> I would argue that a plan for handing out condoms only with proof of citizenship could be suspect of an attempt at ethnic cleansing. Similarly, if the central

> I would argue that a plan for handing out condoms only with proof of citizenship could be suspect of an attempt at ethnic cleansing. Similarly, if the central government of the Netherlands passed a law to hand out free condoms only in some particular province that may be suspect as well, especially one that has been considered of a different ethnicity. >However, if the local authorities in Frisia were to implement such a plan, that would be closer to the first case of universal measures, since the authorities in Frisia shouldn't be expected to hand out condoms in other provinces. Of course, if it turned out that the measure was in fact planned by the central government and passed off as a local idea, that would again move the needle towards being suspicious. This is a distinction you make, but not a distinction the U.N. definition makes, which shows that you, much as I do, do not find the definition credible. The U.N. definition does not factor in supranationality as a condition. > In general, intent matters Perhaps, but that difference is not given in the U.N. definition. > that is why the law can't be formalized mathematically. Then the definition should have never been offered as a rebuttal. > If a country is targeting some group that it has historically considered "different" (regardless of how questionable the difference is) with some kind of measure which may have negative consequences, that measure should receive scrutiny, and the context should be identified. For example, giving poor people condoms may be an attempt at population control in one country, while in another country it may be a democratically enacted benefit. All of this goes far beyond the original definition and is quite ad hoc. I suspect that if further challenges and exceptions be raised against all these further rules, that more ad hoc rules are further and further added. > We are far away from providing mathematically clear definitions of legal concepts such as genocide, murder, theft, fraud and anything you like. There are always surprising subtleties, and intent and context are always going to be a part of the definition. Indeed we are, so perhaps the definition should not have been offered as if it actually be meaningful and the U.N. should drop the prætence of it's having “definitions” and “rules” for what is clearly simply “we rule on a case by case basis, mostly on our gut feeling.” And that is too how laws work. I find that in practice the written text of the law is largely irrelevant vis à vis the gut feeling of whatever man vested with the power to interpret the law and I believe that not much would change in practice if entire law books were simply replaced with “The judge may do as he will and punish what he finds immoral on a case by case basis.” Rule of law is almost always a veil for rule of men.