International courts are facing unprecedented pressure to expand legal definitions to meet contemporary expectations of accountability. From genocide to war crimes, the temptation to stretch established thresholds is growing. But when legal terms become elastic, applied without rigorous evidentiary standards, they cease to function as law at all. The ICJ's current caseload illustrates why maintaining strict legal standards isn't pedantry, it's the foundation of legitimate international adjudication.

The International Court of Justice is hearing genocide allegations against Myanmar over its treatment of the Rohingya population in Rakhine State. But this isn't about whether terrible violence occurred or whether serious crimes were committed. It's about whether that violence meets the Genocide Convention's exceptionally demanding legal test for specific intent to destroy a group, and why loosening that standard would damage the credibility of genocide law itself.