Pub Date : 2024-01-08DOI: 10.1080/14623528.2023.2297502
Charlotte Kiechel
{"title":"“An Asiatic Deed”: The Cambodian Genocide and the West German Right, Or a Study of an Illiberal Variant of Multidirectional Memory","authors":"Charlotte Kiechel","doi":"10.1080/14623528.2023.2297502","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14623528.2023.2297502","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":46849,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Genocide Research","volume":"30 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2024-01-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139447492","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}
Pub Date : 2023-12-15DOI: 10.1080/14623528.2023.2290767
Diana Dumitru, A. D. Moses
{"title":"Introduction: The Russian Invasion of Ukraine","authors":"Diana Dumitru, A. D. Moses","doi":"10.1080/14623528.2023.2290767","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14623528.2023.2290767","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":46849,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Genocide Research","volume":"23 28","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2023-12-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139000880","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}
Pub Date : 2023-12-15DOI: 10.1080/14623528.2023.2291923
A. D. Moses, Jessie Barton Hronešová
{"title":"The International Administration of Territory as an Interim Peace","authors":"A. D. Moses, Jessie Barton Hronešová","doi":"10.1080/14623528.2023.2291923","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14623528.2023.2291923","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":46849,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Genocide Research","volume":"290 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2023-12-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138996898","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}
Pub Date : 2023-12-14DOI: 10.1080/14623528.2023.2292344
Kateryna Busol
{"title":"When the Head of State Makes Rape Jokes, His Troops Rape on the Ground: Conflict-Related Sexual Violence in Russia’s Aggression against Ukraine","authors":"Kateryna Busol","doi":"10.1080/14623528.2023.2292344","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14623528.2023.2292344","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":46849,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Genocide Research","volume":"12 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2023-12-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139002457","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}
Pub Date : 2023-10-20DOI: 10.1080/14623528.2023.2267848
Jared McBride
{"title":"A Return to Antenora? Observations on Collaboration During the Russo-Ukrainian War","authors":"Jared McBride","doi":"10.1080/14623528.2023.2267848","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14623528.2023.2267848","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":46849,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Genocide Research","volume":"174 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135616465","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}
Pub Date : 2023-10-11DOI: 10.1080/14623528.2023.2268483
Maria Armoudian, Katherine Smits
