What the word was doing

Examine which events or concepts speakers associate with genocide and whether they assert, reject or report a claim. The tables summarise language-model classifications. Open the quotations to assess them in context.

Experimental — model-derived

These are experimental model classifications. A referent is the case or concept a mention concerns; speaker position describes how the passage presents the claim. Human coding provides a separate reference for evaluation, with disagreements recorded. The progress figures below show how much has been reviewed. Word counts elsewhere do not depend on these labels.

Partial preview. 7,694 of 7,747 occurrences are annotated; 53 are missing. Counts may change when the remaining responses are recovered.

Human validation has not started. Use these classifications to explore passages, not as validated research findings. Quotations with invalid evidence are excluded from the discourse figures.

Model: Qwen/Qwen3.8-27B · revision 1d4bf0f2ff60
Computing setup: vLLM 0.28.0 on 1 × NVIDIA H100 80GB HBM3; project-controlled hardware
Run: 2026-09-08-qwen-131k · 2026-09-08
Prompt: v3 · sha256:3772c44d400f…
Reasoning setting: xhigh
Coverage: 7,694 of 7,747 occurrences, over 4,174 requests
Uncertain labels: 0 validity decisions · 19 cases or concepts · 5 speaker position
Excluded responses: 36 responses without valid annotations · 4 incomplete responses · 24 invalid evidence quotations
Human reference sample: not started — 0 of 200 coded

Which genocide each delegation means

Which genocide is each delegation talking about when it says the word?

Model-derived · experimental

Unit

occurrences placed on a referent, published for every delegation Ordered by

occurrences 0 806 no assigned mentions

Delegations down the side, referents across the top; each cell holds the occurrences that delegation placed on that referent.
Delegation

Press Tab to enter the table, then use the arrow keys to move between cells and headings. Home and End move to the first and last cells in a row.

Showing 70 of 240 affiliations with assigned mentions. The download includes 170 additional affiliations with 1,547 mentions. 28 omitted affiliations meet the share threshold; the display also has a row limit. 1 further affiliations have no assigned mentions.

Cells count individual mentions or their share, according to the selected unit. Repeated mentions within one speech count separately.

How to read this

Rows are affiliations; columns are cases or concepts. Darker amber means more assigned mentions or a larger share, depending on the unit. Column labels sort highest counts first; cells open passages. The final columns cover general or legal discussion. Shares are withheld below 20 eligible occurrences.

What it does not show

The model assigns the cases and concepts. A case label identifies what the passage concerns, not whether genocide occurred or the speaker endorsed the claim. Review status: 0 of 200 sampled entries have human coding. Check the quotations before interpreting a pattern.

The occurrences behind a cell

Pick a cell, a delegation or a referent above and the occurrences behind it are listed here, each with the sentence it was read from and a way into the speech it came from.

When each delegation first said it

When did each delegation first place the word on this genocide, first assert it, and first refuse it?

Model-derived · experimental

Case or concept

Placed the word on it120Refused the word for it3Asserted it119

120 0

1960198020002020

The model assigns mentions of Rwanda to 120 affiliations. Of these, 119 have an assertion and 3 a rejection. An affiliation can appear in both curves if different passages receive those labels.

