[gadilif]

The facts are, well, different: As of now:

No international court has ruled that genocide has been committed by either side.

The term "genocide" is used politically and emotionally by many, but legally it carries a very high burden of proof.

The ICJ case and other investigations (e.g., by the International Criminal Court) are ongoing and may shape future judgments.

[runarberg]

For the record no international court has ruled that the Cambodian genocide was a genocide either. The perpetrators were arrested years or decades after the genocide and charged under a special UN endorsed tribunal for various crimes against humanity, but not genocide... That doesn’t mean there was no genocide in Cambodia, obviously.

Even in cases where international courts did rule a genocide, such as in Rwanda, it usually happens months, years, or even decades after the fact. In Rwanda it wasn’t until the genocide was officially over where the UN entertained making charges for genocide, with a special court established 4 months later (nov. 1994), initial indictments a year after that (nov. 1995) and it wasn’t until 1996 when the first perpetrators were found guilty of genocide. The Bosnian Genocide tribunal took even longer.

In no cases has anybody ever been found guilty of a genocide by an international court during an ongoing genocide.

You are right about one thing though. The term genocide is used politically, but not in the way you are arguing. During the Rwandan Gencocide countries—particularly the USA, but also many European countries—avoided the term, and fought hard against using it to describe the horrors in Rwanda, because under the genocide convention they were obligated to take active role in preventing it, which they had no interest in doing. Usually avoiding the term is what politicians do to avoid their responsibilities.