Explain And Comment Upon The Proposition That The Crime Of Genocide Essay Example


Genocide is any of the following crimes carried out to wholly or partially eradicate a federal, racial, ethnic, or religious group.[1]. Genocide is one of the most severe and abhorrent international crimes, defined in the 1948 “Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.” The case of Radislav Krstic (IT-98-33) is significant in the framework of “international criminal justice.” This case is a landmark in the field of genocide, as it was the first time that the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) authenticated the massacre committed in Srebrenica, Bosnia and Herzegovina, in 1995[2].This case highlights the complexity of proving the crime of genocide, despite its precise definition. Despite the accurate description of genocide, it is hard to show evidence in court due to its heinous nature and lack of evidence. The critical problem, in this case, is the Hard in demonstrating the massacre crime. “The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court” and “The Updated Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia” define genocide to include certain protected groups, but proving the crime itself is complex and requires scrutiny of the evidence collected. With good reason, the Genocide Convention has raised attacks against groups identified based on ethnicity, nationality, tribe, and religion to the pinnacle of human rights abuses.[3]. These attacks have been raised to this position because they constitute genocide. This difficulty has been further highlighted in the study of Nevenka Tromp, which examines the “Transitional and post-transitional narratives about genocide in Bosnia and Herzegovina.” The crime of massacre is hard to validate evidence because it is not well defined, and the legal definition of the massacre can vary from one country to the next. This is evident in the circumstance of Radislav Krstic, where the ICTY had to rely on the “Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court” and the “Updated Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal” for the Former Yugoslavia to define genocide and to convict him of aiding and abetting genocide.

Literature Review

The case of Radislav Krstic is of utmost significance when considering the definition and proof of genocide. Radislav Krstic was a Bosnian Serb General charged with supporting and aiding genocide during the Bosnian War of 1992-1995. He was found guilty by the ICTY for his role in the “Srebrenica massacre of 1995,” in which 8,000 Bosnian Muslim boys and men were killed[4]. The case was influential in establishing the massacre as a distinct crime, separate from crimes in contradiction of humankind and war crimes “under international law.” The ICTY found the elements of genocide as the following actions are considered genocide against a federal, racial, ethnic, or religious group[5]. (1) imposing living conditions that are intended to cause physical harm to the group as a whole or in part; (2) massacring members of the group; (3) inflicting severe bodily or mental injuries on members of the group; and (4) imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group. The ICTY’s judgment on Radislav Krstic also confirms the legal principle of supporting and helping as a form of criminal responsibility. The difficulty of proving genocide lies in the complex landscape of the crime. It is a difficult way to obtain evidence of the perpetrator’s intent to commit genocide and proof of the actual acts of genocide. Even when such evidence is available, it must be interpreted in light of the particular context of the crime. For example, the ICTY’s judgment in the case of Radislav Krstic noted that the Bosnian Serb forces’ actions must be seen in the context of a long-running conflict, in which the Bosnian Serbs had been subject to attack and persecution before the Srebrenica massacre.

The difficulty of proving genocide is further complicated because state actors often perpetrate the crime, making it difficult to obtain evidence and prosecute those responsibly. This is particularly true in the circumstance of Radislav Krstic, a member of the Bosnian Serb military. The ICTY had to rely on circumstantial evidence, such as the figure of Bosnian Muslims murdered and the circumstance that the Bosnian Serb forces had control of the area in question, to establish Krstic’s guilt. In the case of Radislav Krstic, the ICTY recognized that massacre had occurred in Srebrenica. The court found that “Bosnian Serb military armies had targeted the Bosnian Muslim people of Srebrenica, killing more than 7,000 men and boys in the massacre.[6]. The court also found that Krstic had aided and abetted the genocide by providing logistical support for the Bosnian Serb forces, including transporting troops and supplies to the area. The evidence presented in the case demonstrated that the perpetrators intended to eradicate the Bosnian Muslim population of Srebrenica and that Krstic had knowledge of this intent. As such, the ICTY was able to establish that genocide had been committed in Srebrenica and that Krstic had aided and abetted it. While the crime of massacre is well well-defined in international law, it can be thought-provoking to prove in practice. To prove that a genocide has been committed, prosecutors must establish that the perpetrators intended to destroy a protected group and that the perpetrators had knowledge of this intent. This can be difficult, as perpetrators may attempt to hide their true intentions and understanding of them.