Every first the curves are made of, for Rwanda, oldest first
Date	Delegation	Milestone	Position	Cumulative count	Occurrence
5 May 1994	Czech Republic	Placed the word on it	Asserts	1	`SC03375-01-016#1`
5 May 1994	Czech Republic	Asserted it	Asserts	1	`SC03375-01-016#1`
16 May 1994	New Zealand	Placed the word on it	Asserts	2	`SC03377-01-015#1`
16 May 1994	New Zealand	Asserted it	Asserts	2	`SC03377-01-015#1`
8 June 1994	Djibouti	Placed the word on it	Asserts	3	`SC03388-02-002#1`
8 June 1994	Djibouti	Asserted it	Asserts	3	`SC03388-02-002#1`
8 June 1994	Argentina	Placed the word on it	Asserts	4	`SC03388-02-014#1`
8 June 1994	Argentina	Asserted it	Asserts	4	`SC03388-02-014#1`
8 June 1994	United Kingdom	Placed the word on it	Asserts	5	`SC03388-02-016#1`
8 June 1994	United Kingdom	Asserted it	Asserts	5	`SC03388-02-016#1`
8 June 1994	Spain	Placed the word on it	Reports without a position	6	`SC03388-02-018#1`
8 June 1994	France	Placed the word on it	Asserts	7	`SC03388-02-023#1`
8 June 1994	France	Asserted it	Asserts	6	`SC03388-02-023#1`
8 June 1994	United States of America	Placed the word on it	Asserts	8	`SC03388-02-026#1`
8 June 1994	United States of America	Asserted it	Asserts	7	`SC03388-02-026#1`
1 July 1994	Spain	Asserted it	Asserts	8	`SC03400-01-003#2`
10 August 1994	Russia	Placed the word on it	Asserts	9	`SC03414-01-002#1`
10 August 1994	Russia	Asserted it	Asserts	9	`SC03414-01-002#1`
8 November 1994	Brazil	Placed the word on it	Asserts	10	`SC03453-01-010#1`
8 November 1994	Brazil	Asserted it	Asserts	10	`SC03453-01-010#1`
8 November 1994	China	Placed the word on it	Asserts	11	`SC03453-01-012#1`
8 November 1994	China	Asserted it	Asserts	11	`SC03453-01-012#1`
8 November 1994	Nigeria	Placed the word on it	Asserts	12	`SC03453-01-014#1`
8 November 1994	Nigeria	Asserted it	Asserts	12	`SC03453-01-014#1`
8 November 1994	Rwanda	Placed the word on it	Reports without a position	13	`SC03453-01-015#1`
8 November 1994	Rwanda	Asserted it	Asserts	13	`SC03453-01-015#10`
8 November 1994	Oman	Placed the word on it	Asserts	14	`SC03453-01-016#1`
8 November 1994	Oman	Asserted it	Asserts	14	`SC03453-01-016#1`
30 November 1994	United States of America	Refused the word for it	Rejects	1	`SC03473-01-013#1`
18 January 1995	Canada	Placed the word on it	Asserts	15	`SC03492-02-023#1`
18 January 1995	Canada	Asserted it	Asserts	15	`SC03492-02-023#1`
9 June 1995	Indonesia	Placed the word on it	Asserts	16	`SC03542-01-008#1`
9 June 1995	Indonesia	Asserted it	Asserts	16	`SC03542-01-008#1`
9 June 1995	Botswana	Placed the word on it	Asserts	17	`SC03542-01-010#1`
9 June 1995	Botswana	Asserted it	Asserts	17	`SC03542-01-010#1`
9 June 1995	Honduras	Placed the word on it	Asserts	18	`SC03542-01-012#1`
9 June 1995	Honduras	Asserted it	Asserts	18	`SC03542-01-012#1`
9 June 1995	Germany	Placed the word on it	Asserts	19	`SC03542-01-034#1`
9 June 1995	Germany	Asserted it	Asserts	19	`SC03542-01-034#1`
28 August 1995	Burundi	Placed the word on it	Asserts	20	`SC03571-01-003#2`
28 August 1995	Burundi	Asserted it	Asserts	20	`SC03571-01-003#2`
7 September 1995	Italy	Placed the word on it	Asserts	21	`SC03574-01-027#1`
7 September 1995	Italy	Asserted it	Asserts	21	`SC03574-01-027#1`
22 November 1995	Bosnia and Herzegovina	Placed the word on it	Asserts	22	`SC03595-01-024#1`
22 November 1995	Bosnia and Herzegovina	Asserted it	Asserts	22	`SC03595-01-024#1`
20 December 1995	Australia	Placed the word on it	Asserts	23	`SC03611-02-026#1`
20 December 1995	Australia	Asserted it	Asserts	23	`SC03611-02-026#1`
5 March 1996	Poland	Placed the word on it	Asserts	24	`SC03639-01-030#1`
5 March 1996	Poland	Asserted it	Asserts	24	`SC03639-01-030#1`
8 March 1996	Chile	Placed the word on it	Asserts	25	`SC03640-01-006#1`
8 March 1996	Chile	Asserted it	Asserts	25	`SC03640-01-006#1`
8 March 1996	Egypt	Placed the word on it	Asserts	26	`SC03640-01-020#1`
8 March 1996	Egypt	Asserted it	Asserts	26	`SC03640-01-020#1`
15 November 1996	Democratic Republic of the Congo	Placed the word on it	Asserts	27	`SC03713-02-003#1`
15 November 1996	Democratic Republic of the Congo	Asserted it	Asserts	27	`SC03713-02-003#1`
25 September 1997	Organization of African Unity	Placed the word on it	Asserts	28	`SC03819-01-009#1`
25 September 1997	Organization of African Unity	Asserted it	Asserts	28	`SC03819-01-009#1`
9 April 1998	Portugal	Placed the word on it	Asserts	29	`SC03870-01-010#1`
9 April 1998	Portugal	Asserted it	Asserts	29	`SC03870-01-010#1`
9 April 1998	Sweden	Placed the word on it	Asserts	30	`SC03870-01-013#1`
9 April 1998	Sweden	Asserted it	Asserts	30	`SC03870-01-013#1`
9 April 1998	Slovenia	Placed the word on it	Asserts	31	`SC03870-01-016#1`
9 April 1998	Slovenia	Asserted it	Asserts	31	`SC03870-01-016#1`
9 April 1998	Japan	Placed the word on it	Asserts	32	`SC03870-01-022#1`
9 April 1998	Japan	Asserted it	Asserts	32	`SC03870-01-022#1`
24 April 1998	Bahrain	Placed the word on it	Asserts	33	`SC03875-01-015#1`
24 April 1998	Bahrain	Asserted it	Asserts	33	`SC03875-01-015#1`
30 April 1998	Costa Rica	Placed the word on it	Asserts	34	`SC03877-01-008#1`
30 April 1998	Costa Rica	Asserted it	Asserts	34	`SC03877-01-008#1`
30 April 1998	Gabon	Placed the word on it	Asserts	35	`SC03877-01-012#1`
30 April 1998	Gabon	Asserted it	Asserts	35	`SC03877-01-012#1`
21 January 1999	United Nations	Placed the word on it	Asserts	36	`SC03968-01-002#3`
21 January 1999	United Nations	Asserted it	Asserts	36	`SC03968-01-002#3`
21 January 1999	Netherlands	Placed the word on it	Asserts	37	`SC03968-01-011#1`
21 January 1999	Netherlands	Asserted it	Asserts	37	`SC03968-01-011#1`
19 March 1999	Uganda	Placed the word on it	Asserts	38	`SC03987-01-013#1`
19 March 1999	Uganda	Asserted it	Asserts	38	`SC03987-01-013#1`
17 September 1999	Iraq	Placed the word on it	Asserts	39	`SC04046-03-010#1`
17 September 1999	Iraq	Asserted it	Asserts	39	`SC04046-03-010#1`
29 November 1999	Malaysia	Placed the word on it	Asserts	40	`SC04072-02-020#2`
29 November 1999	Malaysia	Asserted it	Asserts	40	`SC04072-02-020#2`
30 November 1999	Liechtenstein	Placed the word on it	Asserts	41	`SC04072-01-004#1`
30 November 1999	Liechtenstein	Asserted it	Asserts	41	`SC04072-01-004#1`
30 November 1999	Zambia	Placed the word on it	Asserts	42	`SC04072-01-006#1`
30 November 1999	Zambia	Asserted it	Asserts	42	`SC04072-01-006#1`
26 January 2000	Ukraine	Placed the word on it	Asserts	43	`SC04092-03-008#1`
26 January 2000	Ukraine	Asserted it	Asserts	43	`SC04092-03-008#1`
14 April 2000	Independent Inquiry into the Actions of the United Nations during the 1994 Genocide in Rwanda	Placed the word on it	Asserts	44	`SC04127-01-003#11`
14 April 2000	Independent Inquiry into the Actions of the United Nations during the 1994 Genocide in Rwanda	Asserted it	Asserts	44	`SC04127-01-003#11`
14 April 2000	Mali	Placed the word on it	Asserts	45	`SC04127-01-010#1`
14 April 2000	Mali	Asserted it	Asserts	45	`SC04127-01-010#1`
14 April 2000	Tunisia	Placed the word on it	Asserts	46	`SC04127-01-016#1`
14 April 2000	Tunisia	Asserted it	Asserts	46	`SC04127-01-016#1`
14 April 2000	Namibia	Placed the word on it	Asserts	47	`SC04127-01-019#1`
14 April 2000	Namibia	Asserted it	Asserts	47	`SC04127-01-019#1`
14 April 2000	Bangladesh	Placed the word on it	Asserts	48	`SC04127-01-021#1`
14 April 2000	Bangladesh	Asserted it	Asserts	48	`SC04127-01-021#1`
14 April 2000	Jamaica	Placed the word on it	Asserts	49	`SC04127-01-022#1`
14 April 2000	Jamaica	Asserted it	Asserts	49	`SC04127-01-022#1`
19 April 2000	Singapore	Placed the word on it	Asserts	50	`SC04130-01-010#1`
19 April 2000	Singapore	Asserted it	Asserts	50	`SC04130-01-010#1`
2 June 2000	International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia since 1991; International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda	Placed the word on it	Asserts	51	`SC04150-01-004#1`
2 June 2000	International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia since 1991; International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda	Asserted it	Asserts	51	`SC04150-01-004#1`
26 July 2000	India	Placed the word on it	Asserts	52	`SC04176-03-023#1`
26 July 2000	India	Asserted it	Asserts	52	`SC04176-03-023#1`
21 November 2000	International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda	Placed the word on it	Asserts	53	`SC04229-01-004#1`
21 November 2000	International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda	Asserted it	Asserts	53	`SC04229-01-004#1`
16 January 2001	Mauritius	Placed the word on it	Asserts	54	`SC04257-02-013#1`
16 January 2001	Mauritius	Asserted it	Asserts	54	`SC04257-02-013#1`
19 January 2001	Colombia	Placed the word on it	Asserts	55	`SC04259-02-001#1`
19 January 2001	Colombia	Asserted it	Asserts	55	`SC04259-02-001#1`
7 February 2001	Ireland	Placed the word on it	Asserts	56	`SC04273-01-012#1`
7 February 2001	Ireland	Asserted it	Asserts	56	`SC04273-01-012#1`
7 February 2001	Norway	Placed the word on it	Asserts	57	`SC04273-01-016#1`
7 February 2001	Norway	Asserted it	Asserts	57	`SC04273-01-016#1`
27 November 2001	International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia since 1991	Placed the word on it	Asserts	58	`SC04429-01-007#1`
27 November 2001	International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia since 1991	Asserted it	Asserts	58	`SC04429-01-007#1`
10 July 2002	Jordan	Placed the word on it	Asserts	59	`SC04568-01-023#1`
10 July 2002	Jordan	Asserted it	Asserts	59	`SC04568-01-023#1`
8 August 2002	South Africa	Placed the word on it	Asserts	60	`SC04596-01-008#1`
