{"id":2838,"date":"2021-11-03T17:21:52","date_gmt":"2021-11-03T17:21:52","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/cornellilj.org\/?p=2838"},"modified":"2021-11-03T17:21:52","modified_gmt":"2021-11-03T17:21:52","slug":"the-broken-promise-of-never-again-myanmars-genocide-analyzed-under-the-u-n-genocide-convention-and-the-international-criminal-tribunal-for-rwandas-interpretation","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/cilj\/2021\/11\/03\/the-broken-promise-of-never-again-myanmars-genocide-analyzed-under-the-u-n-genocide-convention-and-the-international-criminal-tribunal-for-rwandas-interpretation\/","title":{"rendered":"The Broken Promise of \u201cNever Again\u201d: Myanmar\u2019s Genocide Analyzed Under the U.N. Genocide Convention and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda\u2019s Interpretation of the Convention"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">This Note examines the current genocide occurring in Myanmar. It looks at Myanmar\u2019s cruel and inhumane treatment of the Rohingya community\u2014a Muslim minority group in Myanmar with an initial population of one million. This Note proposes that Myanmar\u2019s treatment of the Rohingya classifies as a genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Specifically, this Note retraces the evolution of persecution against the Rohingya community. Lastly, this Note studies Bangladesh\u2019s response to the crisis since that is where most of the Rohingya seek refuge.&nbsp;<br><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>This Note examines the current genocide occurring in Myanmar. It looks at Myanmar\u2019s cruel and inhumane treatment of the Rohingya community\u2014a Muslim minority group in Myanmar with an initial population of one million. This Note proposes that Myanmar\u2019s treatment of the Rohingya classifies as a genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of&#8230;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":2848,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[20,22,28],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2838","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-notes","category-print-archive","category-volume-53-issue-4"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/cilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2838","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/cilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/cilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/cilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/cilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2838"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/cilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2838\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/cilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2848"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/cilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2838"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/cilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2838"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/cilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2838"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}