ABSTRACTScholars in genocide studies have covered much ground in identifying causes and consequences of genocides. But much less has been done in the area of genocide recognitions: Why have countries recognized some genocides but not others? Strategic and economic relations with perpetrator states, or the influence of diasporan ethnic minorities are often assumed as causes, but we propose that conceptions of national identity may underlie these other factors. We explore a case that other factors do not readily explain: Given New Zealand’s previous bold stances on human rights, its strong self-identity as a human rights supporter, its recognition of some genocides, and its active and vociferous support of Armenians before, during and after the genocide, why does it refuse to recognize the Armenian genocide? We explore New Zealand’s reversal of attitudes by analyzing its public and official discourse in three time periods – first at the time of the Armenian genocide; second, in the late twentieth century when new narratives of national identity, enthusiasm for trade relations with Turkey, and the Anzac myth were established, and third, in the contemporary era, in which successive governments continue to refuse recognition. While we think the anticipated closer economic relations with Turkey during the second timeframe helped drive the shift, we theorize that New Zealand’s current refusal to recognize the genocide is grounded in the construction of its national identity during the second period – particularly in the establishment of the Anzac myth. This involved a changing portrayal of “the Turks” from enemy to fellow victims of the evils of war and imperial invasion, and modern-day Turkey as the sacred “home” of New Zealand’s war dead.KEYWORDS: GenociderecognitionNew Zealandhuman rightsArmeniannational identity Disclosure StatementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Notes1 Raymond Kévorkian, The Armenian Genocide: A Complete History (London: Bloomsbury Publishing, 2011); Taner Akçam, A Shameful Act: The Armenian Genocide and the Question of Turkish Responsibility (London: Macmillan, 2006); Ronald Suny, They Can Live in the Desert but Nowhere Else: A History of the Armenian Genocide (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2015); Benny Morris and Dror Ze'evi, The Thirty-Year Genocide: Turkey’s Destruction of Its Christian Minorities, 1894–1924 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2019).2 Jennifer Dixon, “Norms, Narratives, and Scholarship on the Armenian Genocide,” International Journal of Middle East Studies 47, no. 4 (2015): 796–800.3 World Population Review, “Countries that recognize the Armenian genocide,” https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/countries-that-recognize-the-armenian-genocide (accessed 29 August 2023).4 Bahar Baser and Mari Toivanen, “The Politics of Genocide Recognition: Kurdish Nation-Building and Commemoration in the Post-Saddam Era,” Journal of Genocide Research 19, no. 3 (2017): 404