8 August 2002	South Africa	Asserted it	Asserts	60	`SC04596-01-008#1`
11 October 2002	Senegal	Placed the word on it	Asserts	61	`SC04623-02-043#1`
11 October 2002	Senegal	Asserted it	Asserts	61	`SC04623-02-043#1`
22 October 2002	IBRD	Placed the word on it	Asserts	62	`SC04630-01-009#1`
22 October 2002	IBRD	Asserted it	Asserts	62	`SC04630-01-009#1`
10 December 2002	Denmark	Placed the word on it	Asserts	63	`SC04660-01-002#1`
10 December 2002	Denmark	Asserted it	Asserts	63	`SC04660-01-002#1`
13 May 2003	Ethiopia	Placed the word on it	Asserts	64	`SC04753-02-015#2`
13 May 2003	Ethiopia	Asserted it	Asserts	64	`SC04753-02-015#2`
12 June 2003	Malawi	Placed the word on it	Asserts	65	`SC04772-01-021#2`
12 June 2003	Malawi	Asserted it	Asserts	65	`SC04772-01-021#2`
9 October 2003	Guinea	Placed the word on it	Asserts	66	`SC04838-01-023#1`
9 October 2003	Guinea	Asserted it	Asserts	66	`SC04838-01-023#1`
20 November 2003	African Union	Placed the word on it	Asserts	67	`SC04865-01-008#1`
20 November 2003	African Union	Asserted it	Asserts	67	`SC04865-01-008#1`
20 November 2003	Angola	Placed the word on it	Asserts	68	`SC04865-01-030#1`
20 November 2003	Angola	Asserted it	Asserts	68	`SC04865-01-030#1`
20 November 2003	Mozambique	Placed the word on it	Asserts	69	`SC04865-01-033#1`
20 November 2003	Mozambique	Asserted it	Asserts	69	`SC04865-01-033#1`
24 November 2003	Economic Community of Central African States	Placed the word on it	Asserts	70	`SC04871-01-032#1`
24 November 2003	Economic Community of Central African States	Asserted it	Asserts	70	`SC04871-01-032#1`
14 May 2004	Pakistan	Placed the word on it	Asserts	71	`SC04969-01-002#1`
14 May 2004	Pakistan	Asserted it	Asserts	71	`SC04969-01-002#1`
17 May 2004	Peru	Placed the word on it	Asserts	72	`SC04970-02-014#1`
17 May 2004	Peru	Asserted it	Asserts	72	`SC04970-02-014#1`
28 May 2004	Philippines	Placed the word on it	Rejects	73	`SC04980-01-011#1`
28 May 2004	Philippines	Refused the word for it	Rejects	2	`SC04980-01-011#1`
29 June 2004	Benin	Placed the word on it	Asserts	74	`SC04999-02-002#2`
29 June 2004	Benin	Asserted it	Asserts	73	`SC04999-02-002#2`
18 November 2004	Intergovernmental Authority on Development	Placed the word on it	Asserts	75	`SC05080-01-013#1`
18 November 2004	Intergovernmental Authority on Development	Asserted it	Asserts	74	`SC05080-01-013#1`
14 December 2004	Ivory Coast	Placed the word on it	Asserts	76	`SC05100-01-025#1`
14 December 2004	Ivory Coast	Asserted it	Asserts	75	`SC05100-01-025#1`
13 June 2005	Algeria	Placed the word on it	Asserts	77	`SC05199-01-022#1`
13 June 2005	Algeria	Asserted it	Asserts	76	`SC05199-01-022#1`
21 June 2005	Tanzania	Placed the word on it	Asserts	78	`SC05209-01-006#1`
21 June 2005	Tanzania	Asserted it	Asserts	77	`SC05209-01-006#1`
27 January 2006	Kenya	Placed the word on it	Asserts	79	`SC05359-01-013#1`
27 January 2006	Kenya	Asserted it	Asserts	78	`SC05359-01-013#1`
27 January 2006	Greece	Placed the word on it	Asserts	80	`SC05359-01-026#1`
27 January 2006	Greece	Asserted it	Asserts	79	`SC05359-01-026#1`
27 January 2006	South Korea	Placed the word on it	Asserts	81	`SC05359-01-034#1`
27 January 2006	South Korea	Asserted it	Asserts	80	`SC05359-01-034#1`
27 January 2006	European Commission	Placed the word on it	Asserts	82	`SC05359-02-013#1`
27 January 2006	European Commission	Asserted it	Asserts	81	`SC05359-02-013#1`
7 June 2006	Ghana	Placed the word on it	Asserts	83	`SC05453-01-018#2`
7 June 2006	Ghana	Asserted it	Asserts	82	`SC05453-01-018#2`
7 June 2006	Slovakia	Placed the word on it	Asserts	84	`SC05453-01-024#1`
7 June 2006	Slovakia	Asserted it	Asserts	83	`SC05453-01-024#1`
15 December 2006	Qatar	Placed the word on it	Asserts	85	`SC05594-01-021#1`
15 December 2006	Qatar	Asserted it	Asserts	84	`SC05594-01-021#1`
18 June 2007	Congo	Placed the word on it	Asserts	86	`SC05697-01-011#1`
18 June 2007	Congo	Asserted it	Asserts	85	`SC05697-01-011#1`
12 December 2008	Libya	Placed the word on it	Asserts	87	`SC06041-01-015#1`
12 December 2008	Libya	Asserted it	Asserts	86	`SC06041-01-015#1`
4 June 2009	Burkina Faso	Placed the word on it	Asserts	88	`SC06134-01-024#1`
4 June 2009	Burkina Faso	Asserted it	Asserts	87	`SC06134-01-024#1`
11 November 2009	Croatia	Placed the word on it	Asserts	89	`SC06216-01-010#1`
11 November 2009	Croatia	Asserted it	Asserts	88	`SC06216-01-010#1`
23 February 2012	Estonia	Placed the word on it	Asserts	90	`SC06722-02-028#2`
23 February 2012	Estonia	Asserted it	Asserts	89	`SC06722-02-028#2`
5 December 2012	International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals; International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda	Placed the word on it	Asserts	91	`SC06880-01-008#1`
5 December 2012	International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals; International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda	Asserted it	Asserts	90	`SC06880-01-008#1`
12 June 2013	European Union	Placed the word on it	Asserts	92	`SC06977-01-031#1`
12 June 2013	European Union	Asserted it	Asserts	91	`SC06977-01-031#1`
23 July 2013	Luxembourg	Placed the word on it	Asserts	93	`SC07007-01-015#1`
23 July 2013	Luxembourg	Asserted it	Asserts	92	`SC07007-01-015#1`
23 July 2013	Saudi Arabia	Placed the word on it	Asserts	94	`SC07007-01-025#1`
23 July 2013	Saudi Arabia	Asserted it	Asserts	93	`SC07007-01-025#1`
29 January 2014	Israel	Placed the word on it	Asserts	95	`SC07105-01-025#1`
29 January 2014	Israel	Asserted it	Asserts	94	`SC07105-01-025#1`
12 February 2014	Mexico	Placed the word on it	Asserts	96	`SC07109-01-035#2`
12 February 2014	Mexico	Asserted it	Asserts	95	`SC07109-01-035#2`
12 February 2014	Uruguay	Placed the word on it	Asserts	97	`SC07109-01-067#1`
12 February 2014	Uruguay	Asserted it	Asserts	96	`SC07109-01-067#1`
12 February 2014	Turkey	Placed the word on it	Asserts	98	`SC07109-01-083#1`
12 February 2014	Turkey	Asserted it	Asserts	97	`SC07109-01-083#1`
16 April 2014	Lithuania	Placed the word on it	Asserts	99	`SC07155-01-015#10`
16 April 2014	Lithuania	Asserted it	Asserts	98	`SC07155-01-015#10`
16 April 2014	Chad	Placed the word on it	Asserts	100	`SC07155-01-020#2`
16 April 2014	Chad	Asserted it	Asserts	99	`SC07155-01-020#2`
19 January 2015	Armenia	Placed the word on it	Asserts	101	`SC07361-01-119#1`
19 January 2015	Armenia	Asserted it	Asserts	100	`SC07361-01-119#1`
23 February 2015	Belgium	Placed the word on it	Asserts	102	`SC07389-01-055#1`
23 February 2015	Belgium	Asserted it	Asserts	101	`SC07389-01-055#1`
27 May 2015	Venezuela	Placed the word on it	Asserts	103	`SC07450-01-022#1`
27 May 2015	Venezuela	Asserted it	Asserts	102	`SC07450-01-022#1`
9 December 2015	International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals	Placed the word on it	Asserts	104	`SC07574-01-010#1`
9 December 2015	International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals	Asserted it	Asserts	103	`SC07574-01-010#1`
15 May 2017	Bolivia	Placed the word on it	Asserts	105	`SC07938-01-017#2`
15 May 2017	Bolivia	Asserted it	Asserts	104	`SC07938-01-017#2`
8 June 2017	Sudan	Placed the word on it	Asserts	106	`SC07963-01-019#5`
8 June 2017	Sudan	Asserted it	Asserts	105	`SC07963-01-019#5`
21 February 2018	Kuwait	Placed the word on it	Asserts	107	`SC08185-01-005#1`
21 February 2018	Kuwait	Asserted it	Asserts	106	`SC08185-01-005#1`
16 April 2018	Kaladan Press (Organization)	Placed the word on it	Asserts	108	`SC08234-01-006#1`
16 April 2018	Kaladan Press (Organization)	Asserted it	Asserts	107	`SC08234-01-006#1`
6 June 2018	Equatorial Guinea	Placed the word on it	Asserts	109	`SC08278-01-014#1`
6 June 2018	Equatorial Guinea	Asserted it	Asserts	108	`SC08278-01-014#1`
23 May 2019	Fiji	Placed the word on it	Asserts	110	`SC08534-01-071#1`
23 May 2019	Fiji	Asserted it	Asserts	109	`SC08534-01-071#1`
7 October 2019	George Washington University (Washington, D.C.)	Placed the word on it	Asserts	111	`SC08633-01-004#1`
7 October 2019	George Washington University (Washington, D.C.)	Asserted it	Asserts	110	`SC08633-01-004#1`
9 September 2021	Women and Peace Studies Organization (Afghanistan)	Placed the word on it	Asserts	112	`SC08853-01-004#1`
9 September 2021	Women and Peace Studies Organization (Afghanistan)	Asserted it	Asserts	111	`SC08853-01-004#1`
14 June 2022	Albania	Placed the word on it	Asserts	113	`SC09062-01-003#1`
14 June 2022	Albania	Asserted it	Asserts	112	`SC09062-01-003#1`
12 December 2022	United Arab Emirates	Placed the word on it	Asserts	114	`SC09217-01-008#1`
12 December 2022	United Arab Emirates	Asserted it	Asserts	113	`SC09217-01-008#1`
12 June 2023	Ecuador	Placed the word on it	Asserts	115	`SC09344-01-019#3`
12 June 2023	Ecuador	Asserted it	Asserts	114	`SC09344-01-019#3`
28 September 2023	Democratic Republic of the Congo	Refused the word for it	Rejects	3	`SC09427-01-025#1`
25 October 2023	Dominican Republic	Placed the word on it	Asserts	116	`SC09452-02-052#1`
25 October 2023	Dominican Republic	Asserted it	Asserts	115	`SC09452-02-052#1`
12 December 2023	Switzerland	Placed the word on it	Asserts	117	`SC09502-01-011#1`
12 December 2023	Switzerland	Asserted it	Asserts	116	`SC09502-01-011#1`
30 April 2024	Yugoslavia	Placed the word on it	Asserts	118	`SC09621-01-027#1`
30 April 2024	Yugoslavia	Asserted it	Asserts	117	`SC09621-01-027#1`
21 May 2024	Malta	Placed the word on it	Asserts	119	`SC09632-01-017#1`
21 May 2024	Malta	Asserted it	Asserts	118	`SC09632-01-017#1`
22 May 2024	Maldives	Placed the word on it	Asserts	120	`SC09632-03-046#5`
22 May 2024	Maldives	Asserted it	Asserts	119	`SC09632-03-046#5`

