Chandran Kukathas on Genocide

If the player doesn't work try this link

The problem, however, is that the word ‘intention’ is also capable of broad and narrow definition. One might, particularly in war, intend (inasmuch as one foresees the consequences of one’s actions) the destruction of a group, but for reasons that have to do with the exigencies of war rather than any wish to destroy the group as such. Groups might suffer as collateral damage, though destroying the group was never a part of the motive behind the exercise that led to its destruction. A broad definition of ‘intention’ would uncouple it from ‘motive’. The problem here is that a great many acts might then be deemed genocidal, particularly during war. 

A narrow definition of ‘intention’ that tied it more tightly to ‘motive’, however, runs the risk of providing cover for those accused of ‘genocide’ by allowing them to shelter behind the claim that the destruction of the group was not their intention but merely an unfortunate consequence of the pursuit of other, legitimate, aims. This matter is further complicated by the fact that in many circumstances, and notably in war, people act from mixed or multiple motives. Even if the destruction of a group might be the result of actions motivated by hatred of the national, religious, or racial body in question, so be the case that the group is destroyed to serve other ends, such as national security. Must the word genocide be confined to acts whose motives are ‘pure’, or does the existence of any kind of group hatred condemn, as genocidal, acts perpetrated primarily for other reasons?

transcript