At the risk it provoking another infantile tit for tat debate about freedom of speech, I noticed this story from France What interested me most were a series of bullet point further down the page that read... Now, clearly citizens of the USA (which along with other countries like Bahrain, Malaysia, Vietnam and Yemen negotiated immunity from prosecution from genocide unless they agree to be prosecuted for it) may have a different view on this than most other countries that have ratified the Genocide Convention, but I wondered exactly what form of 'International Commission' has the right to rule on what acts are considered acts of genocide. I assume that in the US, the view is that nobody has the right to rule anything about the US except the US itself. But what about in general? The UN? The European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg? Let's take a domestic example, and ignore for a second the immunity that the USA has negotiated. If the Court of Human Rights ruled that the persecution of Native Americans was an act of genocide, what would be people's views of the competence of the court to so rule? Or if that's too close to home, how about the story I quoted t the beginning - let's say for example the UN ruled about the Armenian 'Genocide'? If a government or group are to be prosecuted for genocide, someone must first have the authority to confirm that genocide has taken place. Who has that authority? I realize this is a broad and complex issue, and that I may have potentially framed it incorrectly, but I'd like to hear views. N.B. This may be in the wrong forum, but 'History' seemed appropriate.