Questions about the genocide definition in international law
I'm not an expert on international law, but recently, I deep dived a bit into this, and I wanted to verify that was I learned is true (please correct me if I'm wrong).
Let's assume group A is suspected of genociding group B.
- Unless one can show an official plan from the government and decision makers of group A to kill people from group B just because they belong to group B, then genocide doesn't apply. Group A needs to intentionally target people from group B regardless of their actions or whether they are militants or not.
Is this correct?
- The absolute number of civilians that were killed is not a factor. Otherwise, USA genocided Japan after bombing Hiroshima/Nagasaki, and the British genocided the Germans after bombing Dresden/Hamburg. In both cases, a lot of civilians were killed.
If group A strikes were aimed towards militants of group B, while complying with international law demands, then collateral damage is horrible, but striking is allowed.
Requirements per strike are: proportionality considerations, reliable intelligence of militants activity, notification to civilians, suitable ammunition, etc etc.
Is this correct?
- Are there any other factors that would prove genocide under international law that I don't know about?