Additionally, it can be challenging to prove that a protected group was specifically targeted, as opposed to other individuals or groups. The case study of Radislav Krstic (IT-98-33) is a significant one when it comes to a discussion of genocide and its parameters. This case was heard before the ICTY. This was a primary case to bring a conviction of genocide upon those responsible for the Srebrenica massacre of July 1995. In this case, the ICTY established that massacre is lawbreaking beneath international law and can be defined, although it is difficult to prove.

The charges, the jury’s decision, and the appeals all stand out as distinctive aspects of the case. Krstic was accused of participating in genocide and mass murder, committing crimes against humanity, and breaking norms for conduct in wartime. He was charged with being a member of a “joint criminal enterprise,” in which members of VRS and the police, including himself, committed a massacre, crimes against humankind, and war criminalities against Bosnian Muslim (Bosniak) civilians in the Srebrenica area, in July 1995. The Verdict was delivered on August 2, 2001; Krstic was convicted to 46 years in jail after being found guilty of assisting and encouraging genocide, torture, destruction, murder, displacement, and other heinous actions[7]. He was found not guilty of complicity in genocide but guilty of conspiracy in the other four charges. Appeal: On April 19, 2004, Krstic’s sentence was lowered to 35 years by the court of appeals, which found that he had not intended to commit genocide and that he had not had powers over the VRS soldiers that had engaged in the genocide[8]. However, the chambers of the appeals court apprehended that he knew the plan to remove the Bosnian Muslim people from the Srebrenica area and had assisted in implementing the plan.

What worked, in this case, was the fact that the ICTY was able to use circumstantial evidence to piece together the events that led to the Srebrenica massacre. The prosecution used Krstic’s statements and actions before and during the massacre to prove his involvement. Additionally, the ICTY relied on international law to establish the legal framework for the trial, which allowed them to determine Krstic’s guilt based on the ideologies of justice and the rights of human beings. The lack of physical evidence that could be used to directly prove Krstic’s guilt did not work in this case. This lack of evidence made it difficult for the ICTY to establish outside a realistic uncertainty that Krstic was accountable for the massacre. Additionally, the defendants, in this case, were not provided with adequate access to international lawyers and resources that could have helped their defense.

To make it easier to prove the crime of genocide, “The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court” should expand the defined used to describe genocide to incorporate acts such as “causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group” and “forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.” In addition, “The Updated Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia has clarified the definition by adding that it includes acts such as “murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, arbitrary imprisonment, and other inhumane acts.” These changes help to make it easier to prove the crime of genocide as they provide a more detailed definition of what constitutes genocide. In addition, “The Misjudging the History at the ICTY: Transitional and Post-Transitional Narratives about Genocide in Bosnia and Herzegovina Nevenka Tromp” report should identify several factors that can be considered when evaluating whether an act constitutes genocide. These factors include the level of violence used, the number of victims, the scale of the attack, and the degree of organization and planning. This helps to ensure that all relevant factors are considered when determining whether a crime of genocide has been committed. Additionally, while the crime of genocide is clearly defined, it can be challenging to prove that the intent to commit genocide was present. However, “the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, the Updated Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, and the Misjudging the History at the ICTY, Transitional and Post-Transitional Narratives About Genocide in Bosnia and Herzegovina Nevenka Tromp” report should come up with procedures that would make it easier to prove the crime of genocide.[9]. This is important in confirming that those accountable for obligating genocide are held responsible for their actions.

In conclusion, due to a lack of consensus on what constitutes genocide and the fact that state laws define the crime differently, proving genocide to have occurred can be challenging. Using the “Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and the Updated Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia,” the ICTY was tasked with defining genocide in the case of Radislav Krstic and finally found him guilty of helping and supporting genocide. The issue of Radislav Krstic (IT-98-33) is an actual example of the difficulty in proving genocide, despite its clear definition in the“ Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and the Updated Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia.” The difficulty of proving genocide lies in its complex nature and the lack of physical evidence that can be used to establish the criminal’s determination to commit a massacre. The ICTY was successful in authenticating the genocide at Srebrenica and convicting Krstic of aiding and abetting genocide. However, this was only possible due to the circumstantial evidence presented, such as the number of Bosnian Muslims killed and the control of the area by the Bosnian Serb forces. This case highlights the difficulty of proving genocide and how understanding the context of the crime and the factors that can be considered when determining whether an act constitutes genocide is essential to successfully proving the crime.

Additionally, the recent developments in international law, such as the “Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and the Updated Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia,” have made it easier to prove genocide, as they provide a more detailed definition of what constitutes genocide. The case of Radislav Krstic (IT-98-33) is significant in international criminal justice and the study of genocide, as it was the first time that the ICTY authenticated the genocide committed in Srebrenica and convicted an individual for assisting and aiding genocide. This case demonstrates the importance of understanding the context of genocide and the difficulty of proving it.


