Fact check: What is the definition of genocide under international law?

1. Summary of the results

The definition of genocide under international law is clearly established in the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. According to multiple sources, genocide is defined as any of the following five acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group ^{[1] [2] [3]}:

• Killing members of the group
• Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group
• Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part
• Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group
• Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group

The Convention also establishes other punishable acts beyond genocide itself, including conspiracy to commit genocide, direct and public incitement to commit genocide, attempt to commit genocide, and complicity in genocide ^{[3] [4]}.

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original question seeks a straightforward legal definition, but the analyses reveal significant contemporary applications and controversies surrounding this definition. Several sources discuss ongoing legal proceedings where genocide allegations are being examined:

• The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has found that Palestinians have a plausible right to protection from genocide in Gaza, with legal experts from institutions including the University of Western Australia, University of Sydney, and Western Sydney University agreeing that evidence shows Israel may be committing genocide ^[5]
• Associate Professor Melanie O'Brien and other experts believe that actions taken by Israel in Gaza may constitute genocide based on the 1948 Convention definition ^[6]
• The International Criminal Court (ICC) is conducting investigations into alleged genocide in various situations, including Darfur, Sudan ^[7] and has faced sanctions from the U.S. over investigations into Israel ^[8]

These contemporary applications demonstrate that while the legal definition is established, its interpretation and application remain highly contested in current geopolitical contexts.

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question itself contains no misinformation or bias - it simply asks for the legal definition of genocide under international law. However, the question's apparent neutrality may inadvertently obscure the highly politicized nature of genocide determinations in practice.

The analyses reveal that powerful state actors have significant interests in how genocide is defined and applied. For instance, the United States has imposed sanctions on ICC judges investigating potential genocide cases involving Israel ^[8], demonstrating how geopolitical interests can influence the enforcement of international law. This suggests that while the legal definition is clear, political and economic interests of powerful nations can significantly impact whether and how genocide determinations are pursued.