How should we confront hate? This book makes a case for making the maximum use of reason to deal with hate. The author argues that, as a close look at the history of applying law to incidents of hate and violence illustrates, the courtroom proves to be an excellent place to demonstrate the virtues of applying the tools of reason to the grave injustices of the world. The author demonstrates the power of legal analysis in enhancing our understanding of genocide, probably the worst injustice imaginable. A close examination of each element of the crime of genocide redirects misguided turns taken by international jurists. Contrary to the perspective adopted at the Nuremberg trials, jurists have mistakenly modelled international criminal law on national criminal law, which focuses on individual responsibility. However, the cases of grave injustices throughout the 20th century amply demonstrate the primary collective responsibility underlying incidences of genocide. The failure to prosecute criminal organisations for genocide has and will continue to have disastrous results. While the Nuremberg tribunal at least disbanded the responsible Nazi organisations, current war crimes tribunals have allowed organisations responsible for the Rwandan genocide to continue to wreak havoc throughout Central Africa. If the international community cannot forge a common understanding of genocide, argues the author, then it has little hope of establishing an international legal order or a global ethics.