Height is a count of delegations, not of occurrences: each is counted once, on the day it first crossed that line.

How to read this

The solid amber curve counts affiliations with an assertion recorded by that date; the dashed curve counts those with a rejection. The faint line, where different, counts any mention of the case. Each affiliation enters each curve once, at its first recorded occurrence. The table lists those first mentions.

What it does not show

These are first occurrences within this corpus, as classified by the model. An absent affiliation may not have spoken about the case. The curves do not track subsequent changes of position or establish when a state adopted a policy. Model disagreement can make a case unavailable.

Who rejects the word

When a delegation says genocide, is it making the claim or refusing it?

Model-derived · experimental

AssertsReports without a position †RejectsConditionalNo position (not a case)UnclearNot applicable

A dagger flags categories whose boundaries may depend on the model, especially reporting a claim versus asserting it. Use the model-comparison table and quotations to examine that distinction.

Delegations by the share of their eligible occurrences that reject or deny the characterisation, those separated from the corpus rate first
Delegation	Eligible	Rejects	Share	95% interval
Yugoslavia ●	55	30	54.55%	41.52%–66.97%
Sudan ●	62	25	40.32%	29.02%–52.75%
India ●	83	29	34.94%	25.56%–45.66%
Cyprus ●	25	5	20.00%	8.86%–39.13%
Portugal ●	20	3	15.00%	5.24%–36.04%
China ●	43	5	11.63%	5.07%–24.48%
Democratic Republic of the Congo ●	69	7	10.14%	5.00%–19.49%
South Africa ●	71	7	9.86%	4.86%–18.98%
Turkey ●	61	6	9.84%	4.59%–19.84%
Russia ●	108	10	9.26%	5.11%–16.21%
Slovakia ●	24	2	8.33%	2.32%–25.85%
Israel ●	152	12	7.89%	4.57%–13.29%
Congo ●	26	2	7.69%	2.14%–24.14%
Azerbaijan ●	42	3	7.14%	2.46%–19.01%
Albania ●	68	4	5.88%	2.31%–14.17%
United States of America	326	6	1.84%	0.85%–3.96%
Pakistan	133	5	3.76%	1.62%–8.50%
United Kingdom	174	5	2.87%	1.23%–6.55%
Burundi	85	3	3.53%	1.21%–9.87%
Syria	116	2	1.72%	0.47%–6.07%
Ukraine	82	2	2.44%	0.67%–8.46%
(personal capacity)	96	1	1.04%	0.18%–5.67%
Angola	33	1	3.03%	0.54%–15.32%
Bosnia and Herzegovina	163	1	0.61%	0.11%–3.39%
Gabon	22	1	4.55%	0.81%–21.80%
International Criminal Court	52	1	1.92%	0.34%–10.12%
Ireland	34	1	2.94%	0.52%–14.92%
Kenya	21	1	4.76%	0.85%–22.67%
Libya	49	1	2.04%	0.36%–10.69%
Liechtenstein	65	1	1.54%	0.27%–8.21%
Lithuania	63	1	1.59%	0.28%–8.46%
Qatar	24	1	4.17%	0.74%–20.24%
Sweden	21	1	4.76%	0.85%–22.67%
United Nations	254	1	0.39%	0.07%–2.20%
Afghanistan	24	0	0.00%	0.00%–13.80%
Algeria	52	0	0.00%	0.00%–6.88%
Argentina	87	0	0.00%	0.00%–4.23%
Armenia	96	0	0.00%	0.00%–3.85%
Australia	40	0	0.00%	0.00%–8.76%
Bangladesh	49	0	0.00%	0.00%–7.27%
Belgium	35	0	0.00%	0.00%–9.89%
Botswana	23	0	0.00%	0.00%–14.31%
Brazil	35	0	0.00%	0.00%–9.89%
Canada	61	0	0.00%	0.00%–5.92%
Chad	50	0	0.00%	0.00%–7.13%
Chile	43	0	0.00%	0.00%–8.20%
Colombia	21	0	0.00%	0.00%–15.46%
Costa Rica	29	0	0.00%	0.00%–11.70%
Croatia	71	0	0.00%	0.00%–5.13%
Cuba	64	0	0.00%	0.00%–5.66%
Czech Republic	33	0	0.00%	0.00%–10.43%
Ecuador	27	0	0.00%	0.00%–12.46%
Egypt	24	0	0.00%	0.00%–13.80%
Estonia	22	0	0.00%	0.00%–14.87%
European Union	21	0	0.00%	0.00%–15.46%
France	193	0	0.00%	0.00%–1.95%
Germany	50	0	0.00%	0.00%–7.13%
Ghana	38	0	0.00%	0.00%–9.18%
High Representative for the Implementation of the Peace Agreement on Bosnia and Herzegovina	40	0	0.00%	0.00%–8.76%
Indonesia	26	0	0.00%	0.00%–12.87%
International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda	82	0	0.00%	0.00%–4.48%
International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals	93	0	0.00%	0.00%–3.97%
International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia since 1991	78	0	0.00%	0.00%–4.69%
Iran	97	0	0.00%	0.00%–3.81%
Iraq	62	0	0.00%	0.00%–5.83%
Italy	28	0	0.00%	0.00%–12.06%
Jordan	77	0	0.00%	0.00%–4.75%
Kosovo (Serbia)	37	0	0.00%	0.00%–9.41%
Kuwait	40	0	0.00%	0.00%–8.76%
League of Arab States	27	0	0.00%	0.00%–12.46%
Luxembourg	52	0	0.00%	0.00%–6.88%
Malaysia	50	0	0.00%	0.00%–7.13%
Mauritania	27	0	0.00%	0.00%–12.46%
Mexico	38	0	0.00%	0.00%–9.18%
Morocco	27	0	0.00%	0.00%–12.46%
Mozambique	32	0	0.00%	0.00%–10.72%
Netherlands	55	0	0.00%	0.00%–6.53%
New Zealand	66	0	0.00%	0.00%–5.50%
Nicaragua	34	0	0.00%	0.00%–10.15%
Nigeria	71	0	0.00%	0.00%–5.13%
Palestine	145	0	0.00%	0.00%–2.58%
Palestine Liberation Organization	51	0	0.00%	0.00%–7.00%
Peru	43	0	0.00%	0.00%–8.20%
Poland	28	0	0.00%	0.00%–12.06%
Rwanda	1,026	0	0.00%	0.00%–0.37%
Saudi Arabia	38	0	0.00%	0.00%–9.18%
Senegal	28	0	0.00%	0.00%–12.06%
Sierra Leone	37	0	0.00%	0.00%–9.41%
Singapore	20	0	0.00%	0.00%–16.11%
Slovenia	59	0	0.00%	0.00%–6.11%
South Korea	26	0	0.00%	0.00%–12.87%
Spain	39	0	0.00%	0.00%–8.97%
Switzerland	37	0	0.00%	0.00%–9.41%
Tanzania	32	0	0.00%	0.00%–10.72%
Tunisia	34	0	0.00%	0.00%–10.15%
United Arab Emirates	24	0	0.00%	0.00%–13.80%
Uruguay	36	0	0.00%	0.00%–9.64%
Venezuela	64	0	0.00%	0.00%–5.66%

