This article argues that the crime of genocide is now a redundant crime in international law given the advances that have been made in the case law and application of crimes against humanity. It does this by providing an historical analysis of the two crimes before going on to consider four separate crimes against humanity and corresponding acts of genocide. The primary argument leveled against genocide is the difficulties that stem from proving the intent in the mind of the perpetrator to destroy a particular group in contrast to the less demanding category of crimes against humanity. It argues for a pragmatic rather than philosophical approach to international justice for the benefit of the victims and the prevention of criminal acts in the future.