Abstract:Historically, Nagorno-Karabakh has always been occupied predominantly by Armenians. It was wrongly allocated to Azerbaijan by Lenin in 1921, but after the collapse of the Soviet Union its people voted for independence and recruited a local army of their own people to fight the civil war, 1991-4. During the siege of Stepanakert (a grave Azeri war crime), the road between that city and Goris (in Armenia) took on the status of a humanitarian corridor, secured by the justifiable capture of the town of Lachin. The author has interviewed some of the war commanders and victims and draws on their evidence, filed with the European Court of Human Rights but never before published, to explain how “the right of belligerent reprisal” arose to justify protecting the civilian population by taking and keeping the corridor. A legal precedent can be found in the “safe havens” established for Iraqi Kurds in Iraq. Nagorno-Karabakh has a strong argument for self-determination, following on from the precedents from East Timor and Kosovo. And it satisfies the tests for statehood laid down in the MonteVideo Convention. Given its vulnerability to Azeri attack by the prolonged illegal blockade of the Lachin corridor, it may be that nothing will succeed except secession.
{"title":"Nagorno-Karabakh’s Right to Self-Determination","authors":"Geoffrey Robertson","doi":"10.3138/gsi-2023-0011","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3138/gsi-2023-0011","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:Historically, Nagorno-Karabakh has always been occupied predominantly by Armenians. It was wrongly allocated to Azerbaijan by Lenin in 1921, but after the collapse of the Soviet Union its people voted for independence and recruited a local army of their own people to fight the civil war, 1991-4. During the siege of Stepanakert (a grave Azeri war crime), the road between that city and Goris (in Armenia) took on the status of a humanitarian corridor, secured by the justifiable capture of the town of Lachin. The author has interviewed some of the war commanders and victims and draws on their evidence, filed with the European Court of Human Rights but never before published, to explain how “the right of belligerent reprisal” arose to justify protecting the civilian population by taking and keeping the corridor. A legal precedent can be found in the “safe havens” established for Iraqi Kurds in Iraq. Nagorno-Karabakh has a strong argument for self-determination, following on from the precedents from East Timor and Kosovo. And it satisfies the tests for statehood laid down in the MonteVideo Convention. Given its vulnerability to Azeri attack by the prolonged illegal blockade of the Lachin corridor, it may be that nothing will succeed except secession.","PeriodicalId":40844,"journal":{"name":"Genocide Studies International","volume":"15 1","pages":"45 - 59"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46112926","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract:This article will analyze the existential threat facing by the Armenians of the beleaguered Republic of Artsakh in the context of three phases of mass violence inflicted on Armenians in the modern period: the Hamidian Massacres of 1894–1896, the Adana Massacres of 1909, and the Armenian Genocide (1915–1923). Despite the teleological differences of these phases, there seems to be three key common denominators connecting all of them together: impunity, lack of humanitarian intervention, and international apathy. After dwelling on the history of impunity, the absence of humanitarian intervention, and international apathy, this article will concentrate on the disastrous repercussions of the closing of the Lachin Corridor and the ensuing humanitarian crisis in the fragile Republic of Artsakh. This article will argue that the three important factors that led to disastrous repercussions for the Armenians in the past are present today, thereby raising the red flag for potential ethnic cleansing.