种族灭绝研究的学者们在种族灭绝的原因和后果的识别方面已经做了很多工作。但在承认种族灭绝方面做得少得多:为什么各国承认了一些种族灭绝,而不承认其他种族灭绝?与犯罪国家的战略和经济关系,或散居的少数民族的影响通常被认为是原因,但我们认为,民族认同的概念可能是这些其他因素的基础。我们探讨了一个其他因素无法轻易解释的案例:考虑到新西兰之前在人权问题上的大胆立场,它作为人权支持者的强烈自我认同,它承认一些种族灭绝,以及它在种族灭绝之前,期间和之后对亚美尼亚人的积极和大声支持,为什么它拒绝承认亚美尼亚种族灭绝?我们通过分析新西兰在三个时期的公共和官方话语来探讨新西兰态度的转变——首先是在亚美尼亚种族灭绝时期;第二,在20世纪后期,关于民族认同的新叙述,对与土耳其贸易关系的热情,以及澳新军团的神话被建立起来;第三,在当代,历届政府继续拒绝承认。虽然我们认为预期在第二个时间框架内与土耳其建立更密切的经济关系有助于推动这种转变,但我们认为,新西兰目前拒绝承认种族灭绝是基于其在第二个时期的国家认同的构建- -特别是在建立澳新军团神话的过程中。这包括将“土耳其人”的形象从敌人转变为战争和帝国入侵的受害者,并将现代土耳其视为新西兰战争死者的神圣“家园”。关键词:种族灭绝;承认;新西兰;人权;;注1:Raymond ksamuzvorkian,《亚美尼亚种族灭绝:完整的历史》(伦敦:Bloomsbury出版社,2011);Taner akam,可耻的行为:亚美尼亚种族灭绝和土耳其责任问题(伦敦:麦克米伦,2006);罗纳德·苏尼,《他们只能生活在沙漠:亚美尼亚种族灭绝史》(普林斯顿:普林斯顿大学出版社,2015年);1 .本尼·莫里斯和德罗·泽耶维,《三十年种族灭绝:土耳其对其基督教少数群体的破坏,1894-1924》(马萨诸塞州剑桥:哈佛大学出版社,2019)Jennifer Dixon,“亚美尼亚种族灭绝的规范、叙事和学术研究”,《国际中东研究杂志》,第47期。4(2015): 796-800.3《世界人口评论》,“承认亚美尼亚种族灭绝的国家”https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/countries-that-recognize-the-armenian-genocide(2023年8月29日查阅)Bahar Baser和Mari Toivanen,“种族灭绝承认的政治:后萨达姆时代的库尔德国家建设和纪念”,《种族灭绝研究》第19期。3 (2017): 404-26;Yossi Shain和Aharan Barth,《散居者与国际关系理论》,《国际组织》第57期。3 (2003): 449-79;Bahar Baser和Ashok Swain,“流散设计与祖国现实:亚美尼亚流散的案例研究”,《国际事务高加索评论》第3期。1 (2009): 45-62.5 Maria Koinova,“建立种族灭绝承认的散居联盟:亚美尼亚人,亚述人和库尔德人”,在过渡时期正义的散居动员中,编。Maria Koinova和Dženeta karabegoviki(伦敦:Routledge, 2020), 82-102;Maria Koinova,“亚美尼亚侨民动员种族灭绝承认的冲突与合作”,《作为合作文化的侨民:全球和地方视角》,David Carment和Ariane Sadjed (Cham,瑞士:Palgrave Macmillan, 2017), 111-29.6。Jaana Davidjants和Katrin Tiidenberg,“社交媒体上的活动家记忆叙述:Instagram上的亚美尼亚种族灭绝”,新媒体与社会24,第24期。10 (2022): 2191-206;Harut Sassounian,“种族灭绝的承认和对正义的追求”,洛杉矶国际与比较法评论32(2010):115.7。5(2014): 503-12.8以下所有关于流散亚美尼亚人的国家人口的参考资料来自:联合国经济和社会事务部,“2019年国际移民存量:表1。按来源国和主要地区、区域、国家或目的地地区分列的1990-2019年年中移民总存量,”2019,un.org(从2021年3月9日的原件存档;alt URL)。9圣安德烈斯大学国际关系教授Khatchik Der Ghougassian在接受采访时表示:“玻利维亚不仅没有有组织的亚美尼亚社区,我也怀疑该国是否真的有亚美尼亚人居住。很明显,这项决议是玻利维亚人自己提出的。 " Rupen Janbazian, " Der Ghougassian讨论玻利维亚承认亚美尼亚种族灭绝",the Armenian Weekly, https://armenianweekly.com/2014/12/09/der-ghougassian-discusses-bolivias-recognition-of-the-armenian-genocide/.10 Emil Souleimanov和Maya Ehrmann, "承认亚美尼亚种族灭绝是一种政治现象的问题",《中东国际事务评论》第18期。13 . Daniel Fittante,“瑞典与种族灭绝承认的“复杂”关系”,社会学报(2022):1 - 14,https://doi.org/10.1177/00016993221141587.12参见:Nahal Toosi,“奥巴马高级助手'抱歉'他们没有承认亚美尼亚种族灭绝,”Politico, 2018年1月19日,https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/19/armenian-genocide-ben-rhodes-samantha-power-obama-349973(访问日期为2022年10月23日)菲坦特,《瑞典的“复杂”关系》,9.14杰弗里·罗伯逊,《亚美尼亚是否存在种族灭绝?》圣托马斯大学法律与公共政策杂志第4期米歇尔·图桑,“反人类罪”:人权、大英帝国与对亚美尼亚种族灭绝反应的起源”,《美国历史评论》,2010年第1期。18 Julien Zarifian,“美国与(非)承认亚美尼亚种族灭绝”,Études arm<s:1> niennes Contemporaines 1(2013): 75-95.19。进一步讨论请参见vahahn N. Dadrian,“围绕亚美尼亚种族灭绝的标志事实和土耳其否认综合症”,《种族灭绝研究》第5期。2 (2003): 269-79;《从帝国到共和国:土耳其民族主义与亚美尼亚种族灭绝》(伦敦:Zed Book出版社,2004);Richard G. Hovannisian,《否认100年后的亚美尼亚种族灭绝:新的实践者和他们的贸易》,《国际种族灭绝研究》第9期。2 (2015): 228-47;Doğan Gürpınar,“否认的制造:1974年至1990年间亚美尼亚种族灭绝的土耳其“官方论文”的制作”,《巴尔干和近东研究杂志》18,第2期。3(2016): 217-40.20詹妮弗·迪克森,黑暗的过去:改变土耳其和日本的国家故事(伊萨卡:康奈尔大
{"title":"How Soon We Forget: National Myth-Making and Recognition of the Armenian Genocide","authors":"Maria Armoudian, Katherine Smits","doi":"10.1080/14623528.2023.2268483","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14623528.2023.2268483","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACTScholars in genocide studies have covered much ground in identifying causes and consequences of genocides. But much less has been done in the area of genocide recognitions: Why have countries recognized some genocides but not others? Strategic and economic relations with perpetrator states, or the influence of diasporan ethnic minorities are often assumed as causes, but we propose that conceptions of national identity may underlie these other factors. We explore a case that other factors do not readily explain: Given New Zealand’s previous bold stances on human rights, its strong self-identity as a human rights supporter, its recognition of some genocides, and its active and vociferous support of Armenians before, during and after the genocide, why does it refuse to recognize the Armenian genocide? We explore New Zealand’s reversal of attitudes by analyzing its public and official discourse in three time periods – first at the time of the Armenian genocide; second, in the late twentieth century when new narratives of national identity, enthusiasm for trade relations with Turkey, and the Anzac myth were established, and third, in the contemporary era, in which successive governments continue to refuse recognition. While we think the anticipated closer economic relations with Turkey during the second timeframe helped drive the shift, we theorize that New Zealand’s current refusal to recognize the genocide is grounded in the construction of its national identity during the second period – particularly in the establishment of the Anzac myth. This involved a changing portrayal of “the Turks” from enemy to fellow victims of the evils of war and imperial invasion, and modern-day Turkey as the sacred “home” of New Zealand’s war dead.KEYWORDS: GenociderecognitionNew Zealandhuman rightsArmeniannational identity Disclosure StatementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Notes1 Raymond Kévorkian, The Armenian Genocide: A Complete History (London: Bloomsbury Publishing, 2011); Taner Akçam, A Shameful Act: The Armenian Genocide and the Question of Turkish Responsibility (London: Macmillan, 2006); Ronald Suny, They Can Live in the Desert but Nowhere Else: A History of the Armenian Genocide (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2015); Benny Morris and Dror Ze'evi, The Thirty-Year Genocide: Turkey’s Destruction of Its Christian Minorities, 1894–1924 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2019).2 Jennifer Dixon, “Norms, Narratives, and Scholarship on the Armenian Genocide,” International Journal of Middle East Studies 47, no. 4 (2015): 796–800.3 World Population Review, “Countries that recognize the Armenian genocide,” https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/countries-that-recognize-the-armenian-genocide (accessed 29 August 2023).4 Bahar Baser and Mari Toivanen, “The Politics of Genocide Recognition: Kurdish Nation-Building and Commemoration in the Post-Saddam Era,” Journal of Genocide Research 19, no. 3 (2017): 404","PeriodicalId":46849,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Genocide Research","volume":"30 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"136209915","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}
Pub Date : 2023-09-18DOI: 10.1080/14623528.2023.2255407
Leora Bilsky, Rachel Klagsbrun
ABSTRACTThe phenomenon of the desk perpetrator continues to pose a challenge for the law. During the sixty-odd years since the Eichmann trial, legal scholarship has mainly focused on the need to develop doctrines about participation/complicity in order to attribute responsibility to the perpetrator behind the desk. It has failed to address the more basic problem of the involvement of the law in the phenomenon of the desk perpetrator. We suggest that the difficulty stems from the dual role of law, both as an enabling platform for desk perpetration and as an institution whose design grants partial or full immunity to desk perpetrators. Based on the case of the 1946 trial of the Nazi Governor of Western Poland, Arthur Greiser, we argue that the desk perpetrator is a product of the law, and therefore the attempt to judge the individual perpetrator without simultaneously addressing the role of law is doomed to fail. We show that it was the new concept of cultural genocide, which was eventually excluded from the 1948 international convention against Genocide that allowed the Polish court to discuss directly the responsibility of the law itself for the new crimes. For this purpose, the tribunal invited a number of expert witnesses, historians, economists, and jurists. The article focuses on the testimony of the legal expert and explores how it enabled the tribunal to put the rule of law itself on trial in ascertaining the individual criminal responsibility of the defendant.KEYWORDS: International criminal lawcultural genocideRaphael LemkinArthur Greiserdesk perpetratorexpert witness AcknowledgmentsThe authors would like to thank Natalie Davidson, David Luban, Roy Kreitner, Patrycja Grzebyk and Olga Kartashova for their thoughtful comments, Uri Brun for his research assistance, and Philippa Shimrat for her help with editing.Disclosure StatementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Notes1 See Patrycja Grzebyk, “The Role of the Polish Supreme National Tribunal in the Development of Principles of International Criminal Law,” in Historical Origins of International Criminal Law: Volume 2, ed. Morten Bergsmo, CHEAH Wui Ling, and YI Ping (Brussels: Torkel Opsahl, 2014), 603–30; Alexander V. Prusin, “Poland’s Nuremberg: The Seven Court Cases of the Supreme National Tribunal, 1946–1948,” Holocaust and Genocide Studies 24, no. 1 (2010): 1–25; Michael Fleming, In the Shadow of the Holocaust: Poland, the United Nations War Crimes Commission, and the Search for Justice (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2022); Andrew Kornbluth, The August Trials: The Holocaust and Postwar Justice in Poland (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2021); Francine Hirsch, Soviet Judgment at Nuremberg (New York: Oxford University Press, 2020).2 The term “desk perpetrator” (In German, Schreibtischtäter) refers to an individual, characteristically a state official, who bears responsibility for mass crimes without directly carrying them out. The term origina
摘要案头行为人现象不断给法律带来挑战。在艾希曼审判后的60多年里,法学研究主要集中在发展参与/共犯理论的必要性上,以便将责任归咎于幕后的肇事者。它未能解决更基本的问题,即法律介入案头犯罪者现象。我们认为,这种困难源于法律的双重作用,既作为案头犯罪的有利平台,又作为一种制度,其设计赋予案头犯罪者部分或全部豁免权。根据1946年审判西波兰纳粹总督亚瑟·格雷泽的案例,我们认为案头犯罪者是法律的产物,因此,在不同时解决法律作用的情况下审判个别犯罪者的企图注定要失败。我们指出,正是文化种族灭绝的新概念,使波兰法院能够直接讨论法律本身对新罪行的责任,这一概念最终被排除在1948年的《反对种族灭绝国际公约》之外。为此目的,法庭邀请了一些专家证人、历史学家、经济学家和法学家。本文着重讨论了法律专家的证词,并探讨了它如何使法庭在确定被告的个人刑事责任时将法治本身置于审判之上。作者感谢Natalie Davidson、David Luban、Roy Kreitner、Patrycja Grzebyk和Olga Kartashova的周到评论,Uri Brun的研究协助,Philippa Shimrat的编辑协助。披露声明作者未报告潜在的利益冲突。注1参见Patrycja Grzebyk:“波兰最高国家法庭在国际刑法原则发展中的作用”,载于《国际刑法的历史渊源》第二卷,Morten Bergsmo、CHEAH Wui Ling、YI Ping主编(布鲁塞尔:Torkel Opsahl, 2014),第603-30页;Alexander V. Prusin,《波兰的纽伦堡:最高国家法庭的七个案件,1946-1948》,《大屠杀与种族灭绝研究》,第24期。1 (2010): 1 - 25;迈克尔·弗莱明,《在大屠杀的阴影下:波兰、联合国战争罪行委员会和寻求正义》(剑桥:剑桥大学出版社,2022年);安德鲁·科恩布鲁斯,八月审判:大屠杀和战后正义在波兰(剑桥,马萨诸塞州:哈佛大学出版社,2021年);弗朗辛·赫希:《苏联在纽伦堡的审判》(纽约:牛津大学出版社,2020年)“案头犯罪者”(在德语中,Schreibtischtäter)指的是一个人,通常是国家官员,他对大规模犯罪负有责任,但没有直接实施。