All position counts, withheld delegations included

Delegation	Eligible	Asserts	Reports without a position	Rejects	Conditional	No position (not a case)	Unclear	Rejection share
Yugoslavia	55	9	1	30	0	15	0	54.55%
Sudan	62	20	1	25	1	15	0	40.32%
India	83	27	5	29	1	21	0	34.94%
Cyprus	25	15	0	5	0	5	0	20.00%
Portugal	20	5	0	3	0	12	0	15.00%
China	43	11	1	5	3	23	0	11.63%
Democratic Republic of the Congo	69	45	3	7	2	12	0	10.14%
South Africa	71	20	0	7	11	33	0	9.86%
Turkey	61	29	2	6	1	23	0	9.84%
Russia	108	61	2	10	3	32	0	9.26%
Slovakia	24	2	0	2	0	20	0	8.33%
Israel	152	114	2	12	3	21	0	7.89%
Congo	26	12	1	2	1	10	0	7.69%
Azerbaijan	42	12	0	3	0	27	0	7.14%
Albania	68	43	0	4	1	20	0	5.88%
United States of America	326	211	3	6	19	87	0	1.84%
Pakistan	133	80	1	5	15	32	0	3.76%
United Kingdom	174	96	1	5	10	62	0	2.87%
Burundi	85	42	4	3	14	22	0	3.53%
Syria	116	89	3	2	6	16	0	1.72%
Ukraine	82	41	4	2	1	32	2	2.44%
(personal capacity)	96	82	1	1	2	10	0	1.04%
Angola	33	16	0	1	2	14	0	3.03%
Bosnia and Herzegovina	163	119	0	1	2	41	0	0.61%
Gabon	22	10	0	1	0	11	0	4.55%
International Criminal Court	52	30	1	1	5	15	0	1.92%
Ireland	34	13	0	1	1	19	0	2.94%
Kenya	21	9	0	1	0	11	0	4.76%
Libya	49	38	0	1	2	8	0	2.04%
Liechtenstein	65	12	0	1	0	52	0	1.54%
Lithuania	63	24	0	1	4	34	0	1.59%
Qatar	24	11	1	1	3	8	0	4.17%
Sweden	21	8	1	1	1	10	0	4.76%
United Nations	254	72	6	1	39	136	0	0.39%
Afghanistan	24	14	0	0	5	5	0	0.00%
Algeria	52	40	0	0	4	8	0	0.00%
Argentina	87	36	1	0	3	47	0	0.00%
Armenia	96	32	0	0	3	61	0	0.00%
Australia	40	16	1	0	4	19	0	0.00%
Bangladesh	49	28	1	0	0	20	0	0.00%
Belgium	35	6	2	0	1	26	0	0.00%
Botswana	23	11	1	0	0	11	0	0.00%
Brazil	35	8	1	0	5	21	0	0.00%
Canada	61	24	1	0	1	35	0	0.00%
Chad	50	35	0	0	0	15	0	0.00%
Chile	43	9	0	0	2	31	1	0.00%
Colombia	21	10	2	0	1	7	1	0.00%
Costa Rica	29	7	0	0	0	22	0	0.00%
Croatia	71	44	0	0	1	26	0	0.00%
Cuba	64	60	1	0	1	2	0	0.00%
Czech Republic	33	22	1	0	1	9	0	0.00%
Ecuador	27	5	0	0	4	18	0	0.00%
Egypt	24	15	0	0	0	9	0	0.00%
Estonia	22	10	0	0	2	10	0	0.00%
European Union	21	9	0	0	0	12	0	0.00%
France	193	107	3	0	6	77	0	0.00%
Germany	50	23	1	0	2	24	0	0.00%
Ghana	38	15	1	0	2	20	0	0.00%
High Representative for the Implementation of the Peace Agreement on Bosnia and Herzegovina	40	34	0	0	0	6	0	0.00%
Indonesia	26	16	1	0	3	6	0	0.00%
International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda	82	67	0	0	0	15	0	0.00%
International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals	93	71	1	0	0	21	0	0.00%
International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia since 1991	78	59	2	0	0	17	0	0.00%
Iran	97	84	0	0	2	11	0	0.00%
Iraq	62	47	4	0	4	7	0	0.00%
Italy	28	4	0	0	2	22	0	0.00%
Jordan	77	53	0	0	3	21	0	0.00%
Kosovo (Serbia)	37	34	0	0	1	2	0	0.00%
Kuwait	40	20	0	0	6	14	0	0.00%
League of Arab States	27	26	0	0	1	0	0	0.00%
Luxembourg	52	18	1	0	3	30	0	0.00%
Malaysia	50	26	0	0	4	20	0	0.00%
Mauritania	27	25	0	0	1	1	0	0.00%
Mexico	38	8	0	0	0	30	0	0.00%
Morocco	27	14	0	0	0	13	0	0.00%
Mozambique	32	12	0	0	4	16	0	0.00%
Netherlands	55	22	0	0	6	27	0	0.00%
New Zealand	66	39	1	0	5	21	0	0.00%
Nicaragua	34	28	1	0	1	4	0	0.00%
Nigeria	71	33	0	0	2	36	0	0.00%
Palestine	145	106	1	0	9	29	0	0.00%
Palestine Liberation Organization	51	44	0	0	5	2	0	0.00%
Peru	43	5	1	0	0	37	0	0.00%
Poland	28	8	0	0	3	17	0	0.00%
Rwanda	1,026	869	1	0	12	144	0	0.00%
Saudi Arabia	38	31	0	0	1	6	0	0.00%
Senegal	28	14	0	0	1	13	0	0.00%
Sierra Leone	37	16	0	0	2	19	0	0.00%
Singapore	20	11	0	0	0	9	0	0.00%
Slovenia	59	17	0	0	7	35	0	0.00%
South Korea	26	4	0	0	1	21	0	0.00%
Spain	39	15	1	0	1	22	0	0.00%
Switzerland	37	9	0	0	9	19	0	0.00%
Tanzania	32	16	1	0	2	13	0	0.00%
Tunisia	34	25	0	0	1	8	0	0.00%
United Arab Emirates	24	13	0	0	2	9	0	0.00%
Uruguay	36	3	0	0	4	29	0	0.00%
Venezuela	64	40	2	0	2	20	0	0.00%
Norway	19	4	0	1	0	14	0	withheld
Philippines	19	0	0	2	1	16	0	withheld
Bolivia	18	9	0	0	0	9	0	withheld
Hungary	18	1	1	0	0	16	0	withheld
Independent Inquiry into the Actions of the United Nations during the 1994 Genocide in Rwanda	18	12	0	0	0	6	0	withheld
Japan	18	6	0	0	2	10	0	withheld
Maldives	18	13	0	0	1	4	0	withheld
Mali	18	12	0	0	0	6	0	withheld
Malta	17	5	0	1	3	8	0	withheld
Zambia	17	17	0	0	0	0	0	withheld
Ethiopia	16	7	0	0	4	5	0	withheld
Guinea	16	13	0	1	0	2	0	withheld
International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals; International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda	16	15	0	0	0	1	0	withheld
Ivory Coast	16	6	0	0	3	7	0	withheld
Uganda	16	10	0	0	1	5	0	withheld
Denmark	15	1	0	0	1	13	0	withheld
South Sudan	15	0	0	4	2	9	0	withheld
Guatemala	14	1	1	0	2	10	0	withheld
Jamaica	14	7	0	0	0	7	0	withheld
Namibia	14	8	0	0	0	6	0	withheld
Oman	14	8	0	0	2	4	0	withheld
Zimbabwe	14	10	0	0	0	4	0	withheld
Austria	13	1	0	0	0	12	0	withheld
Bahrain	13	6	0	0	0	7	0	withheld
Benin	13	6	0	0	1	6	0	withheld
Greece	13	3	0	3	0	7	0	withheld
Holy See	13	2	0	0	0	11	0	withheld
Honduras	13	6	0	1	3	3	0	withheld
Vietnam	13	8	2	0	1	2	0	withheld
Yemen	13	13	0	0	0	0	0	withheld
Georgia	12	6	0	0	0	6	0	withheld
African National Congress	11	10	0	0	1	0	0	withheld
Farida Global Organization	11	11	0	0	0	0	0	withheld
Panama	11	2	0	0	0	9	0	withheld
Bulgaria	10	4	0	0	2	4	0	withheld
Cambodia	10	8	0	1	0	1	0	withheld
Djibouti	10	8	0	0	0	2	0	withheld
Guyana	10	5	0	0	2	3	0	withheld
Lebanon	10	8	0	0	1	1	0	withheld
Niger	10	3	0	0	1	6	0	withheld
Organization of the Islamic Conference	10	7	0	0	1	2	0	withheld
Romania	10	0	0	1	1	8	0	withheld
Equatorial Guinea	9	5	0	0	0	4	0	withheld
Finland	9	0	0	0	0	9	0	withheld
Latvia	9	0	0	3	1	5	0	withheld
St. Vincent and the Grenadines	8	3	0	0	0	5	0	withheld
Yale University (New Haven, Conn.)	8	6	0	0	0	2	0	withheld
African Union	7	4	0	0	0	3	0	withheld
Burkina Faso	7	3	0	0	0	4	0	withheld
Darfur Women Action Group	7	4	0	0	2	1	0	withheld
Mauritius	7	4	0	0	0	3	0	withheld
Monaco	7	0	0	0	0	7	0	withheld
Myanmar	7	0	0	4	0	3	0	withheld
Somalia	6	5	0	0	0	1	0	withheld
Cameroon	5	3	0	0	0	2	0	withheld
Dominican Republic	5	4	0	1	0	0	0	withheld
Fiji	5	2	0	0	0	3	0	withheld
Haiti	5	2	0	0	1	2	0	withheld
Popular Movement for the Liberation of Angola	5	5	0	0	0	0	0	withheld
United States	5	2	1	0	1	1	0	withheld
Cape Verde	4	3	0	0	0	1	0	withheld
Frente Polisario	4	4	0	0	0	0	0	withheld
International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia since 1991; International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda	4	3	0	0	0	1	0	withheld
Kazakhstan	4	0	0	0	1	3	0	withheld
Liberia	4	2	1	0	1	0	0	withheld
Mongolia	4	1	0	0	0	3	0	withheld
OAU	4	4	0	0	0	0	0	withheld
Centre for Strategic Communication and Information Security (Ukraine)	3	3	0	0	0	0	0	withheld
Confluence Advisory (Organization)	3	1	0	0	2	0	0	withheld
East Timor	3	2	0	0	0	1	0	withheld
Economic Community of Central African States	3	3	0	0	0	0	0	withheld
George Washington University (Washington, D.C.)	3	3	0	0	0	0	0	withheld
Grenada	3	3	0	0	0	0	0	withheld
Movimento Popular de Libertação de Angola	3	3	0	0	0	0	0	withheld
Organization of African Unity	3	3	0	0	0	0	0	withheld
PAEMA	3	3	0	0	0	0	0	withheld
Pan Africanist Congress of Azania (South Africa)	3	3	0	0	0	0	0	withheld
SWAPO	3	3	0	0	0	0	0	withheld
TRIAL International (Organization : Switzerland)	3	3	0	0	0	0	0	withheld
University of Oxford	3	0	0	0	0	3	0	withheld
Central African Republic	2	1	0	0	1	0	0	withheld
Columbia University (New York)	2	0	0	0	0	2	0	withheld
Comoros	2	1	0	0	1	0	0	withheld
Intergovernmental Authority on Development	2	2	0	0	0	0	0	withheld
International Committee of the Red Cross	2	0	0	0	0	2	0	withheld
Madagascar	2	0	0	1	1	0	0	withheld
Malawi	2	1	0	0	0	1	0	withheld
Patriotic Front of Zimbabwe	2	2	0	0	0	0	0	withheld
Sri Lanka	2	0	0	0	0	2	0	withheld
Sudan Family Planning Association	2	0	0	0	1	1	0	withheld
Thailand	2	0	0	0	0	2	0	withheld
Trinidad and Tobago	2	0	0	0	0	2	0	withheld
Women's League of Burma	2	2	0	0	0	0	0	withheld
Women's Peace Network (Myanmar)	2	2	0	0	0	0	0	withheld
Yemen People's Republic	2	2	0	0	0	0	0	withheld
All Africa Conference of Churches	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	withheld
Andorra	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	withheld
Barbados	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	withheld
Belarus	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	withheld
Council of the European Union	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	withheld
European Commission	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	withheld
Facilitator of the Burundi Peace Process	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	withheld
Foundation for Human Rights (South Africa)	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	withheld
Gambia	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	withheld
German Democratic Republic	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	withheld
Guinea-Bissau	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	withheld
IBRD	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	withheld
International Center for Transitional Justice	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	withheld
Iraqi Al-Amal Association	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	withheld
Islamic Group at the United Nations	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	withheld
Kaladan Press (Organization)	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	withheld
Laos	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	withheld
Les Centres GHESKIO (Haiti)	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	withheld
Lesotho	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	withheld
McGill University (Montréal, Canada)	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	withheld
Moldova	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	withheld
Montenegro	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	withheld
Mozambique Liberation Front (FRELIMO)	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	withheld
Municipal Association of Women (Organization : Colombia)	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	withheld
Nepal	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	withheld
New Development Bank	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	withheld
NGO Working Group on Women, Peace and Security	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	withheld
North Korea	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	withheld
Norwegian Refugee Council	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	withheld
Palau	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	withheld
Regional Center for Human Rights (Ukraine)	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	withheld
Rossiya Segodnya (Russian Federation)	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	withheld
Samoa	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	withheld
Sao Tome and Principe	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	withheld
Sauti Ya Mama Mukongomani (Organization : Democratic Republic of the Congo)	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	withheld
Second Transitional Government of East Timor	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	withheld
South West Africa People's Organization	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	withheld
Swaziland	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	withheld
Togo	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	withheld
Turkish Federated State of Kibris	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	withheld
Ukrainian Trade Union of Law Workers	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	withheld
United Nations; Implementation Monitoring Committee for the Arusha Peace and Reconciliation Agreement for Burundi	1	0	0	0	1	0	0	withheld
Vienna Center for Disarmament and Non-Proliferation	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	withheld
VOICE Amplified (Organization)	1	0	0	0	1	0	0	withheld
Women and Peace Studies Organization (Afghanistan)	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	withheld
Women's Initiatives for Gender Justice	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	withheld
Zan Times (Firm : Afghanistan)	1	0	0	0	1	0	0	withheld
Strategic Initiative for Women in the Horn of Africa (Organization)	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	withheld

Width is the share of that delegation's own eligible occurrences, not of the corpus.

How to read this

Band widths show an affiliation's model-assigned positions. The share and interval columns concern rejections. Marked rows have a lower interval bound above the published reference rate and are ordered by rejection share; remaining rows follow by rejection count. Hover over an affiliation for all position counts.

What it does not show

Position labels can misread negation, reported speech or qualifications. 143 affiliations have fewer than 20 eligible mentions and no displayed share. Intervals do not account for model errors or repeated mentions within meetings. These are classifications of passages, not fixed delegation positions.

Instructions and categories

These are the instructions (the prompt) and category definitions used for this model run. They document how the model was asked to classify passages. The version and content identifier let you distinguish this run from later revisions.

Show the prompt (sha256:3772c44d400f…)

# Model annotation prompt — `genocide`

version: 3
date: 2026-09-07
codebook: `annotations/lexicon/CODEBOOK.md`, human schema version 3; model schema 3.1

Version 3 removes model self-reported confidence. Human confidence is unchanged.
Situation/modality coding remains a separate reviewed schema-4 proposal; it is
not introduced by this revision. Prompt v2 is archived byte-for-byte in
`prompts/v2.md`, so the Bayreuth run prepared with it remains readable.

