Beyond Authoritarianism: The Conceptualization of Hybrid Regimes

This paper appraises the state of the field on hybrid regimes by depicting the tensions and blurred boundaries of democracy and authoritarianism “with adjectives.” An alternative conceptualization and ordering of regimes are subsequently introduced using a configurative approach. Rather than place regimes on a linear continuum from authoritarianism to democracy, it highlights the multi-dimensional arrangements possible for the construction of regime types. The configurative approach also provides an analytically useful way to measure and integrate hybrid regimes into our classificatory schemes. As a result, it helps alleviate the conceptual confusion in the literature and contributes to a discussion of hybrid regimes beyond the framework of authoritarianism. The paper concludes by presenting a list of all hybrid regimes in the world between 1990 and 2009 identified with this method.     

Exploring the semiotic meaning of the first oil city in the Middle East: Masjed Soleyman

This study aims to provide a perspective on the symbolic characteristics of oil cities by focusing on the example of the first oil city in the Middle East, Masjed Soleyman city. Studies of oil cities are generally based on their industrial characteristics rather than their symbolic meanings. However, since oil became a distinctive symbol in the Middle East, these cities need to be examined from an altered perspective. Therefore, the present study analyses the urban context of Masjed Soleyman city based on four concepts of “city as overall sign”, “image of city”, “language of city” and “interpretation/communication” as well as the derived indicators from each concept. It is concluded that given the critical importance of oil at both the national and international levels, oil production was arguably maintained or sustained by various treatments of this city's inhabitants. In the process of exploring this ancient city, the study portrays that Masjed Soleyman characteristically symbolises control, social segregation and surveillance.     

Preventing Genocide: Measuring Success by What Does Not Happen

Although the concept of genocide prevention is recognized in international jurisprudence and the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine, its content remains vague and peripheral to legal scholarship and policy-making. Effective prevention is particularly challenging to grasp because success must be measured by what does not happen. Reaction to mass-atrocities must be replaced by early warning and rapid engagement through modest and feasible measures. With escalating violence, there may be greater attention to a situation, but also less willingness to intervene as humanitarian intervention through force and similar means becomes increasingly costly. A better understanding of the norms, institutions, and tools within reasonable reach of decision-makers is essential to translating genocide prevention from an elusive ideal into reality. This article evaluates and elucidates the law and practice of early warning and genocide prevention. First, the far-reaching potential of a preventive approach is illustrated based on the example of Rwanda where measures as modest as jamming radio broadcasts inciting hatred could have substantially constrained genocidal violence. Second, scholarship on the indicia and prediction of mass atrocities will be explored with a view to understanding the timeliness of action. Third, the legal and institutional dimensions of an obligation to prevent genocide and other mass-crimes will be addressed with a focus on recent developments within the UN system. And fourth, success stories from Macedonia, Côte d??Ivoire and Burundi will be examined in order to demonstrate the practical impact of early warning and prevention     

The Crime of Genocide in the ICTR Jurisprudence

The jurisprudence of the International Criminal Tribunal forRwanda (ICTR) has properly focused on the special intent (dolusspecialis) to destroy a group as the distinguishing characteristicof genocide and differentiated it from result-oriented crimes.Although the ICTR has crowned genocide as ‘the crime ofcrimes’, it has simultaneously dethroned it by holdingthat it attracts the same sentence as other humanitarian lawviolations. Nonetheless, ICTR jurisprudence attaches considerableimportance to characterizing the destruction of the Tutsi asgenocide as distinct from crimes against humanity. Because theTutsi cannot be readily distinguished as one of the protectedgroups under the Genocide Convention, Trial Chambers have goneto great lengths to characterize them as an ‘ethnic’group in order to justify the label of genocide.