Farrah

I take international law and last week we talked about this issue Ted wrote about in Genocide in Darfur, Sudan and his definition piece.

Before WW2 any country in the world could do what ever it wanted to its people. Yes they could kill people in there country if they did not discriminate and there was no law preventing it. The reason is the issue of internal sovereignty. After WW2 the principle of Prohabition of Genocide was added. There are only 3 principles commonly agreed on no genocide, slavery or piracy. The rest of international laws are formed under general customs and treaties. That is why there are human right organizations that have treaties against the kinds of things happening in Sudan. The problem is if the country does not sign the treaty, unless it becomes a custom they are not bound by the rules. According to international law the case in Sudan is considered ethnic cleansing not genocide. That is what the teacher said strictly looking at the law. Also since it is groups that are attacking are not supposed to be affiliated with the government it is just militias attacking people. It is almost more of a civil war but only one side has weapons and can fight.

Just a quick note I will right more about it in detail later

Crucial insights, Farah! Strong definitional work, really does set up the whole group to make strong claims about the singular nature of the tragedy and Darfur; highlighting the the tragedy of abiding robotically to rhetorical distinctions will be an effective way to cue and balance pathos appeals. Nice CommonsWork!

-shareriff