The raw bytes of this file are hashed with SHA-256 into every run manifest and into every
row of every `annotations.jsonl`. Editing so much as a comma produces a different hash, and
a row can then no longer be matched to the text that produced it — so an edit here is a new
prompt version. Bump `version:` above, **move the old text to `prompts/v<n>.md` unchanged**,
and give the run that uses it a new run id. The archive is what lets an edit here be made at
all: `15_usage.py` resolves a run against every prompt this repository holds, so revising
the instrument costs a new run id and not the runs already paid for. The repository stores
and checks out this file with LF line endings (`.gitattributes`), so the hash does not depend
on the machine that computed it.

Two sections below are read by `scripts/lib/llm.py`, and only those two: the fenced block
under `## System` is the system message, verbatim; the fenced block under `## User template`
is the per-speech user message, with its `{placeholders}` filled in at run time. Everything
outside the two fences — this paragraph included — is documentation for a human and never
reaches the model.

The system block carries one placeholder, `{referents_table}`, rendered from
`annotations/lexicon/referents.csv` at run time as `id — label (years) — description`,
grouped by kind. The controlled list grows through reviewed additions to that file; the
prompt does not restate it, so adding a referent does not silently become a prompt edit.
What *would* change the meaning of a label — the field definitions, the boundary examples,
the cascade — lives here and is versioned here.

## What v2 changes, and on what evidence

v2 is the review of 1 September 2026, §4.2, carried out. Six changes:

1. **`stance` becomes two fields.** `speaker_position` records what the speaker does with the
   characterisation; `concrete_case` records whether the word is applied to a determinate
   case at all. v1's `neutral_legal_reference` was doing both jobs and competing with the
   `institutional_title_or_mandate` function and with three meta referents for the same
   decision — the largest referent confusion cells were exactly those pairs. Now the decision
   is made once and the other fields follow from it.
2. **`reports_without_position` is defined positively**, and a settled legal status is an
   assertion. v1's `attributes_or_reports` scored F1 0.37 across the two instruments, with
   445 occurrences read as *attributes* by one and *asserts* by the other — the single
   largest disagreement cell in the corpus.
3. **Ten worked examples, every one of them from the corpus**, quoted verbatim with the line
   id it was taken from, so a reader can go and check it. v1's examples were all invented,
   and the corpus's own recurrent formulae were absent from it.
4. **New fields the study's question needs**: `accused_actor`, `victim_group`,
   `own_state_accused`, `salience`, `referent_source` and a one-sentence `rationale`.
5. **Two rules the year ranges and the compound cases needed**, taken from the codebook so
   that a coder and a model read the same sentence.
6. **A false positive still needs a real quote.** v1's cascade said "all four fields, with no
   exception", and one model answered the *evidence* field with the literal string
   `not_applicable` three times.

Three of the new rules are stated as what the two committed runs already do, rather than as
a correction: both read the Special Adviser's title as a non-case mention in 176 of 176
occurrences, both code 98% of commemorations as assertions, and neither was ever told to.
Writing those down does not move them; it makes them testable, and it stops the next
instrument having to rediscover them.

The `distancing` rule is the opposite case. The grammatical-frames codebook
(`scripts/lib/node_frames.py`) finds 78 occurrences in which the label is marked as somebody
else's — *so-called*, *supposed*, scare quotes, *what she called "genocide"* — and the two
instruments part on them: 33 of Luna's are `attributes_or_reports`, 27 of Gemini's are
`rejects_or_denies`. That is §4.1's report/assert disagreement localised in one construction,
so one rule and one example can settle it.

**A provenance note about the two artefacts this prompt was written from.** The frames
artefact's `matched` column and the referent list's absorption table are both *projections*
over the two committed runs' text — a regex over a window, and a clustering of
`proposed_referent` strings. Neither is a re-coding, nothing in either committed run was
rewritten to produce them, and both are counted here as evidence of where the instruments
disagree and not as evidence of what the right label is. Only a run settles that, and no run
has yet been made against this prompt.

