Horrific Acts of Genocide

The acts of genocide are directed against groups as such, and individuals are selected for destruction only because they belong to these groups (Andreopoulos, G., 1994:1).” Perhaps, since there must indeed be a definition of genocide, Lemkin’s definition stands to suffice. However, in the minds of many that definition does not go far enough since it lacks the necessary accompanying definition of humanity’s responsibility to respond to genocide. Today, the definition of genocide should be inclusive of humanity’s responsibility to respond to the atrocity of genocide. If it is not the natural response, the innate and inborn human response, to respond the needs of another human being in the way to sustain and improve another human being’s life, then it is certainly the right of those who are so inured of that response to do so. Thus, the definition applied to the term genocide must be revised for the international community to extend Lemkin’s definition to include the responsibility and right of humanity to respond to the atrociousness of the act of genocide.
It is, however, a complex issue, which is why, in 1933, when experts in international law, international foreign affairs, and world governments met in Madrid, Lemkin’s definition sufficed to establish the definition of genocide which formed “the backbone UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (hereinafter the Genocide Convention or “Convention”), focused on the legal task of defining a crime, and thus placed emphasis on intention and on the individual and/or collective responsibility of a well defined set of actors (the perpetrators) (Andreopoulous, 1994:1-2).” It’s plain to see where the “Convention,” fell short, in that it to define and describe an initiative of response to be taken by the world community.