SK

Your weekend listen from my friend @havivrettiggur Adding on. In "legal" talk. Most (there have been some) have not been bold enough to say publicly that they intend/seek to make specific intent (dolus specialis) no longer required under Article II. The fight in Gambia v. Myanmar is over the standard of proof the ICJ uses to infer that intent from a pattern of conduct. Under the court’s own precedent, genocidal intent must be the “only reasonable inference.” Many states and legal personalities are pushing the court to use this case to ram through and adopt a looser assessment of facts and circumstances instead...so if they can't prove intent, they can infer it based on a collection of facts and data stripped of the other compelling facts and information showing what the accused intended to do, such as how legitimate military objectives and decisions made in the conduct of operations offer reasonable alternative explanations for pattern of conduct. Whatever standard the court adopts in the Myanmar case will then apply to the later South Africa v. Israel and any case thereafter. Used against any country, to include the United States, and that is why @michaelgwaltz @AmbUNReform have said they are watching closely what all the agents involved are trying to do. The real concern is not that the definition is being rewritten on paper; it is that the practical bar for proving intent is being lowered in a way that can turn any high-intensity urban combat against an enemy using human shields into a genocide claim. War is not genocide. @BrianCox_RLTW