Genocide Studies, Essay Example

The concept of genocide entered the legal lexicon with the United Nations’ “Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide” of 1948. Whereas this document established the legal parameters from which crimes of genocide could be identified, the advent of the Convention did not deter subsequent debates concerning the definition of the term: in other words, genocide by no means denotes a homogeneous concept. It is precisely this problematic which is my starting point: what are the theoretical and practical reasons for the lack of consensus on the meaning of genocide?

Debates concerning the precise meaning of genocide are carried out within disciplines as diverse as sociology, history, political science and jurisprudence. Even a cursory glance at the academic literature from any of these disciplines makes clear that a fundamental ambiguity lies at the heart of the concept.  In general, I have noticed that this ambiguity assumes two primary forms. The first form applies a concept of genocide to particular cases, seeking to determine if these are adequate to the concept. Such cases can be contemporary legal trials, such as the ongoing International Criminal Tribunals for Rwanda and Yugoslavia. These cases can also be historical: for example, the question if the Turkish actions against the Armenian people in the early twentieth century constituted genocide. The second form of ambiguity relates to the concept of genocide on a theoretical level. Various theorists attempt to posit a working definition of genocide, a definition that is immediately complicated by debates concerning, for example, the consideration of political parties or religious groups within the remit of the crime of genocide. Certainly, these two forms of ambiguity to the concept genocide can be considered as inter-related: insofar as there is an ambiguity in what genocide denotes, the application of the concept to particular cases inevitably encounters an impasse. Furthermore, I can add that the contribution of the aforementioned vast number of disciplines to genocide studies has only complicated this problematic, as different theoretical perspectives tend to emphasize certain key features in their treatment of genocide. Such ambiguity is precisely my initial exploratory question: what do the academic literature and other relevant sources say about genocide? What viewpoints are prevalent in contemporary genocide studies? Furthermore, how do such views reflect themselves in actual court proceedings that seek to prosecute those accused of genocide, such as the aforementioned International Court? My interest is to present some of the differing views on the concept, in order to bring some lucidity to the notion of what genocide entails.

The starting point for my research was to collect various theoretical approaches to the concept of genocide. I was particularly interested in finding legal, historical, sociological and political accounts that attempt to define the concept, in order to properly gauge the differences these disciplines engender in their treatment of the concept. By taking such a broad perspective, the intent was to provide a diverse over-view of approaches to the concept. Such sources tend to emphasize precise definitions of genocide, such as conflict theory (Shaw, 2007) and the necessary role of the state in genocide (Horowitz, 1976). When looking for such texts, I tried to avoid using any non-academic sources. I was looking for a certain standard of quality and research when approaching the topic, and articles that have passed through the peer-review system, I believe, meet this requirement.

Another aim of my research was to collate key historical texts that have contributed to the formation of genocide as concept. In this regard, three texts are of primary importance. Firstly, Raphael Lemkin’s text “Genocide” (2002) is often cited as a critical reference in genocide studies, insofar as Lemkin is viewed as the originator of the term genocide. Much of his work on the concept is reflected, to varying degrees in documents such as the UN Convention of 1948. (Shaw, 2007) The UN Convention, therefore, is a key source, as it advances the first legal formulation of genocide, and as various commentators note (Schabas, 2000), this document is the foundational text of legal approaches to genocide. The third key text is that of the Rome Statute that called for the formation of an International Criminal Court, which would thereinafter be able to address potential violations in humanitarian law. There is a lot of secondary literature addressing these issues, and one of the difficulties I had was determining which of these sources provide the most sufficient reading. It is particularly because genocide studies is a dynamic field, with many interpretations of concepts and legal documents, that complicates these projects. Nevertheless, by focusing on a handful of key texts that are constantly referenced in the academic literature, this will make my own essay consistent with academic approaches to the topic.

The third group of research material addresses contemporary treatments of genocide. The selection of the webpage for the International Court of Rwanda as a source provides a lucid example of theoretical and legal concepts of genocide being put into practice. There are other international court websites, such as the International Court for Yugoslavia, and a difficulty I had was trying to discover which site to use in my ten sources. Nonetheless, since my research is approach is largely theoretical, I do not think this is such a problem; moreover, in a subsequent essay, I could potentially include other sites. The website of the “Save Darfur Coalition” identifies that ongoing potential genocides are possible. Moreover, the lack of action in Darfur suggests that part of the problem in defining a course of action vis-à-vis such situations lies in properly identifying a given act as genocide. In this regard, I have also selected texts that address the history of genocide (Kiernan, 2007), which suggest that genocide existed before it was nominated as a concept. These texts further reflect the ambiguity of genocide, as there is a fundamental entanglement historically as to what denotes genocide and what denotes classical military strategy.

These research materials are interrelated insofar as central to all these sources is the question of what genocide entails. As mentioned, there is a problem in defining historical genocide as opposed to historical instances of “classical” war; there are debates concerning the legal definition and prosecution of genocide; and there are debates regarding whether contemporary ongoing conflicts are instances of genocide. There is an abundance of literature on the topic, and part of the difficulty in research was deciding which texts to incorporate. Nevertheless, I feel that by introducing a fairly diverse amount of literature on the topic, I will be able to provide a comprehensive treatment of the thematic. The subsequent difficulty is to utilize such materials to potentially form my own unique account of genocide. In this regard, the very diversity of the material I have collected shall identify some of the key tensions in the debate concerning the topic, while also possibly offering a cursory contribution to genocide studies.

Research Log

Shaw, Martin. (2007). What is Genocide? Cambridge, UK: Polity.