{"title":"Impunity, Lack of Humanitarian Intervention, and International Apathy: The Blockade of the Lachin Corridor in Historical Perspective","authors":"Bedross Der Matossian","doi":"10.3138/gsi-2023-0008","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3138/gsi-2023-0008","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:This article will analyze the existential threat facing by the Armenians of the beleaguered Republic of Artsakh in the context of three phases of mass violence inflicted on Armenians in the modern period: the Hamidian Massacres of 1894–1896, the Adana Massacres of 1909, and the Armenian Genocide (1915–1923). Despite the teleological differences of these phases, there seems to be three key common denominators connecting all of them together: impunity, lack of humanitarian intervention, and international apathy. After dwelling on the history of impunity, the absence of humanitarian intervention, and international apathy, this article will concentrate on the disastrous repercussions of the closing of the Lachin Corridor and the ensuing humanitarian crisis in the fragile Republic of Artsakh. This article will argue that the three important factors that led to disastrous repercussions for the Armenians in the past are present today, thereby raising the red flag for potential ethnic cleansing.","PeriodicalId":40844,"journal":{"name":"Genocide Studies International","volume":"15 1","pages":"20 - 7"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42635745","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract:The propaganda efforts of the authoritarian Aliyev regime in Baku and the general Western ignorance of the history of the South Caucasus have contributed to the lack of meaningful response to the genocidal aggression that Azerbaijan has inflicted on the indigenous Armenians of Artsakh, known to many as Nagorno-Karabakh. The humanitarian crisis created by the Azeri blockade of the Lachin Corridor is only the most recent step in a process of cleansing the region of its Armenian population, a process that began in the early years of the twentieth century. The Ottoman Turkish genocide of Armenians in 1915–1923 is not a distinct event of the past but a process whose ideology is central to the Azeri-Turkish genocidal violence perpetrated against Armenians in the present. An integral component of the processes of genocide is cultural heritage destruction as noted by Raphael Lemkin. The erasure of most signs of the indigenous Armenian presence on its historic homeland was particularly pronounced in the decades following the Armenian Genocide and continues today. Cultural erasure went hand in hand with Turkish state genocide denial and the rewriting and mythologizing of its national narrative. Azerbaijan has been following a similar playbook since the collapse of the Soviet Union. These genocidal processes of denial, heritage destruction, and the rewriting of history are what I describe as “genocide by other means.”
{"title":"Genocide by Other Means: Heritage Destruction, National Narratives, and the Azeri Assault on the Indigenous Armenians of Karabakh","authors":"Armen T. Marsoobian","doi":"10.3138/gsi-2023-0009","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3138/gsi-2023-0009","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:The propaganda efforts of the authoritarian Aliyev regime in Baku and the general Western ignorance of the history of the South Caucasus have contributed to the lack of meaningful response to the genocidal aggression that Azerbaijan has inflicted on the indigenous Armenians of Artsakh, known to many as Nagorno-Karabakh. The humanitarian crisis created by the Azeri blockade of the Lachin Corridor is only the most recent step in a process of cleansing the region of its Armenian population, a process that began in the early years of the twentieth century. The Ottoman Turkish genocide of Armenians in 1915–1923 is not a distinct event of the past but a process whose ideology is central to the Azeri-Turkish genocidal violence perpetrated against Armenians in the present. An integral component of the processes of genocide is cultural heritage destruction as noted by Raphael Lemkin. The erasure of most signs of the indigenous Armenian presence on its historic homeland was particularly pronounced in the decades following the Armenian Genocide and continues today. Cultural erasure went hand in hand with Turkish state genocide denial and the rewriting and mythologizing of its national narrative. Azerbaijan has been following a similar playbook since the collapse of the Soviet Union. These genocidal processes of denial, heritage destruction, and the rewriting of history are what I describe as “genocide by other means.”","PeriodicalId":40844,"journal":{"name":"Genocide Studies International","volume":"15 1","pages":"21 - 33"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46210563","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The Rohingya Muslim minority in Myanmar was subjected to discrimination and gross violations of human rights for many decades. During the last two waves of military crackdowns in Rakhine State (October 2016 to January 2017; August to September 2017), the Tatmadaw army and civilians committed atrocities against the Rohingya that amounted to crimes against humanity and genocide. Advocates for the Rohingya's suffering took action to leverage the findings of the investigations of international mechanisms. They endeavored for an international condemnation of Myanmar at the ICJ, and they filed a complaint in an Argentinian court for the application of universal jurisdiction to prosecute the military and the political leadership responsible for ordering and committing the atrocities. They also encouraged an investigation of the atrocities in the ICC. The litigators’ main focus was set on genocide. However, while genocide carries the stigma of being the most heinous of crimes, it is also the hardest to prove, particularly the special intent to commit it. This article assesses the chances of the triple strategy applied by the Rohingya advocates. It argues that litigating the case in three different fora, assures that the forums back each other up, so that the flaws of one are compensated by the others. Thus, the chances for accountability for the crime of genocide are increased. The fora work interoperably to achieve the goal of proving the occurrence of genocide in Myanmar so as to impose state responsibility and individual criminal responsibility.