## System

```text
You are annotating occurrences of the word "genocide" in the verbatim records of the United
Nations Security Council, 1946-2024.

TASK BOUNDARY. You classify discourse. You never decide whether an underlying event legally
constitutes genocide, and no label you assign is a finding about what happened. The question
is always what the pattern found and what the speaker is doing with the word in this passage:
whether the matched string is really an instance of the expression and, where it is, how the
expression is being used here.

Read the whole speech before labelling anything. Then label each numbered occurrence
separately, from the passage around it, using the rest of the speech only to resolve what
that passage leaves open. Abstention is a correct answer, and a wrong label is worse than an
honest one: prefer "uncertain", "unclear" to a guess.

FIELDS

verdict — exactly one:
  true_positive   The highlighted span is a real instance of the expression. Example: "acts
                  of genocide".
  false_positive  The string does not instantiate the expression. Example: damaged OCR joins
                  unrelated fragments into something a tolerant pattern matched.
  uncertain       The transcription does not permit a defensible decision. Example: OCR
                  damage leaves the passage illegible.

quotation — exactly one:
  not_quoted              The current speaker uses the expression in their own formulation.
                          "We consider these acts genocide."
  direct_quotation        The expression occurs inside words explicitly quoted verbatim.
                          "The witness called it 'genocide'."
  attributed_or_reported  The speaker reports or paraphrases another actor's terminology.
                          "The Commission described the acts as genocide."
  unclear                 Attribution cannot be resolved from the available passage.
  not_applicable          False positives only.

  Quotation does not determine position. Naming the source of a characterization says where
  it came from; it says nothing about whether this speaker adopts it. A speaker may quote a
  claim in order to endorse it, in order to reject it, or in order to leave it standing
  unjudged, and those are three different values of speaker_position with the same value
  here.

concrete_case — exactly one. Answer this before speaker_position:
  yes             The word is applied, in this passage, to a determinate situation, event,
                  people or place: a case that could be named. It does not have to be named
                  in the passage — see referent_source — only determinate.
  no              The word is not applied to any case here. It names the crime as a legal
                  category, appears inside the title or mandate of an office, a treaty or a
                  tribunal, or stands in a general formula about prevention or atrocity.
  unclear         The passage does not let you tell which of the two it is.
  not_applicable  False positives only.

  This is the decision v1 made three times over and made differently each time. Make it once,
  here. Everything below follows from it: when concrete_case is "no", speaker_position is
  "no_position" and the referent is one of the three non-case referents; when it is "yes",
  speaker_position is one of the four real positions and the referent is a case.

  What matters is what the MATCHED WORD is doing, not what the sentence is about. "This
  crime is forbidden by the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of
  Genocide" is a sentence about a concrete crime in which the matched word occurs only
  inside a treaty's title: concrete_case is "no".

speaker_position — exactly one:
  asserts                   The speaker advances or endorses the characterization, or treats
                            it as established. "This is genocide." Also: a legal status the
                            speaker treats as settled — "those convicted of genocide by the
                            ICTR", "known genocidaires", "the ICTY decision finding him
                            guilty of genocide" — because a speaker who reasons from a
                            finding has adopted it.
  rejects                   The speaker disputes, denies or refuses the characterization.
                            "There was no genocide." Also: the speaker marks the label as
                            false while reporting it — see the distancing rule below.
  conditional               The speaker presents it as a possibility, a risk, a threshold or
                            a warning rather than as an established characterization.
                            "Unless prevented, this could become genocide."
  reports_without_position  Use this ONLY when both of these hold: the passage names the
                            actor doing the characterizing, AND the speaker neither adopts
                            nor rejects it. Both halves are required. If the characterizing
                            actor is not named, the speaker is speaking in their own voice,
                            which is one of the three above. If the speaker endorses what
                            they report, that is "asserts"; if they disown it, "rejects".
                            The value means "somebody said this and I am not saying whether
                            they were right", and nothing else.
  no_position               concrete_case is "no", so there is no characterization of a case
                            to take a position on. Use this value exactly when concrete_case
                            is "no", and never otherwise.
  unclear                   The evidence supports no reliable choice.
  not_applicable            False positives only.

  THE DISTANCING RULE. Ask what the hedge is scoping over.
  - Over the LABEL — scare quotes around the word, "so-called", "supposed", "purported",
    "what X calls genocide", "allegations of genocide" — the speaker is holding the
    characterization at arm's length as somebody else's and declining it: "rejects". Not
    "reports_without_position": marking a label as false is a position.
  - Over a PERSON OR AN ACT, with the category itself untouched — "alleged genocide
    financier", "those alleged to have committed genocide", "accused of genocide" — that is
    an unproven charge against an individual, made inside a category the speaker treats as
    real: "asserts". This is the ordinary language of an indictment, and it is not
    distancing at all.

function — one or more, as a JSON array of strings:
  accusation_or_qualification     Names or legally characterizes conduct.
  warning_or_prevention           Warns of risk, or urges prevention or protection.
  commemoration                   Remembers victims, anniversaries or historical events.
  accountability                  Concerns investigation, prosecution, punishment or
                                  impunity. A proceeding, an arrest, a sentence, a fugitive,
                                  an amnesty. NOT merely because a court or tribunal is
                                  named: "genocide denial by ICTR defence lawyers" is an
                                  accusation against the deniers and concerns no proceeding.
  institutional_title_or_mandate  Occurs in the name or mandate of an office, treaty,
                                  tribunal, adviser or institutional mechanism. This is a
                                  restatement of concrete_case "no", not a separate finding:
                                  a word inside a title is not applied to a case.
  other                           A clear function not represented above.
  unclear                         The function cannot be determined.
  not_applicable                  False positives only.

  "Prosecute those responsible for genocide so that it never happens again" may be
  ["accountability", "warning_or_prevention"]. Never repeat a label. "unclear" and
  "not_applicable" cannot be combined with any other label, so an array containing either of
  them has exactly one element. Prefer the smallest defensible set; do not infer purposes
  that are absent from the text.

  COMMEMORATION IS ASSERTION. A commemorative formula — an anniversary, a remembrance, "we
  honour the victims of the genocide" — treats the characterization as established, so its
  speaker_position is "asserts" even though nothing is being alleged against anyone in the
  passage. Add "accusation_or_qualification" only when the passage also characterizes
  someone's conduct.

referent — exactly one identifier from the controlled list below.

referent_source — exactly one. Where in the request you found the referent:
  passage  The passage around the occurrence names or unambiguously identifies it.
  speech   Another part of the speech does, and this passage does not.
  header   Only the header lines above the speech do — the speaker's country or
           organisation, the agenda item, the meeting.
  not_applicable  False positives only; and the value for referent "unclear".

  This field is a measurement of the instrument and not of the passage, so record what you
  actually used. A referent read off the header alone is a weaker assignment than one read
  off the passage, and the study needs to know how many there are.

accused_actor — free text, a few words. Who the passage says did it, or is charged with it,
  as the passage names them: "ex-FAR and Interahamwe", "Radislav Krstic", "the Government of
  the Sudan". Empty when the passage accuses no one.

victim_group — free text, a few words. The group the word is applied on behalf of, as the
  passage names them: "the Tutsi in Rwanda", "the Bosnian Muslims of Srebrenica". Empty when
  the passage names none.

  Both fields are copied from the passage, never inferred from the case. If the passage says
  "genocide in Rwanda" and names neither perpetrator nor victims, both are empty. That is
  data, not a failure.

own_state_accused — exactly one:
  yes             The speaker's own State or organisation is the one the passage accuses, or
                  the one it would accuse if the characterization stood. A denial by the
                  accused State is "yes": the accusation is what is being denied.
  no              Somebody else is accused.
  not_applicable  The passage accuses no one, this is a non-case mention, or the verdict is
                  false_positive.

salience — exactly one:
  passing         The word appears in a list, a formula or an aside, and the passage does not
                  argue about it. The four-crime responsibility-to-protect formula and the
                  triad "genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity" are passing.
  substantive     The characterization is what the passage is doing: it is argued for,
                  argued against, dwelt on, or the subject of the sentence.
  not_applicable  False positives only.

rationale — one sentence, free text, always present. Why the position and the case decision
  are what they are, in your own words. Not a restatement of the labels: say what in the
  passage decided them. Where you hesitated between two values, name the other one. This is
  read by humans adjudicating disagreements and costs almost nothing to write.


THE FALSE-POSITIVE CASCADE

If verdict is "false_positive", then quotation, concrete_case, speaker_position, referent,
referent_source, own_state_accused, salience and every element of function are
"not_applicable"; accused_actor, victim_group and proposed_referent are empty strings. If
verdict is anything else, "not_applicable" may not appear in quotation, concrete_case,
speaker_position, function or referent: there it is reserved for false positives and means
nothing else. referent_source, own_state_accused and salience are the exceptions, because
each of them has a genuine "there is nothing here to record" answer that is not about the
verdict at all.

The cascade stops at the evidence. A false positive still needs a real, verbatim
evidence_quote and a real rationale: the claim "this match is not the word being used" is a
claim about a passage, and it is unreadable without the passage. Do not write the string
"not_applicable" into evidence_quote. A false positive whose quote cannot be found in the
speech is refused when the row is written.

REFERENT

Choose the referent the occurrence is ABOUT: the case, event, people or institution the word
is applied to in this passage. It is not every situation the speech mentions, and it is not
the speaker's own country unless the passage applies the word to it.

{referents_table}

The years in parentheses are DOCUMENTATION, NOT A CONSTRAINT. They say when the case is
usually invoked; they do not say which speeches may carry it. Where a passage names a period
a referent's years do not cover, code the referent anyway. A 2009 speech about Gaza takes the
Israel/Palestine referent because that is what the speech is about, not because 2009 falls in
a range.

A passage naming two cases is coded as the first one named, and the pair goes into
"proposed_referent" as the speaker gave it. "Rwanda and Srebrenica" is the Rwanda referent
with proposed_referent "Rwanda and Srebrenica". Where a passage names a case and something
more specific inside it — Khojaly inside Nagorno-Karabakh, the Yazidis inside ISIL's crimes —
that is not a compound: code the more specific identifier, and leave proposed_referent empty.

When concrete_case is "no", choose among the three non-case referents in this order, first
match winning:

  institutional title or mandate   The word is inside the name or mandate of an office, a
                                   body or a tribunal. "Special Adviser on the Prevention of
                                   Genocide".
  Convention and legal definition  The passage is about the 1948 Convention, the legal
                                   definition of the crime, or jurisdiction over it. "the
                                   Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime
                                   of Genocide", "the definition in article II".
  genocide in general              Everything else abstract: prevention doctrine, the
                                   four-crime formula, a general statement about the crime.

Using the three reserved identifiers:

  other           The referent is identifiable but is not on the list. Use it, and put a
                  short name for what you identified in "proposed_referent" — a place, a
                  conflict, a people or an institution, a few words at most. Never invent an
                  identifier; the list grows only through human review.
  unclear         The speech does not let you tell which referent is meant. Choosing this is
                  correct whenever it is true. Never guess.
  not_applicable  False positives only.

"proposed_referent" is a short free-text note about the referent. It is required when the
referent is exactly "other", it carries the pair when a compound is coded as the first case
named, it is empty on a false positive, and it is otherwise empty.

EVIDENCE

"evidence_quote" is the shortest verbatim passage of the speech that both contains the
matched word of this occurrence and supports every label you assigned to it. Usually a
clause or one sentence; two sentences when the attribution or the condition begins in the
one before. Never the whole speech.

The minimum is the clause containing the modal or the attribution — whatever it is that
makes your position label what it is. "could amount to genocide" rather than "genocide",
because the modal is what makes the position conditional; "what she called 'genocide'"
rather than "genocide", because the attribution is the whole of the reason. A bare "have been
convicted of genocide" cannot support a position label, and a quote too short to support one
is treated as unlocated evidence.

Copy it character for character out of the speech text supplied with the request: the same
spelling, punctuation, capitalisation and spacing, including any OCR damage. The records are
scanned, and they break words across lines: "the Secretary- General's warning" is what the
record says, and it is what you copy. No ellipses, no corrections, no added quotation marks,
no markup, nothing joined across a gap. The quote is located back in the speech
automatically, and a quote that cannot be found there is recorded as invalid evidence.

WORKED EXAMPLES

Ten occurrences from this corpus, quoted verbatim, with the line id each was taken from. They
are the cases the previous version of this prompt got least agreement on. Fields not shown
take the values the definitions above give them.

1. Commemoration. UNSC_2014_SPV.7105_spch0017#3, Rwanda, 29 January 2014.
   evidence_quote: "As we commemorate the twentieth anniversary of the 1994 genocide against
   the Tutsi in Rwanda"
   concrete_case yes | speaker_position asserts | quotation not_quoted |
   function ["commemoration"] | referent: Rwanda | referent_source passage |
   accused_actor "" | victim_group "the Tutsi in Rwanda" | own_state_accused not_applicable |
   salience substantive
   rationale: "Commemorating an anniversary treats the characterization as established, so
   the speaker asserts it even though the passage accuses no one."

2. The atrocity triad. UNSC_2005_SPV.5264_spch0022#1, European Union, 20 September 2005.
   evidence_quote: "our responsibility to protect populations from genocide, war crimes,
   ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity"
   concrete_case no | speaker_position no_position | quotation not_quoted |
   function ["warning_or_prevention"] | referent: genocide in general |
   referent_source passage | accused_actor "" | victim_group "" |
   own_state_accused not_applicable | salience passing
   rationale: "The word names one of the four crimes in the responsibility-to-protect
   formula and is applied to no case, so there is no characterization to take a position on."

3. Perpetrator noun. UNSC_1999_SPV.3987_spch0015#2, United States, 19 March 1999, on the
   Democratic Republic of the Congo.
   evidence_quote: "to collaborate militarily with ex-FAR and interahamwe, known genocidaires"
   concrete_case yes | speaker_position asserts | quotation not_quoted |
   function ["accusation_or_qualification"] | referent: Rwanda | referent_source passage |
   accused_actor "ex-FAR and interahamwe" | victim_group "" | own_state_accused no |
   salience passing
   rationale: "The perpetrator noun applies the word to the killings in Rwanda and not to the
   Congolese war the debate is about, and 'known' treats the characterization as settled."

4. Denial and ideology. UNSC_2011_SPV.6545_spch0010#9, Rwanda, 6 June 2011.
   evidence_quote: "the ongoing scourge of genocide denial by some in the academic and legal
   professions"
   concrete_case yes | speaker_position asserts | quotation not_quoted |
   function ["accusation_or_qualification"] | referent: Rwanda | referent_source speech |
   accused_actor "academics and lawyers who deny it" | victim_group "" |
   own_state_accused no | salience substantive
   rationale: "Condemning denial asserts the genocide that is denied; the accusation is
   against the deniers, and no proceeding is at issue, so accountability is not added."

5. Own-state denial. UNSC_2017_SPV.7963_spch0019#6, Sudan, 8 June 2017.
   evidence_quote: "the report of the International Commission of Inquiry on Darfur, which
   was submitted to the Council in early 2005, confirming that no genocide had taken place in
   Darfur"
   concrete_case yes | speaker_position rejects | quotation attributed_or_reported |
   function ["accusation_or_qualification"] | referent: Darfur | referent_source passage |
   accused_actor "the Government of the Sudan" | victim_group "" | own_state_accused yes |
   salience substantive
   rationale: "The speaker reports a finding and adopts it — 'confirming' endorses the
   conclusion — so this refuses the characterization rather than reporting it without a
   position."

6. A tribunal's finding. UNSC_2001_SPV.4379Resumption1_spch0003#1, Jamaica,
   21 September 2001.
   evidence_quote: "the recent ICTY decision finding Radislav Krstic guilty of genocide in
   the Srebrenica massacre"
   concrete_case yes | speaker_position asserts | quotation attributed_or_reported |
   function ["accountability", "accusation_or_qualification"] | referent: Bosnia and
   Srebrenica | referent_source passage | accused_actor "Radislav Krstic" |
   victim_group "" | own_state_accused no | salience passing
   rationale: "A conviction is a legal status the speaker treats as settled, and naming the
   court that reached it attributes the source rather than distancing the speaker from it; I
   considered reports_without_position and rejected it because nothing here suspends
   judgement."

7. The Convention. UNSC_1992_SPV.3095_spch0029#4, Pan Africanist Congress of Azania,
   15 July 1992.
   evidence_quote: "This crime is forbidden by the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and
   Punishment of the Crime of Genocide"
   concrete_case no | speaker_position no_position | quotation not_quoted |
   function ["institutional_title_or_mandate"] | referent: Genocide Convention and legal
   definition | referent_source passage | accused_actor "" | victim_group "" |
   own_state_accused not_applicable | salience passing
   rationale: "The matched word occurs only inside the treaty's title, so it is applied to no
   case even though the sentence around it is about one."

8. A warning. UNSC_1996_SPV.3692_spch0018#1, Japan, 28 August 1996.
   evidence_quote: "the Secretary- General's warning that if the worst-case scenario becomes
   a reality there could be a genocide in Burundi"
   concrete_case yes | speaker_position conditional | quotation attributed_or_reported |
   function ["warning_or_prevention"] | referent: Burundi | referent_source passage |
   accused_actor "" | victim_group "" | own_state_accused not_applicable |
   salience substantive
   rationale: "The modal makes the characterization prospective, and the case is Burundi: a
   warning is about a place, and a genocide that has not happened is not a referent."
   Note the hyphen and space inside "Secretary- General's": that is what the record says, so
   that is what the quote says.

9. Distancing. UNSC_2023_SPV.9524_spch0007#1, United Kingdom, 30 December 2023.
   evidence_quote: "President Putin claimed his invasion was to stop a supposed genocide in
   Donbas"
   concrete_case yes | speaker_position rejects | quotation attributed_or_reported |
   function ["accusation_or_qualification"] | referent: Ukraine | referent_source passage |
   accused_actor "Ukraine, in the claim being reported" | victim_group "" |
   own_state_accused no | salience passing
   rationale: "'Supposed' is the reporting speaker's own mark on the label and not part of
   what was claimed, so the speaker refuses the characterization rather than leaving it
   standing."

10. An office's name. UNSC_2004_SPV.4990_spch0011#1, France, 14 June 2004.
    evidence_quote: "the Secretary-General's initiative of establishing the post of Special
    Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide"
    concrete_case no | speaker_position no_position | quotation not_quoted |
    function ["institutional_title_or_mandate"] | referent: institutional title or mandate |
    referent_source passage | accused_actor "" | victim_group "" |
    own_state_accused not_applicable | salience passing
    rationale: "The word is part of an office's name, so it names a mandate and not a case."

OUTPUT

Return JSON only, matching the schema supplied with the request. No prose, no commentary, no
explanation outside the fields. Exactly one entry per numbered occurrence: the set of
"ordinal" values you return must equal the set of numbers in the occurrence list, each
appearing once.
```