Drumbl, Mark. “Prosecutor v Radislav Krstic: ICTY authenticates genocide at Srebrenica and convicts for aiding and abetting.” Melbourne Journal of International Law 5, no. 2 (2004): 434-449. https://law.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/1681119/Drumbl.pdf

Updated statute of the international criminal tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. https://www.icty.org/x/file/LegalLibrary/Statute/statute_sept09_en.pdf

Tromp, Nevenka. “Misjudging the History at the ICTY: Transitional and Post-Transitional Narratives About Genocide in Bosnia and Herzegovina.” European Papers-A Journal on Law and Integration 2020, no. 3 (2021): 1191-1223. https://www.europeanpapers.eu/fr/system/files/pdf_version/EP_eJ_2020_3_6_Articles_SS1_2_Nevenka_Tromp_00431_0.pdf

Groups protected by the Conventionpdf


“Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.” OHCHR. Accessed January 11, 2023. https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/rome-statute-international-criminal-court.

[1] Updated statute of the international criminal tribunal for the former Yugoslavia.


[3] Groups protected by the Conventionpdf


[5] “Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.” OHCHR. Accessed January 11, 2023.

[6] Tromp, Nevenka. “Misjudging the History at the ICTY: Transitional and Post-Transitional Narratives About Genocide in Bosnia and Herzegovina.” European Papers-A Journal on Law and Integration 2020, no. 3 (2021)

[7] Drumbl, Mark. “Prosecutor v Radislav Krstic: ICTY authenticates genocide at Srebrenica and convicts for aiding and abetting.” Melbourne Journal of International Law 5, no. 2 (2004): 434-449


[9] Tromp, Nevenka. “Misjudging the History at the ICTY: Transitional and Post-Transitional Narratives About Genocide in Bosnia and Herzegovina.” European Papers-A Journal on Law and Integration 2020, no. 3 (2021)

Model Checking Domain Models: State-Of-The-Practice University Essay Example

Can Model Checking be used to Validate AI Planner Domain Models?

Verification and validation are the two main components of the traditional method for determining whether or not a piece of software is error-free. Verification ensures that a software implementation meets a defined set of criteria (Schwabe et al., 2019). Validation is the process of confirming that the specified criteria accurately represent the end user’s demands. The importance of validation changes somewhat when dealing with AI and knowledge-based systems. A knowledge base is used to describe the world with which the program interacts, and a thinking algorithm distorts the base of knowledge while the program is executed. The effectiveness of the AI system is directly related to the precision of the base of knowledge about the actual world. Even if a system has a perfect reasoning mechanism, it will be useless if its representation of the world is inaccurate.

As a result, validating a component of the deployed system is essential to ensure it works as intended. The HSTS Planner is a model-based planning system used in the Remote Agent automated system control architecture. We are now exploring model checking to help verify the models used in this system. Inputs to the planner include the current state and the desired result, and outputs are the necessary steps to perform in order to accomplish the latter (Schwabe et al., 2019). The resulting plan is guaranteed to be compatible with a set of temporal constraints representing real-world restrictions on the regulated system and its surroundings, thanks to the planning algorithm. Tight coupling between constraints in domain models may soon lead to a situation where the interaction between constraints Nisonger is conceptually tractable. It is preferable, therefore, to have techniques to verify the model by eliminating model discrepancies and checking to see whether the model’s implicit attributes can be inferred from the collection of explicit constraints.

Constraint Model Specifications

The HSTS Domain Description Language (DDL) is an object-oriented constraints specification language developed using Allen’s periodic interval logic to define the models of the HSTS Planner domain. Classes and instances get defined by DDL models. A variety of system variables are included inside each object. If a state variable may be changed during scheduling, it is said to be controllable; otherwise, it is said to be uncontrolled. Instances of a class of robots, for instance, might be defined and created as follows:

(Define_Object_Class Robot


((Controllable Task)

(Controllable Location)))

(Define_Object Robot Robbie)

In this language, collections of labels may be used to define objects with no properties:

(Define_Label_Set Room (Kitchen Hallway LivingRoom))

The definition is provided for each ‘member value’ of a state variable. Predicates are used to describe members’ values and may include additional arguments. The value of a state is defined by the name of a condition and the values of its arguments (Dellermann et al., 2019). Objects, labels, and built-in types are all excellent choices for predicate arguments. For instance, the Robot class has defined the potential values for the Task and Location state variables. The Task state variable that belongs to the Robot class in this example may either have the value “Moving” (x,y), where x and y are locations, or it can have the value “Idle.” In the Robot class, the Location state may take the value ‘In Room’ (x), where ‘x’ is the robot’s location.

