Question: The study of genocide has mainly been focused towards the legal aspect of the term. By formally recognizing the act of genocide as a crime, involves the undergoing prosecution that begins with not only seeing genocide as outrageous past any moral standpoint but also may be a legal liability within international relations. When genocide is looked at in a general aspect it is viewed as the deliberate killing of a certain group. Yet is commonly seen to escape the process of trial and prosecution due to the fact that genocide is more often than not committed by the officials in power of a state or area. In 1648 before the term genocide had been coined, the Peace of Westphalia was established to protect ethnic, national, racial and in some instances religious groups. During the 19th century humanitarian intervention was needed due to the fact of conflict and justification of some of the actions executed by the military.
Is there an answer to this question: In trials of genocidal crimes, what responsibly party is difficult to prosecute? 

Answer: officials in power of a state or area


Question: After World War I, when Britain and France divided up the Middle East's countries, apart from Turkey, between them, pursuant to the Sykes-Picot agreement—in violation of solemn wartime promises of postwar Arab autonomy—there came an immediate reaction: the Muslim Brotherhood emerged in Egypt, the House of Saud took over the Hijaz, and regimes led by army officers came to power in Iran and Turkey. "[B]oth illiberal currents of the modern Middle East," writes de Bellaigne, "Islamism and militarism, received a major impetus from Western empire-builders." As often happens in countries undergoing social crisis, the aspirations of the Muslim world's translators and modernizers, such as Muhammad Abduh, largely had to yield to retrograde currents.
Is there an answer to this question: What was the dividing up of the Middle Eastern countries in violation of?

Answer: solemn wartime promises of postwar Arab autonomy


Question: Technically, all these coins are still legal tender at face value, though some are far more valuable today for their numismatic value, and for gold and silver coins, their precious metal value. From 1965 to 1970 the Kennedy half dollar was the only circulating coin with any silver content, which was removed in 1971 and replaced with cupronickel. However, since 1992, the U.S. Mint has produced special Silver Proof Sets in addition to the regular yearly proof sets with silver dimes, quarters, and half dollars in place of the standard copper-nickel versions. In addition, an experimental $4.00 (Stella) coin was also minted in 1879, but never placed into circulation, and is properly considered to be a pattern rather than an actual coin denomination.
Is there an answer to this question: What are gold and silver coins valuable for now adays?

Answer: their precious metal value


Question: UCLA professor Richard H. Sander published an article in the November 2004 issue of the Stanford Law Review that questioned the effectiveness of racial preferences in law schools. He noted that, prior to his article, there had been no comprehensive study on the effects of affirmative action. The article presents a study that shows that half of all black law students rank near the bottom of their class after the first year of law school and that black law students are more likely to drop out of law school and to fail the bar exam. The article offers a tentative estimate that the production of new black lawyers in the United States would grow by eight percent if affirmative action programs at all law schools were ended. Less qualified black students would attend less prestigious schools where they would be more closely matched in abilities with their classmates and thus perform relatively better. Sander helped to develop a socioeconomically-based affirmative action plan for the UCLA School of Law after the passage of Proposition 209 in 1996, which prohibited the use of racial preferences by public universities in California. This change occurred after studies showed that the graduation rate of blacks at UCLA was 41%, compared to 73% for whites.
Is there an answer to this question: In which publication did Sander publish an article questioning racial preferences in law schools?

Answer:
Stanford Law Review