We should draw a line when the government is not doing its job right. Then we should impose laws to protect the people of the world.
2. Lemkin wondered, “Why is the killing of a million a lesser crime than the killing
of a single individual?” What can be done to stop nations that turn against their
own people?
Creating a law or in his case a word to define what it is to commit an act of mass murder against a group of people with the intent to inhalation.
3. Lemkin was outraged when he heard that the mass murder of the Armenians went
unpunished. How could he turn his moral outrage into action? What could he do?
He could talk to people who could make a difference, people with "power" in the international world about getting justice for these people. Getting meetings or just drawing attention to the issue in general.
4. Without a court to judge the perpetrators, what options did the Armenians have
after the genocide?
They could have just quietly assassinated the perpetrators or banished them or just done something to make sure they would never hurt anyone again.
No comments:
Post a Comment