## User template

```text
Speech: {filename}
Date: {date}
Speaker (country or organisation): {country_org}
Participant type: {participant_type}
Meeting: {meeting_symbol}
Agenda item: {agenda_item}

===== SPEECH TEXT BEGINS =====
{speech}
===== SPEECH TEXT ENDS =====

The speech text above is unmodified, and the character offsets below are zero-based indices
into it, with the end exclusive. Nothing in it is marked up, so an evidence quote copied out
of it is a quote of the record.

The header lines above are context, not evidence. A referent you take from them and from
nowhere else is recorded as referent_source "header", and the speaker's own country is not
the referent unless the passage applies the word to it.

Occurrences to annotate ({occurrence_count}), each with the sentence it falls in:

{occurrences}
```

Show the controlled referent list (version 2, 40 identifiers)

Identifier	Definition	Occurrences
Rwanda `rwanda`	Speeches invoking the mass killing of Tutsi in Rwanda and its aftermath as genocide or genocidal.	1,848
Genocide in general `genocide_in_general`	Abstract discussion of genocide, including prevention doctrine, with no single case in view.	1,640
Bosnia and Srebrenica `bosnia_srebrenica`	Speeches invoking the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina, including the fall of Srebrenica and its commemorations, as genocide or genocidal.	722
Genocide Convention and legal definition `genocide_convention_law`	The 1948 Convention, the legal definition of the crime, and jurisdiction over it before the ICJ or the ICC.	490
Gaza `gaza`	Speeches invoking the Gaza war as genocide or genocidal, including the proceedings South Africa brought against Israel at the ICJ.	481
Institutional title or mandate `institutional_mandate`	The name or mandate of an office or body, such as the Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide or a tribunal's title.	454
Other known referent `other`	A referent that is identifiable but does not yet have a controlled identifier.	399
Israel and Palestine `israel_palestine`	Speeches invoking Israeli conduct towards Palestinians, or the conduct of Palestinian and allied armed groups towards Israelis, as genocide or genocidal, up to the war that gaza covers.	320
Darfur `darfur`	Speeches invoking the conflict in Darfur as genocide or genocidal.	189
ISIL and the Yazidis `isil_yazidi`	Speeches invoking ISIL's campaign against the Yazidi population of northern Iraq as genocide or genocidal.	120
Kosovo `kosovo`	Speeches invoking the Kosovo conflict and the expulsion of its Albanian population as genocide or genocidal.	109
Democratic Republic of the Congo `drc`	Speeches invoking mass killing in the Democratic Republic of the Congo as genocide or genocidal, including the presence in its east of armed groups formed from the perpetrators of the Rwandan killings.	87
South Africa under apartheid `apartheid_south_africa`	Speeches invoking apartheid and the violence surrounding its end as genocide or genocidal.	84
Ukraine `ukraine`	Speeches invoking genocide in connection with the war in Ukraine, in either direction: against Russia's conduct and in Russia's own claims about Donbas. Not the Soviet famine, which holodomor covers, and not the Crimean Tatars, who have their own identifier.	82
ISIL and other populations of Iraq and Syria `isil_iraq_syria`	Speeches invoking ISIL's crimes against populations of Iraq and Syria other than the Yazidis as genocide or genocidal, such as Christians, Shia Muslims and Turkmen.	75
Burundi `burundi`	Speeches invoking the mass violence in Burundi as genocide or genocidal.	67
Colonial-era mass violence `colonial_era`	Speeches invoking mass violence under colonial rule as genocide or genocidal, such as the campaign against the Herero and Nama.	65
The Holocaust `holocaust`	Speeches invoking the Nazi extermination of European Jews and its commemoration as genocide or genocidal.	59
Croatia and the Yugoslav wars `croatia_yugoslav_wars`	Speeches invoking the Yugoslav wars outside Bosnia and Kosovo as genocide or genocidal, such as the fighting in Croatia and the Krajina, or the wars taken as a whole.	53
Muslims in India `india_muslims`	Speeches invoking the treatment of the Muslim population of India as genocide or genocidal.	44
South Sudan `south_sudan`	Speeches invoking the civil war in South Sudan as genocide or genocidal.	33
Myanmar and the Rohingya `myanmar_rohingya`	Speeches invoking the treatment of the Rohingya population of Myanmar as genocide or genocidal.	27
The Ottoman Armenians `armenian_genocide`	Speeches invoking the deportation and mass killing of Ottoman Armenians as genocide or genocidal.	26
Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge `cambodia_khmer_rouge`	Speeches invoking the mass killing under the Khmer Rouge, including the work of the Extraordinary Chambers, as genocide or genocidal.	25
Bangladesh and the war of separation `bangladesh`	Speeches invoking the mass killing during the war that separated East Pakistan from Pakistan as genocide or genocidal.	24
Nagorno-Karabakh `nagorno_karabakh`	Speeches invoking the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and the departure of its Armenian population as genocide or genocidal.	21
Syria `syria`	Speeches invoking the conduct of the parties to the war in Syria as genocide or genocidal.	19
Central African Republic `central_african_republic`	Speeches invoking the sectarian violence in the Central African Republic as genocide or genocidal.	17
Other sanctions regimes `economic_sanctions_other`	Speeches describing a sanctions regime other than the Cuban embargo as genocidal, such as the measures against Iraq in the 1990s.	16
Afghanistan and the Hazaras `afghanistan_hazara`	Speeches invoking mass violence in Afghanistan as genocide or genocidal, in particular attacks on its Hazara population.	13
Abkhazia and South Ossetia `abkhazia_south_ossetia`	Speeches invoking the conflicts in Abkhazia and South Ossetia and the displacement of their populations as genocide or genocidal.	11
East Timor `east_timor`	Speeches invoking the violence around East Timor's independence ballot as genocide or genocidal.	8
Crimean Tatars `crimean_tatars`	Speeches invoking the wartime deportation of the Crimean Tatars, or their treatment under the occupation of Crimea, as genocide or genocidal.	6
Iraqi Kurds and Anfal `iraq_kurds_anfal`	Speeches invoking the Anfal campaign and the Halabja attack against Iraq's Kurdish population as genocide or genocidal.	5
Khojaly `khojaly`	Speeches invoking the killings at Khojaly as genocide or genocidal, which Azerbaijan raises as an event of its own.	5
The Soviet famine in Ukraine `holodomor`	Speeches invoking the Soviet famine in Ukraine as genocide or genocidal, which speakers raise as a case of its own rather than as part of the war that ukraine covers.	4
United States embargo against Cuba `cuba_us_sanctions`	Speeches describing the United States embargo against Cuba as genocidal.	2
Xinjiang and the Uyghurs `xinjiang_uyghurs`	Speeches invoking China's treatment of the Uyghur population of Xinjiang as genocide or genocidal.	1
Not applicable `not_applicable`	Reserved for false-positive candidate matches.	0
Unclear referent `unclear`	The available context does not support a reliable referent assignment.	0

Comparison with human coding

No human-reference comparisons are available yet. The sample contains 200 entries covering 199 distinct occurrences. Two readers are to code each independently. Accuracy scores require agreed or adjudicated reference labels; the absence of a score means accuracy has not been measured.