Definition in the international law --- I would oppose to the Aristotelian approach the less philosophical but clearer approach of the international law.

Under international law, for example, genocide is not only defined but is also illustrated with examples.

"In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group." (Article II, Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide).

So are other categories defined in other Conventions. It is true that the public, the journalists, and the politicians try to distort or reinterpret legal language in their own way, but still international law draws the line between right and wrong.

Source author: Petru Dumitriu PetruD@diplomacy.edu