Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy welcomed the move, which he said paid tribute to victims of the Soviet-era famine. It follows a similar move by the European Union last year.
I kill 100% of a population AND my intent was to do that = genocide
I kill 100% of a population BUT my intent was only to kill a lot of people = not genocide???
If that’s really what you’re saying is the discrepancy then I have to disagree with this recognition being purely political. This seems like a common sense thing. The holodomor happened, it was mass purposeful death. We can argue if it was targeted against a people or a location, but the effect was clearly bound to some group or region and it was effective within those boundaries to the extent that it could be considered a genocide.
Without doing any reading on the matter for this topic as well, that’s what I’d say.
There’s also a difference between murder with premeditation, murder without premeditation and manslaughter - all three are the death of someone at someone else’s hands, all three are crimes, but that doesn’t make them the same thing. Intentionality matters in law.
The intent is a crucial aspect of the definition of genocide, which was internationally ratified in the Genocide Convention. Suddenly ignoring that when it’s politically expedient is hugely problematic.
I also want to emphasise that something not being a genocide doesn’t mean it can’t be horrible, a crime against humanity or anything else. It’s not a defence in any way, but a matter of using the correct (legally accepted) name.
That feels like a really pedantic difference.
Example:
I kill 100% of a population AND my intent was to do that = genocide
I kill 100% of a population BUT my intent was only to kill a lot of people = not genocide???
If that’s really what you’re saying is the discrepancy then I have to disagree with this recognition being purely political. This seems like a common sense thing. The holodomor happened, it was mass purposeful death. We can argue if it was targeted against a people or a location, but the effect was clearly bound to some group or region and it was effective within those boundaries to the extent that it could be considered a genocide.
Without doing any reading on the matter for this topic as well, that’s what I’d say.
There’s also a difference between murder with premeditation, murder without premeditation and manslaughter - all three are the death of someone at someone else’s hands, all three are crimes, but that doesn’t make them the same thing. Intentionality matters in law.
The intent is a crucial aspect of the definition of genocide, which was internationally ratified in the Genocide Convention. Suddenly ignoring that when it’s politically expedient is hugely problematic.
I also want to emphasise that something not being a genocide doesn’t mean it can’t be horrible, a crime against humanity or anything else. It’s not a defence in any way, but a matter of using the correct (legally accepted) name.