Caroline Fournet – författare

This highly original work provides a thought-provoking and valuable resource for researchers and academics with an interest in genocide, criminology, international organizations, and law and society. In her book, Caroline Fournet examines the law relating to genocide and explores the apparent failure of society to provide an adequate response to incidences of mass atrocity. The work casts a legal perspective on this social phenomenon to show that genocide fails to be appropriately remembered due to inherent defects in the law of genocide itself. The book thus connects the social response to the legal theory and practice, and trials in particular. Fournet's study illustrates the shortcomings of the Genocide Convention as a means of preventing and punishing genocide as well as its consequent failure to ensure the memory of this heinous crime.

This highly original work provides a thought-provoking and valuable resource for researchers and academics with an interest in genocide, criminology, international organizations, and law and society. In her book, Caroline Fournet examines the law relating to genocide and explores the apparent failure of society to provide an adequate response to incidences of mass atrocity. The work casts a legal perspective on this social phenomenon to show that genocide fails to be appropriately remembered due to inherent defects in the law of genocide itself. The book thus connects the social response to the legal theory and practice, and trials in particular. Fournet's study illustrates the shortcomings of the Genocide Convention as a means of preventing and punishing genocide as well as its consequent failure to ensure the memory of this heinous crime.

This highly original work provides a thought-provoking and valuable resource for researchers and academics with an interest in genocide, criminology, international organizations, and law and society. In her book, Caroline Fournet examines the law relating to genocide and explores the apparent failure of society to provide an adequate response to incidences of mass atrocity. The work casts a legal perspective on this social phenomenon to show that genocide fails to be appropriately remembered due to inherent defects in the law of genocide itself. The book thus connects the social response to the legal theory and practice, and trials in particular. Fournet''s study illustrates the shortcomings of the Genocide Convention as a means of preventing and punishing genocide as well as its consequent failure to ensure the memory of this heinous crime.

This highly original work provides a thought-provoking and valuable resource for researchers and academics with an interest in genocide, criminology, international organizations, and law and society. In her book, Caroline Fournet examines the law relating to genocide and explores the apparent failure of society to provide an adequate response to incidences of mass atrocity. The work casts a legal perspective on this social phenomenon to show that genocide fails to be appropriately remembered due to inherent defects in the law of genocide itself. The book thus connects the social response to the legal theory and practice, and trials in particular. Fournet''s study illustrates the shortcomings of the Genocide Convention as a means of preventing and punishing genocide as well as its consequent failure to ensure the memory of this heinous crime.

This book explores the ambiguities of the French law of genocide by exposing the inexplicable dichotomy between a progressive theory and an overly conservative practice. Based on the observation that the crime of genocide has remained absent from French courtrooms to the benefit of crimes against humanity, this research dissects the reasons for this absence, reviewing and analysing the potential legal obstacles to the judicial use of the law of genocide before contemplating the definitional impact of this judicial reluctance and the consequent confusion between the two crimes. Whilst it uses the French law of genocide and related case law on crimes against humanity as its focal points, the book further adopts a more general standpoint, suggesting that the French misunderstandings of the crime of genocide might ultimately be symptomatic of a more widespread misconception of the crime of genocide as a crime perpetrated against ''a group''.

This book explores the ambiguities of the French law of genocide by exposing the inexplicable dichotomy between a progressive theory and an overly conservative practice. Based on the observation that the crime of genocide has remained absent from French courtrooms to the benefit of crimes against humanity, this research dissects the reasons for this absence, reviewing and analysing the potential legal obstacles to the judicial use of the law of genocide before contemplating the definitional impact of this judicial reluctance and the consequent confusion between the two crimes. Whilst it uses the French law of genocide and related case law on crimes against humanity as its focal points, the book further adopts a more general standpoint, suggesting that the French misunderstandings of the crime of genocide might ultimately be symptomatic of a more widespread misconception of the crime of genocide as a crime perpetrated against ''a group''.

This book explores the ambiguities of the French law of genocide by exposing the inexplicable dichotomy between a progressive theory and an overly conservative practice. Based on the observation that the crime of genocide has remained absent from French courtrooms to the benefit of crimes against humanity, this research dissects the reasons for this absence, reviewing and analysing the potential legal obstacles to the judicial use of the law of genocide before contemplating the definitional impact of this judicial reluctance and the consequent confusion between the two crimes. Whilst it uses the French law of genocide and related case law on crimes against humanity as its focal points, the book further adopts a more general standpoint, suggesting that the French misunderstandings of the crime of genocide might ultimately be symptomatic of a more widespread misconception of the crime of genocide as a crime perpetrated against 'a group'.