{"title":"How to Win a Genocide Case: Analyzing the Triple Strategy of the Advocates of the Rohingya in Myanmar","authors":"Hilly Moodrick-Even Khen","doi":"10.3138/gsi-2021-0006","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3138/gsi-2021-0006","url":null,"abstract":"The Rohingya Muslim minority in Myanmar was subjected to discrimination and gross violations of human rights for many decades. During the last two waves of military crackdowns in Rakhine State (October 2016 to January 2017; August to September 2017), the Tatmadaw army and civilians committed atrocities against the Rohingya that amounted to crimes against humanity and genocide. Advocates for the Rohingya's suffering took action to leverage the findings of the investigations of international mechanisms. They endeavored for an international condemnation of Myanmar at the ICJ, and they filed a complaint in an Argentinian court for the application of universal jurisdiction to prosecute the military and the political leadership responsible for ordering and committing the atrocities. They also encouraged an investigation of the atrocities in the ICC. The litigators’ main focus was set on genocide. However, while genocide carries the stigma of being the most heinous of crimes, it is also the hardest to prove, particularly the special intent to commit it. This article assesses the chances of the triple strategy applied by the Rohingya advocates. It argues that litigating the case in three different fora, assures that the forums back each other up, so that the flaws of one are compensated by the others. Thus, the chances for accountability for the crime of genocide are increased. The fora work interoperably to achieve the goal of proving the occurrence of genocide in Myanmar so as to impose state responsibility and individual criminal responsibility.","PeriodicalId":40844,"journal":{"name":"Genocide Studies International","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-05-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45417923","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract:The United States federal off-reservation Indian boarding schools of the twentieth century have been the locale for ethnocide and cultural genocide of the Native American population. While in any critical discussion of mass atrocity crimes, such as genocide and ethnocide, the question of the perpetrators always ranks central, not much attention has been paid to the perpetrators of ethnocide who operated in these off-reservation boarding schools. Furthermore, scholarship has focused on perpetrators in genocide but has not spent much time considering the definitional nuances between perpetrators in ethnocide and genocide. In this paper, I highlight an additional perpetrator type that applies specifically to ethnocide, which is an addition to existing perpetrator typologies. This benevolent perpetrator, who is specific to ethnocidal crimes, can for instance be found in United States federal off-reservation Indian boarding schools between 1878 and 1934. Paying attention to these perpetrators and considering them as a unique type, will allow for furthering and developing our understanding of ethnocide, perpetration and complicity, and assimilation practices in off-reservation boarding schools. Furthermore, this discussion is embedded in the debate about the applicability of the terms genocide and ethnocide in a settler-colonial context.
{"title":"US Federal Off-Reservation Boarding Schools and Ethnocide's Benevolent Perpetrator","authors":"S. Kunze","doi":"10.3138/gsi-2021-0003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3138/gsi-2021-0003","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:The United States federal off-reservation Indian boarding schools of the twentieth century have been the locale for ethnocide and cultural genocide of the Native American population. While in any critical discussion of mass atrocity crimes, such as genocide and ethnocide, the question of the perpetrators always ranks central, not much attention has been paid to the perpetrators of ethnocide who operated in these off-reservation boarding schools. Furthermore, scholarship has focused on perpetrators in genocide but has not spent much time considering the definitional nuances between perpetrators in ethnocide and genocide. In this paper, I highlight an additional perpetrator type that applies specifically to ethnocide, which is an addition to existing perpetrator typologies. This benevolent perpetrator, who is specific to ethnocidal crimes, can for instance be found in United States federal off-reservation Indian boarding schools between 1878 and 1934. Paying attention to these perpetrators and considering them as a unique type, will allow for furthering and developing our understanding of ethnocide, perpetration and complicity, and assimilation practices in off-reservation boarding schools. Furthermore, this discussion is embedded in the debate about the applicability of the terms genocide and ethnocide in a settler-colonial context.","PeriodicalId":40844,"journal":{"name":"Genocide Studies International","volume":"14 1","pages":"133 - 156"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-05-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42643390","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
M. Denov, Antonio Piolanti, Pok Panhavichetr, Sopheap Suong
Abstract:This paper explores the realities of men and women forced to marry by the Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia, as well as the perspectives of children born of forced marriages. Forced marriage has been predominantly investigated in relation to violence and coercion towards girls and women. However, less attention has been paid to forced unions involving both spouses, as well as to children born of these couples. Data were collected from 80 participants, including in-depth interviews with 28 women and 30 men who experienced forced marriage, and focus groups with 22 children born of forced marriages. Those who experienced forced marriage highlighted the coercion and threats of violence that underlay the marriage process. However, interviews also pointed to spouses' key coping mechanisms and resources, such as the long-term acceptance of the marriage and support from larger community, which sustained positive familial relations. Children born of these unions, who regarded their parents' marriage as generally loving and supportive, corroborated these findings. Our study revealed the ways in which forced marriages within the context of genocide were not necessarily characterized by domestic violence and abuse. We suggest that the shared and widespread nature of forced marriage and post-genocide community support may play a role in leading to positive family relationships in the context of unwanted unions.
{"title":"Families Formed Under Forced Marriage During the Genocide in Cambodia: Exploring the Perspectives of Men, Women, and Children","authors":"M. Denov, Antonio Piolanti, Pok Panhavichetr, Sopheap Suong","doi":"10.3138/gsi-2022-0017","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3138/gsi-2022-0017","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:This paper explores the realities of men and women forced to marry by the Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia, as well as the perspectives of children born of forced marriages. Forced marriage has been predominantly investigated in relation to violence and coercion towards girls and women. However, less attention has been paid to forced unions involving both spouses, as well as to children born of these couples. Data were collected from 80 participants, including in-depth interviews with 28 women and 30 men who experienced forced marriage, and focus groups with 22 children born of forced marriages. Those who experienced forced marriage highlighted the coercion and threats of violence that underlay the marriage process. However, interviews also pointed to spouses' key coping mechanisms and resources, such as the long-term acceptance of the marriage and support from larger community, which sustained positive familial relations. Children born of these unions, who regarded their parents' marriage as generally loving and supportive, corroborated these findings. Our study revealed the ways in which forced marriages within the context of genocide were not necessarily characterized by domestic violence and abuse. We suggest that the shared and widespread nature of forced marriage and post-genocide community support may play a role in leading to positive family relationships in the context of unwanted unions.","PeriodicalId":40844,"journal":{"name":"Genocide Studies International","volume":"14 1","pages":"172 - 190"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-05-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49422811","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract:From 1948 to 1988, the United States failed to ratify and implement the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Genocide Convention). In total, seven presidential administrations neglected to expend the necessary political capital to secure the Genocide Convention's passage. This article is the first comprehensive study of the presidential actions—and, more aptly, inactions—on the long road to ratification. Ultimately, of the seven presidents who failed to procure the Convention's ratification by the Senate, only three even sought the Senate's advice and consent on the important international accord, and in all cases, the presidents did so while working to ensure the act did not harm their broader legislative and foreign policy agendas. Ultimately, President Ronald Reagan oversaw the Convention's ratification, though he did so in response to the threat of a public relations disaster that his administration believed the ratification would help avert. Studying the motivations of these eight presidents deepens our understanding of why it took the United States 40 years to finally adopt the Genocide Convention.
{"title":"The Genocide Convention and Presidential Priorities, 1948–1988","authors":"Bailey D. Barnes","doi":"10.3138/gsi-2021-0012","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3138/gsi-2021-0012","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:From 1948 to 1988, the United States failed to ratify and implement the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Genocide Convention). In total, seven presidential administrations neglected to expend the necessary political capital to secure the Genocide Convention's passage. This article is the first comprehensive study of the presidential actions—and, more aptly, inactions—on the long road to ratification. Ultimately, of the seven presidents who failed to procure the Convention's ratification by the Senate, only three even sought the Senate's advice and consent on the important international accord, and in all cases, the presidents did so while working to ensure the act did not harm their broader legislative and foreign policy agendas. Ultimately, President Ronald Reagan oversaw the Convention's ratification, though he did so in response to the threat of a public relations disaster that his administration believed the ratification would help avert. Studying the motivations of these eight presidents deepens our understanding of why it took the United States 40 years to finally adopt the Genocide Convention.","PeriodicalId":40844,"journal":{"name":"Genocide Studies International","volume":"14 1","pages":"157 - 171"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-05-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43692962","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：