Its purpose is to explore how modern words can be easily applied to historic situations. (Actually, they may be easily applied to modern situations where one does not normally expect them to apply.)
The is a modern tendency to use ever more extreme words (perhaps aided by the advertising industry and abetted by modern all-out politics) to gain attention and keep emotions high. While it may help sell products to consumers, these words may hinder debate because of their charged nature.
For consideration as to history, words and phrases such as "war crimes" or "crimes against humanity" or "genocide" are meant here.
Allow me to choose the word "genocide" for exploration because since 9 December 1948 there exists a Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. I copy the first four articles below and link its full text.
The formulation is rather broad for it uses phrases such as "in whole or in part" when covering destroying a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. Then, it has other rather open formulations such as "any of the following acts" and "Causing serious bodily or mental harm".
How many are needed to be "in part" ? 10%, 20% 50%, 90% ?
What is "serious" when it applies to "mental harm" ? making them "sad"? making "depressed"? making them "go mad"?
Thus, such language could mean that many "normal" acts (please just "live" with this formulation) by one group against another could easily be defined as "genocide".
Thus, when an important city is beseiged - cut off from supplies, bombarded day and night - because of the "in whole or in part" formulation, it might well be claimed the beseiger had committed "genocide" by violate Article 2 (c) "Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part."
Further, using this "in whole or in part" aspect one could mean forces making extensive attacks on an enemy (think cossacks or Spanish guerillas) who may well violate Article 2 (a) "Killing members of the group".
Without appropriate discipline, invading forces could easily fall afoul of the articles. Consider Article 3 (d) "Attempt to commit genocide" in combination with the "in whole or in part" aspects as well as others. This would require the invader to be very careful to not be viewed as having committed genocide under the convention's articles.
Some complex situations could occur: take those cossacks protecting Russia. At that point, they could be viewed to be acting in self defence and not to have violated the clause while in Russia, yet once across the boarder in Poland - or later in France - their actions could be taken differently.
Allow me to stop here and ask for reactions. - R
____________________________________________________________________
Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
Article 1 - The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish.
Article 2 - In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
Article 3 - The following acts shall be punishable:
(a) Genocide;
(b) Conspiracy to commit genocide;
(c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;
(d) Attempt to commit genocide;
(e) Complicity in genocide.
Article 4 - Persons committing genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III shall be punished, whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals.