Mass Atrocities Research Articles

Samuel Beckett and the Politics of Aftermath by James McNaughton, Beckett’s Political Imagination by Emilie Morin

<i>Samuel Beckett and the Politics of Aftermath</i> by James McNaughton, <i>Beckett’s Political Imagination</i> by Emilie Morin

Money justice

Money justice—defined as money offered and paid to victims in the aftermath of wrongs—permeates society and everyday life. Current mechanisms of money justice are civil justice awards or out-of-court settlements for personal or cultural injury; redress programs or schemes for mass atrocities, political repression, historical injustice, and institutional abuse; and payments for war-related wrongs, terrorism, violent common crime, and contaminated blood products, among many others. In this article, we elucidate the concept of money justice, sketch the relationship of revenge and recompense in human history, distil relevant research, and put forward the money justice matrix, which provides a systematic way to analyse money payments (or lack of payments) in varied contexts of victimisation and with different justice mechanisms. Money justice is a new concept that analyses diverse wrongs studied in criminology, socio-legal studies, other social sciences, transitional justice, and historical injustice. Its contribution to new knowledge is two-fold. First, it will map and compare payments to survivors for diverse wrongs, investigate why payments differ, and assess inequalities in payments. Second, it will critically examine the money justice paradox. If, as victims say, money cannot recompense a wrong, why is money sought by victims and offered as justice? More generally, what does money achieve (or not achieve) as justice and for victims?

United Nations’ Response to Mass Atrocities in China

Abstract The Chinese authorities are carrying out a multidimensional campaign of repression of the Uighurs and other Muslim communities in Xinjiang, which may amount to crimes against humanity and genocide. These ongoing crimes require urgent attention and response of the international community, including the United Nations (UN). To counter China’s great influence within the organisation, all avenues need to be explored to protect minorities in Xinjiang.

R2P Sidelined: The International Response to China’s Repression of Muslim Minorities in Xinjiang

Abstract There has been a lack of recourse to the language of ‘The Responsibility to Protect’ (R2P) in respect of reports that the Chinese government is perpetrating mass atrocity crimes against the Muslim minorities that reside in Xinjiang. What does this suggest about the overall normative power of R2P, and is the neglect of R2P reflective of a more general weakening in provisions designed to deal with wide-scale human rights abuses?

A Restorative Response to Victims in Proceedings before the International Criminal Court: Reality or Chimaera?

Abstract The integration of the framework of victims’ participation into the legal proceeding of the International Criminal Court (icc) has been seen as a transformation of the icc process beyond narrow retribution to better accommodate restorative justice (rj) values and practices. However, there is little research into whether, or how the icc metes out rj. This article argues that rj principles brought within icc emphasise the growing importance that victims’ participation in proceedings plays in achieving justice for victims. It then examines how the icc process aligns to the key elements of rj practice, namely victim-offender meeting; offender’s acknowledgement of responsibility and apology; collaborative conflict-resolution approach; victims’ healing and reconciliation; symbolic reparation and material restitution. This article demonstrates that these elements, developed to address ordinary juvenile criminality, are not structured to operate in the particular context of the icc, characterised by grave harm caused to victims and communities by mass atrocity.

A Restorative Response to Victims in Proceedings before the International Criminal Court: Reality or Chimaera?

Abstract The integration of the framework of victims’ participation into the legal proceeding of the International Criminal Court (icc) has been seen as a transformation of the icc process beyond narrow retribution to better accommodate restorative justice (rj) values and practices. However, there is little research into whether, or how the icc metes out rj. This article argues that rj principles brought within icc emphasise the growing importance that victims’ participation in proceedings plays in achieving justice for victims. It then examines how the icc process aligns to the key elements of rj practice, namely victim-offender meeting; offender’s acknowledgement of responsibility and apology; collaborative conflict-resolution approach; victims’ healing and reconciliation; symbolic reparation and material restitution. This article demonstrates that these elements, developed to address ordinary juvenile criminality, are not structured to operate in the particular context of the icc, characterised by grave harm caused to victims and communities by mass atrocity.

The International Criminal Court and the Issue of Intersectionality—A Conceptual and Legal Framework for Analysis

Abstract A survey of relevant case law of the International Criminal Court (icc or Court) reveals inconsistencies, as well as conceptual flaws and limitations in the Court’s mainly uni-sectional approach to mass atrocities that involve multiple and intersecting forms discrimination, in particular with regard to the cornerstones of such cases—the identification of the protected groups and their members. This has resulted in discrepancies and low levels of legal protection against intersectional targeting. Such a cautious, selective and inconsistent approach of the icc to this issue is unsurprising given that the application of intersectionality in practice is a radical and transformative project. Espousing a more consistent and intersectional approach of the icc in considering mass atrocities against different protected groups and their members, this article discusses the Court’s legal framework and major conceptual and statutory concerns surrounding the icc prosecutor’s and judges’ enhanced engagement—through more progressive law interpretation—with the phenomena of intersectionality and key concepts related to it. The main purpose of this contribution is thus two-fold: (1) to demonstrate and explain why, in practice, the focus on intersectional dimensions of such situations and cases in their selection, prosecution and adjudication does not interfere with strict adherence to the principle of legality underlying the Rome Statute, and (2) to analyse the legal grounds and avenues for the Court to implement intersectionality when dealing with atrocities involving intersectional discrimination. It is ultimately suggested that Article 21(3) of the Rome Statute offers a proper and solid legal basis for interpreting and applying pertinent international criminal law in light of intersectionality.

The Kosovo Specialist Chambers and Specialist Prosecutor’s Office Paradox

Abstract In August 2015 the Assembly of Kosovo, following an international request, passed constitutional amendments and the Law on Specialist Chambers and Specialist Prosecutor’s Office [‘the Law’], marking the legal foundation of the Kosovo Specialist Chambers and the Specialist Prosecutor’s Office (‘the Specialist Chambers’). However, what has sparked widespread reaction in Kosovo is the narrow jurisdiction of the Specialist Chambers. Therefore, this article argues first that the Specialist Chambers have mono-ethnic jurisdiction, being charged with investigating and prosecuting only one warring party and effectively granting an amnesty to the other. Next it will be argued that the current jurisdiction of the Specialist Chambers ought to be extended to cover all mass atrocities committed during and after the Kosovo war by all warring parties. Finally, the article briefly discusses the indictment against the President of Kosovo, Hashim Thaçi, and others vis-á-vis the rejection of the main allegation of the Marty Report, on organ trafficking.

The Kosovo Specialist Chambers and Specialist Prosecutor’s Office Paradox

Abstract In August 2015 the Assembly of Kosovo, following an international request, passed constitutional amendments and the Law on Specialist Chambers and Specialist Prosecutor’s Office [‘the Law’], marking the legal foundation of the Kosovo Specialist Chambers and the Specialist Prosecutor’s Office (‘the Specialist Chambers’). However, what has sparked widespread reaction in Kosovo is the narrow jurisdiction of the Specialist Chambers. Therefore, this article argues first that the Specialist Chambers have mono-ethnic jurisdiction, being charged with investigating and prosecuting only one warring party and effectively granting an amnesty to the other. Next it will be argued that the current jurisdiction of the Specialist Chambers ought to be extended to cover all mass atrocities committed during and after the Kosovo war by all warring parties. Finally, the article briefly discusses the indictment against the President of Kosovo, Hashim Thaçi, and others vis-á-vis the rejection of the main allegation of the Marty Report, on organ trafficking.

Sanctioning Genocide: To What Effect?

Although economic sanctions have become a prominent response to mass atrocity, there has been relatively little scholarship assessing the impact of economic sanctions on genocidal violence. This article examines whether and how economic sanctions are associated with both the magnitude and the duration of state-led genocide. We analyze 39 genocides that occurred between 1955 and 2005. Results indicate that economic sanctions are not significantly associated with decreased magnitude or duration of genocide. These findings contribute to theory regarding the impact of sanctions on state behavior and hold significance for policy decisions in the face of genocide.

Florian Jeßberger and Julia Geneuss (eds), Why Punish Perpetrators of Mass Atrocities?

Florian Jeßberger and Julia Geneuss (eds), <i>Why Punish Perpetrators of Mass Atrocities?</i>

The International Criminal Court and the Issue of Intersectionality—A Conceptual and Legal Framework for Analysis

Abstract A survey of relevant case law of the International Criminal Court (icc or Court) reveals inconsistencies, as well as conceptual flaws and limitations in the Court’s mainly uni-sectional approach to mass atrocities that involve multiple and intersecting forms discrimination, in particular with regard to the cornerstones of such cases—the identification of the protected groups and their members. This has resulted in discrepancies and low levels of legal protection against intersectional targeting. Such a cautious, selective and inconsistent approach of the icc to this issue is unsurprising given that the application of intersectionality in practice is a radical and transformative project. Espousing a more consistent and intersectional approach of the icc in considering mass atrocities against different protected groups and their members, this article discusses the Court’s legal framework and major conceptual and statutory concerns surrounding the icc prosecutor’s and judges’ enhanced engagement—through more progressive law interpretation—with the phenomena of intersectionality and key concepts related to it. The main purpose of this contribution is thus two-fold: (1) to demonstrate and explain why, in practice, the focus on intersectional dimensions of such situations and cases in their selection, prosecution and adjudication does not interfere with strict adherence to the principle of legality underlying the Rome Statute, and (2) to analyse the legal grounds and avenues for the Court to implement intersectionality when dealing with atrocities involving intersectional discrimination. It is ultimately suggested that Article 21(3) of the Rome Statute offers a proper and solid legal basis for interpreting and applying pertinent international criminal law in light of intersectionality.

Law Development by the International Criminal Court as a Way to Enhance the Protection of Minorities - The Case for Intersectional Consideration of Mass Atrocities

Mass atrocities almost invariably involve the targeting of racial, ethnic, religious and/or political groups. Other groups, such as homosexuals, have also been vulnerable to targeted destruction. Both experience and international case law demonstrate that atrocity crimes have mostly been inflicted on minorities within minorities. With individuals being targeted on several personal grounds or due to overlapping identities (for example, women and girls belonging to ethnic or religious minorities) there is a strong case for both scholarship and international criminal judiciary to develop an expertise on intersectional discrimination in the context of international crimes that implicate discriminatory intent of a perpetrator. Yet, the International Criminal Court (ICC or Court) has tended to consider atrocities motivated by discrimination on isolated discriminatory grounds and independently from each other. As a prescriptive contribution, the present article challenges this trend by arguing that in more complex criminal cases the protected characteristics need to be considered together with, and not separately from, one another, in order to capture the multi-faceted experiences of mass abuses. Underlying the treatment of the subject matter are thus two basic questions: first, given a full respect for the principle of legality (nullum crimen sine lege), what are the possible avenues for international criminal adjudication to recognize intersectionality so as to overcome conceptual flaws and limitations of single-issue analysis of discrimination in cases involving core international crimes against minorities? For example, can Article 21(3) of the Rome Statute on the interpretation and application of substantive international criminal law in light of international human rights standards serve as a viable tool for the Court to evolve its jurisprudence on this particular issue? Second, how and to what extent should the Court take intersectionality into consideration in the formulation of charges; identification and interpretation of applicable law; determination of criminal sentence; ordering adequate remedies (reparations) for victims; and in considering such aspects as the gravity assessment, or the contextualisation of crimes? Answering these questions, the article shows that by applying, interpreting and, when need be, developing international criminal law in a way that utilizes intersectionality the ICC can make in these areas important jurisprudential contributions with far-reaching socio-legal implications.

Law Development by the International Criminal Court as a Way to Enhance the Protection of Minorities—the Case for Intersectional Consideration of Mass Atrocities

Abstract Mass atrocities almost invariably involve the targeting of racial, ethnic, religious and/or political groups. Other groups, such as homosexuals, have also been vulnerable to targeted destruction. Both experience and international case law demonstrate that atrocity crimes have mostly been inflicted on minorities within minorities. With individuals being targeted on several personal grounds or due to overlapping identities (for example, women and girls belonging to ethnic or religious minorities) there is a strong case for both scholarship and international criminal judiciary to develop an expertise on intersectional discrimination in the context of international crimes that implicate discriminatory intent of a perpetrator. Yet, the International Criminal Court (ICC or Court) has tended to consider atrocities motivated by discrimination on isolated discriminatory grounds and independently from each other. As a prescriptive contribution, the present article challenges this trend by arguing that in more complex criminal cases the protected characteristics need to be considered together with, and not separately from, one another, in order to capture the multi-faceted experiences of mass abuses. Underlying the treatment of the subject matter are thus two basic questions: first, given a full respect for the principle of legality (nullum crimen sine lege), what are the possible avenues for international criminal adjudication to recognize intersectionality so as to overcome conceptual flaws and limitations of single-issue analysis of discrimination in cases involving core international crimes against minorities? For example, can Article 21(3) of the Rome Statute on the interpretation and application of substantive international criminal law in light of international human rights standards serve as a viable tool for the Court to evolve its jurisprudence on this particular issue? Second, how and to what extent should the Court take intersectionality into consideration in the formulation of charges; identification and interpretation of applicable law; determination of criminal sentence; ordering adequate remedies (reparations) for victims; and in considering such aspects as the gravity assessment, or the contextualisation of crimes? Answering these questions, the article shows that by applying, interpreting and, when need be, developing international criminal law in a way that utilizes intersectionality the ICC can make in these areas important jurisprudential contributions with far-reaching socio-legal implications.

The Responsibility to Protect Internally Displaced Persons in Africa

AbstractThis article explores the responsibility to protect (R2P) as an organizing concept for preventing, addressing and finding durable solutions to internal displacement in Africa. While the most innovative norms for protecting the forcibly displaced have been conceptualized in Africa, they have not durably addressed displacement, due to limitations in implementation. R2P has similarly faced criticisms emanating from a lack of clarity and distrust. Restated norms underlying frameworks for internally displaced persons (IDPs) and R2P complement each other, and can be operationalized simultaneously through a more credible regional approach, to encourage effective protection of IDPs in Africa. The article explores pillar one, pillar two and the non-coercive elements of pillar three of R2P, and its underlying moral principles, using Kenya as a case study of the process of seeking to secure state responsibility for the protection of displaced civilians victimized by mass atrocities.

Human rights localisation in liberal states: the UK’s responsibility to protect as regime change and political transition in Syria

ABSTRACT This article examines how powerful liberal states localise human rights-based norms. Taking a critical constructivist perspective, it does this through an empirical case study of how the UK understood its Responsibility to Protect (R2P) Syrians during the period 2014–2016. The research has two findings. First, R2P had little impact on the UK’s responses to Syria. Second, the reason why is how R2P has been localised in the UK as regime change and political transition. This is due to contestation over some aspects, which have been modified to fit the local domestic context. The findings allow for two conclusions that have theoretical and practical significance. First, at the broad level, liberal democracies do not have a monopoly on norm compliance as their practice and understanding of some norms and the need to modify and fit them into the local context are just as complex as those in the post-colonial context. Second, the research is the first to empirically answer why R2P does not drive the UK’s responses to cases of mass atrocities despite its ongoing public endorsement of the norm, which brings greater understanding to the norm’s implementation problems.

Mass Atrocity Prevention Operations: A SOF Core Activity in Support of Great Power Competition

ABSTRACT Preventing mass atrocities is a core national security objective. Despite a series of broad statements in strategy documents, there is a dearth of operational doctrine. This article suggests that mass atrocity prevention operations should be designated as a Special Operations Forces (SOF) Core Activity. This would operationalize long-standing strategy, prevent competitors from capitalizing on power vacuums where mass atrocities are taking place, and provide a direct link between SOF capabilities and great power competition. SOF have the appropriate skill set to engage in mass atrocity prevention. Designation of this Core Activity would not place significant burdens on special operators.

The 1994 Rwandan genocide: Practising the Heidelberg conflict methodology

ABSTRACT Having suffered one of the worst genocides in recorded history, Rwanda today is a country still striving to maintain the equilibrium between the perpetrators and the survivors. After decades of tension between the Hutu majority and the Tutsi minority, during April to July 1994 an estimated 500,000 to 800,000 people were slaughtered in mass atrocities, with many more displaced from their homes. Political instability, discrimination, traces of colonialism, poverty and competition for power were some of the causes of this horrific extermination. Rwanda has been working ever since to recover from the aftermath of the events that culminated in this government-sponsored slaughter, and has achieved remarkable success – especially in terms of its economy. This study aims to explore the nature of the 1994 genocide against the Tutsi in Rwanda. Fundamentally, it seeks to quantify the intensity and unprecedented nature of the genocide. Understanding how genocides such as this one occurred is crucial for preventing similar future atrocities.

Dissenting on Genocide: The Impact of Separate Opinions on International Criminal Law

Dissents have had a tumultuous history in the United States and throughout the world. Initially reviled, dissents have come to be a well-accepted, even praiseworthy, component of the American judicial system, and they have traversed the same trajectory in other countries as well as in international courts and tribunals. Particularly noteworthy among international courts are those created to prosecute perpetrators of mass atrocities, such as genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. And nowhere are dissents more common than in these mass atrocity courts. Yet, as prevalent as these dissents are, they have received virtually no scholarly or practical attention. Only a few articles consider international criminal law dissents, and these reflexively praise them for enhancing the legitimacy of the international criminal tribunals. This article takes issue with that claim, maintaining that it has no empirical basis. To prove that point, this article, the first in a series, launches a comprehensive empirical treatment of international criminal law separate opinions. The foundation of this project is my careful review of every separate opinion in every Trial Chamber and Appeals Chamber judgment at the four, core international criminal tribunals. My fine-grained assessment of these nearly 300 separate opinions provides a solid basis for my normative conclusions, conclusions that go against the grain of decades of non-empirical legal scholarship on separate opinions. As the first component of a larger project, this article makes two substantial contributions: First, it lays the foundation for the remainder of the project by providing core information and statistics about international criminal law’s separate opinions. Second, the article inaugurates the project’s normative analyses by empirically assessing one of the most common claims made by proponents of separate opinions: that they help to develop the law. This article employs a variety of empirical methods to evaluate that claim, including citation counts and a painstaking content analysis of the separate opinions, among others. Each of these analyses points to the same conclusion: international criminal law’s separate opinions, though numerous and voluminous, have had minimal impact on the development of international criminal law.

How Statelessness Matters to Atrocity Prevention: Lessons from the Rohingya Case

The plight of the Rohingya, a persecuted minority from western Myanmar, highlights basic yet underexamined links between statelessness and mass atrocities. In turn, the Rohingya case underscores how statelessness matters to law and practice regarding atrocity prevention, and suggests that norms to prevent statelessness and secure nationality rights warrant greater emphasis in the field of atrocity prevention.