|
Genocide denial is an attempt to deny or minimize statements of the scale and severity of an incidence of genocide. Some of the better-known examples are Holocaust denial, the Armenian Genocide denial, the Serbian Genocide denial, the Rwandan Genocide denial, Denial of the Holodomor and the Bosnian Genocide denial. Where there is near universal agreement that a genocide occurred, genocide denial is usually considered a form of illegitimate historical revisionism. However, in circumstances where the generally accepted facts do not clearly support the occurrence of a genocide, the use of the term may be an ''ad hominem'' by those who argue that a genocide occurred. The extremely serious nature of the crime of genocide, along with the terrible reputation it creates, and potential repercussions that may come against a nation as a result of committing it, ensures that whenever genocide is charged, there will be parties that attempt to avoid or divert blame.〔 However Larissa van den Herik has pointed out there is a gap in international law that encourages the use of the charge of genocide when other charges might be more appropriate "The only way for Bosnia to go to the ICJ was to allege genocide. There is no Crimes against Humanity Convention providing for jurisdiction for the ICJ"〔Tosh, Caroline (Genocide Acquittal Provokes Legal Debate ), TU No 491, (Institute for War & Peace Reporting ) 2 March 2007. Reporting the views of Larissa van den Herik and others〕 The European Commission proposed a European Union–wide anti-racism law in 2001, which included an offense of genocide denial, but European Union states failed to agree on the balance between prohibiting racism and freedom of expression. After six years of wrangling a watered down compromise was reached in 2007 giving states freedom to implement the legislation as they saw fit.〔Ethan McNern. (Swastika ban left out of EU's racism law ), The Scotsman, 30 January 2007〕〔runo Waterfield. (EU plans far-reaching 'genocide denial' law ), The Daily Telegraph 4 February 2007〕〔Ingrid Melander (EU to agree watered-down anti-racism law-diplomats ), Reuters, 18 April 2007.〕 ==Techniques used by illegitimate historical revisionists== The distinction between respectable academic historians and those of illegitimate historical revisionists rests on the techniques used to write such histories. Accuracy and revision are central to historical scholarship. As in any academic discipline, historians' papers are submitted to peer review. Instead of submitting their work to the challenges of peer review, illegitimate revisionists rewrite history to support an agenda, often political, using any number of techniques and rhetorical fallacies to obtain their results. Richard Evans describes the difference thus: 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「genocide denial」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|