Insequa
16-03-2005, 09:29
Resolution #83, more commonly known as "The Eon Convention on Genocide" was a slightly controversial act, but reasonably well accepted.
Just something I realised last night though, is that the Eon Convention states that the law can be arbitrary - while in all standard legal definitions, the law is never considered arbitrary.
Just a few quotes from the Eon Convention:
Genocide is defined as the systematic and deliberate extermination of a society, or part of a society, based on arbitrary criteria (such as skin colour, genetic conditions or religion). Those covered by this resolution are those protected by The UBR.
Genocide is committed or instigated by the state, or by groups acting on behalf of the state. Should there be a claim for a private group being responsible for genocide, this can also be brought before TPP (to be described later) to confirm the validity of the claim.
One of the arguments I encountered when debating the Eon Convention was that the law is legally defined as not being arbitrary. However...
If state-instituted, then acts of genocide have the backing of the national law (but obviously not international law), and, if it has the backing of the law, and the definition of genocide states that the criteria is arbitrary, then that would make laws arbitrary.
If this is so, then that means that any form of legalised killing could be claimed as being arbitrary, and because the definition of genocide provided in the act has no minimum number of people required to be killed (defaulting it to 1), then the death penalty can be claimed as an act of genocide.
Just something I realised last night though, is that the Eon Convention states that the law can be arbitrary - while in all standard legal definitions, the law is never considered arbitrary.
Just a few quotes from the Eon Convention:
Genocide is defined as the systematic and deliberate extermination of a society, or part of a society, based on arbitrary criteria (such as skin colour, genetic conditions or religion). Those covered by this resolution are those protected by The UBR.
Genocide is committed or instigated by the state, or by groups acting on behalf of the state. Should there be a claim for a private group being responsible for genocide, this can also be brought before TPP (to be described later) to confirm the validity of the claim.
One of the arguments I encountered when debating the Eon Convention was that the law is legally defined as not being arbitrary. However...
If state-instituted, then acts of genocide have the backing of the national law (but obviously not international law), and, if it has the backing of the law, and the definition of genocide states that the criteria is arbitrary, then that would make laws arbitrary.
If this is so, then that means that any form of legalised killing could be claimed as being arbitrary, and because the definition of genocide provided in the act has no minimum number of people required to be killed (defaulting it to 1), then the death penalty can be claimed as an act of genocide.