这个词起源于汉娜·阿伦特(Hannah Arendt)对阿道夫·艾希曼(Adolf Eichmann)审判的报道,尽管她在1963年首次以英文出版的《艾希曼在耶路撒冷:邪恶平庸的报告》(Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on The平庸)中没有明确使用这个词。阿伦特后来在为德国记者伯纳德·诺曼(Bernard Naumann)撰写的一本关于法兰克福奥斯维辛审判的书的英译本的导言中确实使用了这个词,她在书中把艾希曼描述为“卓越的案头杀人犯”。参见Hannah Arendt,“导言”,载于Bernard Naumann,《奥斯维辛:法兰克福法院对Robert Karl Ludwig Mulka及其他人的诉讼报告》(伦敦:Pall Mall出版社,1966),XX.3 David Fraser,《奥斯维辛后的法律:走向大屠杀的法理》(北卡罗来纳州达勒姆:卡罗莱纳学术出版社,2005),216.4将个人责任归咎于“办公桌犯罪者”破坏了刑事责任只应归咎于实施犯罪行为的人的原则。自第二次世界大战以来,国际法庭或法院已经发展了几种理论,以确定他人实际犯下的罪行的个人刑事责任。例如,前南斯拉夫问题国际刑事法庭(前南问题国际法庭)发展了共同犯罪事业理论,使一个集团的每一个成员能够对该集团在共同计划或目的范围内所犯的罪行承担责任。国际刑事法院(ICC)采用了犯罪控制理论,该理论承认犯罪可以通过对实施犯罪行为的其他人施加控制而间接实施。详见Neha Jain,《国际刑法中的肇事者和从犯》(牛津:Hart Publishing, 2016)。另见卡斯滕·斯坦《国际刑法批判导论》(剑桥:剑桥大学出版社,2019),117-58页中的“个人和集体责任”章节。 有关全面研究,请参阅Jérôme de Hemptinne, Robert Roth和Elies van Sliedregt(编),《国际刑法中的责任模式》(剑桥:剑桥大学出版社,2019)本文中的讨论基于以下历史资料。第一个是审判的原始记录,以书的形式出版:Proces Artura Greisera prized Najwyższym Trybunałem Narodowym(华沙:Polski institut Wydawniczy, 1946)。此外,我们还参考了联合国战争罪行委员会《战犯审判法律报告》第13卷(伦敦:国王陛下的文书办公室,1949年)第70-117页(以下为《法律报告》)中的“对高雷特·亚瑟·格雷泽的审判”,以及历史学家凯瑟琳·爱泼斯坦的著作《模范纳粹:亚瑟·格雷泽和对西波兰的占领》(纽约:牛津大学出版社,2010年)参见爱泼斯坦,模范纳粹;Gabriel N. Finder和Alexander V. Prusin,铁幕背后的正义:纳粹在共产主义波兰的审判(多伦多:多伦多大学出版社,2018);Mark A. Drumbl,“‘德国人是领主,波兰人是仆人’:Arthur Greiser在波兰的审判,1946年”,载于《战争罪行审判的隐藏历史》主编。7 .凯文·乔恩·海勒和格里·辛普森(牛津:牛津大学出版社,2013)波兰法庭在对格雷泽的审判中使用了“文化种族灭绝”一词来形容通过攻击波兰文化、宗教等来摧毁波兰民族的企图。虽然法庭承认对犹太人犯下的种族灭绝罪行,但它认为这是对波兰人民普遍种族灭绝的一个方面。对犹太人的灭绝和大规模屠杀在阿蒙Göth审判中得到了单独的讨论。8 .见《审判战犯的法律报告》第七卷(伦敦:国王陛下文具办公室,1948年),第1-9页“对hauptsturmfhrer Amon Goeth的审判”(下称《法律报告》第七卷)详见Leora Bilsky和Rachel Klagsbrun的《文化灭绝的回归?》[强调补充]格热比克,“波兰最高国家法庭的作用”,604。尽管SNT的审判长期以来被认为是“政治审判”,但近年来,历史学家开始将对主要纳粹罪犯的审判与同一时期在该县进行的众多政治审判区分开来。Alexander Prusin认为,与这些审判不同的是,法庭的程序“应用了与西方法庭类似的传统法律和道德标准,并根据每个案件的案情进行全面调查。”也“没有在一个因政治动荡而四分五裂的国家成为战后报复正义的盲目工具”。普鲁士,“波兰的纽伦堡”,1,19.13格泽比克,“波兰最高国家法庭的角色”,609.14见托马斯·默滕斯,“拉德布鲁赫和哈特对告密者的反思”,《法学比率》15,第19期。2 (2002): 189.15 Judith N. Shklar,《法家主义》(Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1964), 155.16 See, Grzebyk,“波兰最高国家法庭的角色”。关于设立法庭的法令,见《波兰共和国法律杂志》,1946年,第6期。5,项目45,引自Patrycja G
{"title":"The Desk Perpetrator, the Expert Witness, and the Role of Law: The Trial of Arthur Greiser","authors":"Leora Bilsky, Rachel Klagsbrun","doi":"10.1080/14623528.2023.2255407","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14623528.2023.2255407","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACTThe phenomenon of the desk perpetrator continues to pose a challenge for the law. During the sixty-odd years since the Eichmann trial, legal scholarship has mainly focused on the need to develop doctrines about participation/complicity in order to attribute responsibility to the perpetrator behind the desk. It has failed to address the more basic problem of the involvement of the law in the phenomenon of the desk perpetrator. We suggest that the difficulty stems from the dual role of law, both as an enabling platform for desk perpetration and as an institution whose design grants partial or full immunity to desk perpetrators. Based on the case of the 1946 trial of the Nazi Governor of Western Poland, Arthur Greiser, we argue that the desk perpetrator is a product of the law, and therefore the attempt to judge the individual perpetrator without simultaneously addressing the role of law is doomed to fail. We show that it was the new concept of cultural genocide, which was eventually excluded from the 1948 international