Civil War Victory and the Onset of Genocide and Politicide

Why do some governments engage in genocide and/or politicide? A common explanation for such government-sponsored mass killing is that civil war provides governments both the incentive and opportunity to eradicate their enemies during the fighting. However, many episodes of genocide and politicide begin once the fighting has ended. I argue that when the civil war ends with a clear victor the winning party is more likely to engage in mass killing than if the conflict ends through negotiated settlement or other inconclusive manners, since the victorious party does not fear armed resistance while they eliminate dissidents throughout the country. Moreover, I posit that the government will be more likely to engage in politicide rather than genocide, as politicide eradicates the leader’s political enemies across cross-cutting segments of the population, whereas genocide only destroys certain communal groups. Statistical examination of all post-civil war periods between 1955 and 2009 supports my argument.     

“苏联1932—1933年饥荒”问题研究综述

苏联1932—1933年饥荒问题最早由在西方的乌克兰流亡者提出，上世纪80年代以前主要在西方国家进行研究，戈尔巴乔夫改革时期，这个问题在乌克兰被公开提出。苏联解体至今，乌克兰和俄罗斯学界以及政界就因饥荒死亡人数、饥荒发生的原因、斯大林对饥荒应负的责任等问题展开争论，从形式和内容上看，这既是一个学术问题，也是政治问题。     

Rethinking the Role of Ideology in Mass Atrocities

There is a widespread sense amongst theorists of genocide and other violent atrocities that ideology matters. But in spite of this agreement all is not well with actual efforts to theorise ideology's role. Theoretical and empirical coverage has been uneven, and there has been little if any effort to incorporate theories and research from the actual specialist field of contemporary ideology studies. As a result, overarching theoretical accounts of the role ideology plays in violent atrocities remain limited and problematic. This article aims to encourage theorists to think about ideology in a more systematic and productive fashion by analysing four questions: (a) what do we mean by ideology?; (b) who, in cases of atrocity, might be relevantly affected by ideology?; (c) how do these people come to be influenced by atrocity-justifying ideologies?; and (d) how might ideology encourage these people to commit, or permit, mass violence? In discussing these four questions, I aim to clear up a number of misconceptions or vagaries that frequent current analyses of ideology in works on atrocity and political violence. I ultimately offer a suggestive account of six recurring “justificatory mechanisms” which collectively describe some of the common features of ideology's role across cases of mass atrocity.     

Ararat and the politics of ‘preserving’ denial

ABSTRACT

Daldal analyses Atom Egoyan's film Ararat (2002) in terms of its ‘truth claims’ and its ostensible critique of the politics of denial of the Turkish authorities. Her essay is not an apologia for Turkish attitudes but claims that, while searching for the ‘truth’ amid denial and deception, the film creates its own ‘official history’, which is presented as the history, mostly based on nostalgia and ‘post-memory’. The Armenian diaspora still relies heavily on the genocide in order to build consciousness and cohesion, and Ararat contributes further to the need for sacred codes, sacred lands and sacred myths. Although the Turkish denial of the genocide is unacceptable, by demonizing the Turks and Turkey, the film contributes to the preservation of that denial, which has been helpful in the creation of diasporic Armenian identity.     

SUBNATIONAL DETERMINANTS OF KILLING IN RWANDA*

Nearly one million people were killed in the Rwandan genocide in 1994. Although scholars have theorized why this violence occurred, we know comparatively less about how it unfolded. Accordingly, this article assesses the determinants of subnational levels of killing in 142 Rwandan communes by relying on data from the Rwandan Ministry of Local Administration and Community Development, the National University of Rwanda, and the 1991 Rwandan census. Fixed effects analyses reveal that top‐down and bottom‐up factors coalesced to influence violence across Rwanda. The state orchestrated and implemented the violence, and more violence occurred near the extremist center of the country as well as where state actors met strong opposition. Local conditions also shaped the violence, however, and indicators of low community cohesion and social control are associated with comparatively more violence. When put together, a unique model is introduced that integrates state conflict theories and social control theories of crime to explain subnational killing during the genocide in Rwanda.     