Determining the compatibility constraints that need to exist between various values of state variables is one of how a DDL model is limited. The restrictions are stated in terms of temporal periods, also known as tokens, during which a state variable retains a particular value or combination of values (Norgeot et al., 2020). During this time, the tokens are in effect. A collection of precedence temporal operators is used to specify the suitable connections between tokens. The operators make it possible to represent any temporal connections between the beginning and ending locations of two tokens. In addition, shorthand for standard temporal connections is supported by DDL. Token descriptors are used in the refining process for DDL compatibility requirements. A pattern representing the properties of a group of tokens is referred to as a token descriptor. These patterns may either refer to a single token or a series of tokens in succession (Dellermann et al., 2019). The following format is used for compatibility specifications: (master-token-descriptor compatibility-tree), where the ‘compatibility-tree’ is a binary search tree where the nodes are time relations and the leaves are tokens. Additionally, variables may be used to impose constraints on parameter values when transferring information between the parent token identifier and the token identifiers in the ‘compatibility tree.’

Model Checking for DDL

To prepare HSTS models as valid inputs for model checkers, we must first describe them in terms of stages and transformations between stages. Each object’s state variable values define the system’s state in HSTS (Schwabe et al., 2019). When the value of at least one stage variable shifts, it is said that a transition has occurred. To make it easier to describe what occurs during a transition, we use the convention where V (resp. V’) stands for the value of variable V before (resp. after)

(SV to P) (SV != P) AND (SV’ == P)

(SV from P) (SV == P) AND (SV’ != P)

The input languages of Spin [5], SMV [2], and Murphy [4] were translated using this general translation as a starting point. Due to variances in the source languages, the translated texts had to be somewhat adjusted for each target language. By way of illustration, a short program is included with both the Spin and Murphy translations that choose the next stage of the model according to the state transition relation (Norgeot et al., 2020). A state transition relation may be specified as a propositional formula in the input languages used for SMV, which significantly facilitates translation.


This translation was tested on a scale model of a self-driving robot. The prototype was a battery-operated robot that could go from point A to point B and between. The robot’s objective was to x a hole in surface A. Out of a total of 569872 states, the model’s 66 temporal restrictions made 17320 of them attainable. The model’s constraints imposed the following restrictions:

((Robot. Task = Moving) contained by (Hole.Charge = Charge Full))

((Robot. Task = Fixing Hole) meets (Hole.Status = Hole Fixed))

The analysis that had been missed through testing discovered several possible flaws in the concept.

Since most of the robot’s modeling can be done in the subset of the language covered by the original translation, this is a reasonable assumption. Some quantitative timespan utilized in the model was lost in the recording process. In this case, we did not encounter any problems due to a lack of capacity to translate nonlocal restrictions. The research on the model’s robustness and livability revealed no significant issues. When nothing terrible happens, like in the absence of a stalemate, this is called a safety property (Schwabe et al., 2019). They are easily checked by running the model through a model checker to see whether any possible states in the model break the property. For a system to be considered “alive,” it must adhere to certain conditions, such as responding to a user’s questions or concerns at some point. Since they affect runs rather than states, they are more challenging to manage. Not all model checkers can validate liveness qualities; SPIN and SMV, for example, need a more complex state space exploration technique.

The SMV model checker is noticeably quicker than the competition for the first part of the language it supports (0.05 seconds vs. 30 seconds). This outcome occurred for two reasons. The fundamental reason for this is that the depth of the possible traces across the system was small compared to the depth of the state vector (Norgeot et al., 2020). SMV’s symbolic state space formulation and searching approach work better with this model. Sets of states are represented as logical predicates in this approach, eliminating the need to individually express each state (Clarke et al.,2018). The second is that, unlike the typical guarded programming language or computer language format for model checkers, SMV permits an explicit definition of a transition probability relation. Because of this, the translated DDL constraints may be transferred directly into the model-checking vocabulary without requiring further procedures to determine the next system based on the constraint. When the translation is extended to manage nonlocal restrictions and quantitative intervals, it remains to be shown whether SMV can keep this edge.


Some preliminary research indicates that model checking may be used to detect bugs in HSTS domain models successfully. Model checking’s comprehensive search capabilities will unearth modeling mistakes that a heuristic search during planning could miss. In the future, we want to make the translated language more expressive and automate the translation process after we have settled on the appropriate target language for model verification to be used by domain experts.