convention against Genocide that allowed the Polish court to discuss directly the responsibility of the law itself for the new crimes. For this purpose, the tribunal invited a number of expert witnesses, historians, economists, and jurists. The article focuses on the testimony of the legal expert and explores how it enabled the tribunal to put the rule of law itself on trial in ascertaining the individual criminal responsibility of the defendant.KEYWORDS: International criminal lawcultural genocideRaphael LemkinArthur Greiserdesk perpetratorexpert witness AcknowledgmentsThe authors would like to thank Natalie Davidson, David Luban, Roy Kreitner, Patrycja Grzebyk and Olga Kartashova for their thoughtful comments, Uri Brun for his research assistance, and Philippa Shimrat for her help with editing.Disclosure StatementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Notes1 See Patrycja Grzebyk, “The Role of the Polish Supreme National Tribunal in the Development of Principles of International Criminal Law,” in Historical Origins of International Criminal Law: Volume 2, ed. Morten Bergsmo, CHEAH Wui Ling, and YI Ping (Brussels: Torkel Opsahl, 2014), 603–30; Alexander V. Prusin, “Poland’s Nuremberg: The Seven Court Cases of the Supreme National Tribunal, 1946–1948,” Holocaust and Genocide Studies 24, no. 1 (2010): 1–25; Michael Fleming, In the Shadow of the Holocaust: Poland, the United Nations War Crimes Commission, and the Search for Justice (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2022); Andrew Kornbluth, The August Trials: The Holocaust and Postwar Justice in Poland (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2021); Francine Hirsch, Soviet Judgment at Nuremberg (New York: Oxford University Press, 2020).2 The term “desk perpetrator” (In German, Schreibtischtäter) refers to an individual, characteristically a state official, who bears responsibility for mass crimes without directly carrying them out. The term origina","PeriodicalId":46849,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Genocide Research","volume":"122 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135202395","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}
Pub Date : 2023-09-07DOI: 10.1080/14623528.2023.2248818
Michael Wildt
{"title":"What Does Singularity of the Holocaust Mean?","authors":"Michael Wildt","doi":"10.1080/14623528.2023.2248818","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14623528.2023.2248818","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":46849,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Genocide Research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2023-09-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46624830","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}
Pub Date : 2023-09-06DOI: 10.1080/14623528.2023.2254555
Ariel I. Ahram
{"title":"“There Should Be No Life”: Environmental Perspectives on Genocide in Northern Iraq","authors":"Ariel I. Ahram","doi":"10.1080/14623528.2023.2254555","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14623528.2023.2254555","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":46849,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Genocide Research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2023-09-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47891524","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}