论卢旺达国际刑事法庭对国际刑法发展的贡献

卢旺达国际刑事法庭在1994年的建立和12年的审判实践经验为国际刑事法的发展作出了一定贡献.主要表现在:卢旺达国际刑事法庭是历史上首次建立专门审理非国际性武装冲突的国际刑事法庭;丰富了国际人道主义法的内容;扩大了对在非国际性武装冲突中犯罪的管辖权,进一步积累了国际刑事法院的审判经验,对国际刑法中的三大罪行的界定作出了新的阐释;推动了非洲国际法学的发展并在一定程度上促进了常设性国际刑事法院的建立.     

‘I wanted a Communist philosophy,but I wanted us to have a chance to organize our people’: the diasporic radicalism of Queen Mother Audley Moore and the origins of black power

Abstract

This article charts the extraordinary life and legacy of ‘Queen Mother’ Audley Moore (1898–1997). She was one of the most revered figures in twentieth-century black nationalism, Pan-Africanism, and Communism. A life-long Garveyite and a leading personality in the World War II-era Harlem Communist Party, she understood black women across the diaspora as the vanguard in struggles for self-determination. She broke from the Communist Party in 1950, reinventing herself into an ardent black nationalist. Creatively formulating an idiosyncratic politics combining Garveyism, Marxism, Third Worldism, and feminism, she was central in forging 1960s-era Black Power and the modern reparations movement. Recovering her life reveals the underappreciated importance of black women in building radical, diasporic movements, the legacy of Garveyism and Communism in framing Black Power, and the contours in twentieth-century black radicalism, black internationalism, and black women's activism.     

Reflections on the anticipated mass deportation of Soviet Jews

Abstract

This paper investigates questions surrounding a purported plan (believed to have been interrupted and not resumed after Stalin’s death in March 1953) for the mass deportation of 2 million Soviet Jews from the European part of the country to desolate areas of Siberia, Kazakhstan, and the Arctic North. More specifically, it asks: (1) Was there such a plan, orchestrated by Stalin? (2) Were preparations undertaken to implement the plan, particularly the compilation of lists of potential Jewish deportees, assembly of cattle car echelons for their transportation, and construction of barracks at destinations? The author begins by briefly tracing the history of Stalin’s anti-Semitic campaign after World War II, summarizing the liquidation of the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee and the Doctors’ Plot in light of the mounting anti-Semitic campaign in the country, which reached alarming proportions during the “seven-week” period prior to Stalin’s last days. In addition to an in-depth review of Russian-language sources, the paper also is based on contacts with authors and observers with access to state archives and a private archival collection. The latter, still in a state of relative disorganization, could become a link to resolving the question of whether the plan and preparations for the anticipated mass deportation had taken place.     

The persistence of collective guilt

Abstract

This paper asks why, despite the obvious difficulties entailed, the notion of ‘collective guilt’ continues to feature in discussions of the responsibilities of one group towards another. The aim is to clarify how it is that the partial success of repeated attempts to distinguish individual from collective guilt and to confine the latter to a pre-modern moment reveals something of our present. The key contributions to this discussion made by Hannah Arendt and Karl Jaspers in relation to Nazi Germany are examined for their ambivalences in this regard, as are some recent developments in international law and politics. The suspicion is that collective guilt is a notion that modern political reason cannot embrace and yet which it cannot entirely disavow: ‘collective guilt’ and the element of fate that it implies is central to our understanding of citizenship, nationhood and political commitment. The paper thus attempts an analysis of the durability of the concept of collective guilt; it is not an evaluation of its usefulness, but an exploration of its persistence.     

The Role of State-Sponsored Militias in Genocide

This article explains how and why armed, non-state actors collaborate with states to inflict massive levels of violence. Regime type and state capacity interact to provide state elites a menu of repertoires for implementing violence, some emphasizing direct state action, others emphasizing cooperation and alliance between state and armed, non-state actors. Rather than struggling in vain to build strong states to eliminate armed non-state actors and establish a monopoly over the use of force, averting genocide might necessitate recruiting and strengthening the power of indigenous, armed non-state actors.