the article doesnt even say that a ukrainian genocide happen, you didn’t even read it. it is a legal text that talks about how russia needs to prove russian genocide in the donbass region. the whole thing started because ukraine wanted to show it was not commiting genocide in donets luhansk, and russia argued this genocide would give them legal basis under the genocide convention.
The first article is showing that Russia’s excuse for their invasion which was them saving the Ukrainians from a genocide isn’t really flying in court and as for the second article which was part 3 of a series of article directly about the topic.
In this final post of a three-part posting (Part 1, Part 2), I will argue that the way Russia has conducted these transfers proves genocidal intent. The first essay outlined what I have labeled the “cultural genocide exclusion doctrine,” or simply “exclusion,” which is epitomized by the International Law Commission’s twin claims that: 1) the Genocide Convention’s drafters omitted all acts of cultural genocide, and 2) that they intended to restrict the convention’s reach to instances where a perpetrator intends a group’s material destruction. I also pointed out that the Genocide Convention’s text contains no indication that it excludes matters of cultural genocide and in fact appears to embrace many cultural aspects of group life.
I did read the articles and I’m questioning if you did.
i read the first and there it talks about hyphothetics. nevertheless this isn’t proof, three hasn’t been a ruling about this, and this case is about both ukraine’s genocide allegation and russia’s.
the article doesnt even say that a ukrainian genocide happen, you didn’t even read it. it is a legal text that talks about how russia needs to prove russian genocide in the donbass region. the whole thing started because ukraine wanted to show it was not commiting genocide in donets luhansk, and russia argued this genocide would give them legal basis under the genocide convention.
The first article is showing that Russia’s excuse for their invasion which was them saving the Ukrainians from a genocide isn’t really flying in court and as for the second article which was part 3 of a series of article directly about the topic.
I did read the articles and I’m questioning if you did.
i read the first and there it talks about hyphothetics. nevertheless this isn’t proof, three hasn’t been a ruling about this, and this case is about both ukraine’s genocide allegation and russia’s.
Did you read the second article?