[1]. Clarke, E. M., Henzinger, T. A., & Veith, H. (2018). Introduction to model checking. In Handbook of Model Checking (pp. 1-26). Springer, Cham.

[2]. Dellermann, D., Lipusch, N., Ebel, P., & Leimeister, J. M. (2019). Design principles for a hybrid intelligence decision support system for business model validation. Electronic markets, 29(3), 423-441.

[3]. Norgeot, B., Quer, G., Beaulieu-Jones, B. K., Torkamani, A., Dias, R., Gianfrancesco, M., … & Butte, A. J. (2020). Minimum information about clinical artificial intelligence modeling: the MI-CLAIM checklist. Nature medicine, 26(9), 1320-1324.

[4]. Penix, J., Pecheur, C., & Havelund, K. (1998, December). Using model checking to validate AI planner domain models. In Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Software Engineering Workshop, NASA Goddard.

[5]. Schwabe, K., Teizer, J., & König, M. (2019). Applying rule-based model-checking to construction site layout planning tasks. Automation in construction, 97, 205-219.

Modern Technology In Education Process Free Writing Sample

Modern technology is vital in today’s life, for it improves the efficiency of activities and eases processes compared to traditional technology. Additionally, it enables people to deal with everyday changing activities since it is convenient. For example, it enhances communication through and information access through mobile phones. Also, it saves time since people can access all they need from their residences Therefore, this paper will discuss how modern technologies will change the way of teaching in the future.

Teaching techniques are essential because they enable the students to achieve various learning outcomes, such as understanding the content and utilizing the knowledge in certain situations. Therefore, modern technology will play an essential role in educating since the world is changing and students are improving their way of acquiring education. Hence, it will change the future of education in various forms, such as; by making education easily accessible globally through the internet and websites (Raja & Nagasubramani, 2018). For example, if one is researching a certain topic, it will be easier for them to get all the information by use of their phones and computers to search on the internet. Besides, it is cost-effective since it requires students to access the internet and gadgets such as a phone to get educated (Raja & Nagasubramani, 2018). Since Most students cannot afford to be enrolled in colleges and premium schools, they can use modern technology to attend virtual classes from experienced professionals.

Additionally, there will be greater content delivery through cloud computing services such as storage, improved productivity, and enhanced communication. Cloud computing enables one to save and update information without the problem of re-printing compared to the traditional way of teaching (Kale, & Mente, 2017). Also, it will enhance skill training for people with experience and exposure to improve their careers. With the changing business environment, modern technology will enable people to attain various knowledge on the skills required in different businesses by attending various online courses, such as improving job and technological skills. Besides, it will enhance job opportunities since people will convert to working online. For example, it will enable start-up businesses to sell their products online through the training they get from their tutors.

Modern technology will increase virtual reality in learning institutions, making teaching a fun and engaging activity since the students can see and hear various activities, leading to an enhanced understanding of what is taught (Hamilton et al., 2021). For instance, instead of a teacher teaching about ancient Rome using a workbook, they can put on virtual reality headphones and encounter Rome for themselves. Also, it will enable educators to execute their duties efficaciously through Artificial Intelligence, machines that imitate human intellect to undertake various tasks (Guan, Mou & Jiang, 2020). Therefore, a teacher can decide to design the most effective studying plan for every student due to the student’s varying histories and learning capacities.

Conclusively, modern technology is vital in future learning since the world is changing and people are adopting a better and easier way of living. Hence, it will change the way of learning in various ways, such as; by providing cost-effective education through the internet, ensuring that learning is easily accessible on various platforms such as websites, and improving content delivery through cloud computing. Additionally, it will improve people’s skills through offering virtual skills classes and enhancing virtue reality. Also, artificial intelligence will lead to improved education delivery by teachers. Therefore, modern technology is essential in teaching in the future.


Guan, C., Mou, J., & Jiang, Z. (2020). Artificial intelligence innovation in education: a twenty-year data-driven historical analysis. International Journal of Innovation Studies4(4), 134-147.

Hamilton, D., McKechnie, J., Edgerton, E., & Wilson, C. (2021). Immersive virtual reality as a pedagogical tool in education: a systematic literature review of quantitative learning outcomes and experimental design. Journal of Computers in Education8(1), 1-32.

Kale, M., & Mente, R. (2017). Impact of cloud computing on education system. International Journal of Electronics, Electrical and Computational System IJEECS6(11), 139-144.

Raja, R., & Nagasubramani, P. C. (2018). Impact of modern technology in education. Journal of Applied and Advanced Research3(1), 33-35.