The article could benefit from a clearer distinction between the difficulty of proving in a court of law the intent of an individual (not a country) to commit genocide and the moral and legal imperative to prevent and punish mass atrocities. The report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (http://www.iciss.ca/report-en.asp) has much to offer in this area. It puts forth the principle, upheld by the General Assembly in 2005, of the "The Responsibility to Protect", the idea that sovereign states have a responsibility to protect their own citizens from avoidable catastrophe, but that when they are unwilling or unable to do so, that responsibility must be borne by the broader community of states.

Looking at a spectrum from prevention to post-conflict reconstruction, the report lays out the responsibilities that outside states have to protect the people of countries that are either unable or unwilling to protect them from mass atrocities. In this context, whether mass atrocities rise to the level of genocide - a high bar - is irrelevant. Does it really matter, in this context, if those carrying out the killings have the intent to exterminate an entire cultural group, so long as it is clear that there are deliberate mass killings of that group or any groups?

In terms of the actions that countries should take in response to mass killings, how relevant is genocide and its related question of intent to destroy in whole or in part a cultural group? If half a million people are being killed, and those responsible are held accountable for their actions, does it matter whether we call it genocide or crimes against humanity? I don't have an answer to this question, but wonder how often the debate about genocide gets in the way of taking action now to stop preventable atrocities.

It is widely accepted in the conflict resolution field that peace without justice and accountability is rarely a sustainable peace. Beyond the moral imperative of justice for the victims, a just peace is a more stable and sustainable peace in the long run. Leaving those who commit mass atrocities in a position of power more often than not leads to more atrocities along the line (the same regime in Khartoum that is sponsoring the atrocities in Darfur spent twenty years doing the same in Southern Sudan); why then quibble over the term genocide when it comes to intervention and prosecution? Yes, it is an important distinction, but I believe that it is a more important distinction for history, not for making foreign policy decisions in the here-and-now. What advocates of action to stop mass killings should focus on is the agreed-upon principle of the responsibility to protect, regardless of whether the legal bar to genocide is met.