Response to Genocide Intervention Theory

Criticisms of the Definition of Genocide

• No legally binding requirement for intervention.
• Each genocide is different; no definition can possibly capture these differences.
• Exclusion of political/social groups is a failure of the definition.
• Gender/sex are not included, making womyn vulnerable to genocide.
• The International Community lacks the force to respond in any case.

Arguments Against Genocide Intervention

• Realism: American foreign policy should be based on American interests, not vague notions about obligation or morality. Each nation’s most pressing concern is maximizing its interests.
• Genocide is often an irrational action, so believing that rational actions will prevent it is absurd.
• The risks of preventing/intervening outweigh the benefits.
  • American soldiers could lose their lives.
  • Other countries could become upset about American intervention.
• Genocide is very difficult to define.  Countries may use the looseness of the definition to justify intervention or it may be challenging to know when genocide is imminent.
• Intervening in genocide may require the United States to ally itself with bad actors like militia groups/unallied countries.
• Innocent lives will be taken.
• The knowledge that the United States will intervene will encourage militants to rise up against their oppressors, leading to their potential death/increased reprisals.
  • The Kurds/Shi’ite in Iraq after the first Gulf War.