The chapeau of article II of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide states that the intent to destroy must be directed against one of four enumerated groups: national, racial, ethnical or religious. The Convention does not even invite application to what might be called analogous groups, a departure from General Assembly Resolution 96(I), which referred to ‘other groups’ in its definition of genocide. Moreover, the drafters of the Convention quite intentionally excluded ‘political’ groups from its scope, as they did reference to ‘ideological’, ‘linguistic’ and ‘economic’ groups. The Convention's list of protected groups has probably provoked more debate since 1948 than any other aspect of the instrument. This is often reflected in frustration that the victims of a particular atrocity, that otherwise would respond to the terms of the Convention, do not neatly fit within the four categories. According to scholars Frank Chalk and Kurt Jonassohn, ‘the wording of the Convention is so restrictive that not one of the genocidal killings committed since its adoption is covered by it’. They add that ‘potential perpetrators have taken care to victimize only those groups that are not covered by the convention's definition’.

The limited scope of the Convention definition has led many academics and human rights activists in two distinct directions. There have been frequent attempts to stretch the Convention definition, often going beyond all reason, in order to fit particular atrocities within the meaning of article II.