The text examines some of the problems with previous conceptions of genocide. Shaw’s aim in the work is conceptual: he wishes to establish a theoretical definition of genocide. Shaw relies on a definition informed by structural conflict theory as influenced from sociology. The main point of this theory is that genocide should be considered in terms of the victims perceived as unequal to the aggressors. Shaw’s text is especially interesting because of its lucid account of the theoretical debates within genocide studies, while also offering a new account of genocide, one that helps specify some of the problems with the 1948 UN Genocide Convention.

Jonassohn, Kurt and Karin Solveig Bjorunson. (1999). Genocide and Human Rights Violations In Comparative Perspective. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

Jonassohn and Bjorunson provide a conceptual analysis of genocide informed by historical cases of genocide. The authors’ work can be understood as a combination of theoretical and historiographical analyses of the concept. They subsequently offer extensive case studies of possible instances of genocide to examine how they may or may not be understood as genocide. The monograph reflects the value of supplementing conceptual approaches with concrete examples, in order to consider the myriad real forms in which genocide may occur.

Horowitz, Irving Louis. (1976). Genocide: State Power and Mass Murder. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

Horowitz provides an argument that genocide must be considered as a structural mechanism of the state. Accordingly, genocide is not equivalent to contingent outbursts of violence. It is rather politically systematic and inherently conjoined with ideology. Accordingly, for Horowitz, genocide may be abstracted as a fundamental aspect of the political. The author therefore suggests that genocide must be thought in terms of decisions made by the political apparatus. However, with his reliance on the political, Horowitz perhaps precludes the possibilities of genocide in the vacuum of the political, such as tribal genocides in Africa: this would indicate a limit to the rigor of his account.

United Nations. (1948) Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime on Genocide. Retrieved at http://www.hrweb.org/legal/genocide.html

This United Nations document asserts the legal definition of genocide as established by members of the international community. The contents of the text are primarily traced to the work of the lawyer Raphael Lemkin. The text is invaluable in its establishment of precise criteria for genocide. Moreover, the analysis of the document allows one to think about possible gaps in the definition and why subsequent literature has emerged criticizing the document.

Raphael Lemkin. (2002) »Genocide«. In A.L. Hinton (ed.) Genocide: An Anthropological Reader (pp. 27-42). London: Wiley-Blackwell.

Lemkin’s text provides the first theoretical elaboration of the concept of genocide. The key definition for Lemkin is the notion that genocide entails »the destruction of a nation or of an ethnic group.« (Lemkin, 2002, p. 27) The text is valuable in its nascent formulation of genocide, but also points to some of the reasons for subsequent problems in the interpretation of genocide. For example, the question of the liquidation of political parties or religious minorities does not constitute genocide according to Lemkin.

Schabas, William. (2000). Genocide in International Law. The Crimes of Crimes. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Schabas examines some of the legal aspects of the 1948 Genocide Convention. Particularly, he distinguishes between the actus reus and mens rea of genocide, which refers to the planning of genocide and the physical carrying out of genocide. Such ambiguities make it difficult to determine who is ultimately responsible for genocide and thus complicates subsequent courses of legal action. In my view, Schabas’ text is valuable insofar as it lucidly presents the problematic of jurisprudential hermeneutics vis-à-vis genocide.

International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. Retrieved at: http://www.unictr.org/

The webpage of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda is the website for the Court established by the United Nations to investigate transgressions of humanitarian law and cases of genocide in Rwanda. The site provides extensive background information on the mission of the Tribunal, notes on the accused, and current and future legal processes, including case minutes, etc.,. The site provides a useful summary of the precise Statutes to which the accused are brought to trial, while the case minutes demonstrates the legal concepts the accused use to defend themselves against charges of violations of humanitarian law. Concomitantly, the content of the site reflects the depth and complexity of the legal prosecution of such trials. The website is therefore crucial in my understanding of both practical and theoretical understandings of the notion of genocide.

United Nations. Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Retrieved at: http://untreaty.un.org/cod/icc/statute/romefra.htm

This document is important insofar as it legally established a criminal court for the prosecution of various violations of humanitarian law such as genocide. This statute, by essentially allowing for genocide to be prosecuted, evinces a greater commitment on the part of the International community to the prevention of such crimes. The text is therefore pertinent to my research to the extent that it further establishes the legal grounds that make possible the identification and prosecution of genocide.

The Save Darfur Coalition  www.savedarfur.org Retrieved at: www.savedarfur.org.

This website engenders a thinking of genocide that does not begin from retroactively positing whether a given atrocity constitutes genocide, but rather surfaces a theoretical and practical need to identify genocide as it happens. The website of the Save Darfur coalition presents a case why the actions of the Sudanese government in the Darfur region are genocide. The contemporariness of this case allows one to understand how theoretical and political indecisiveness regarding the concept of genocide can prevent humanitarian action, thus identifying the importance of genocide studies.

Ben Kiernan. (2007). Blood and Soil: A World History of Genocide and Extermination from Sparta to Darfur. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

The book encourages the positing of genocide beyond its nomination by Lemkin and its legal recognition in the 1948 UN Genocide convention. Accordingly, there is an importance to understand genocide historically, retroactively thinking past violations of humanitarian law. At the same time, the monograph is pertinent insofar as it points out one of the fundamental ambiguities regarding genocide: how can one make a distinction between genocide and war? Kiernan’s account allows me to think the possibility that genocide may exist without any conceptual nomination; accordingly, this demonstrates the very importance of conceptually understanding it.