从科索沃大屠杀到大规模暴行。德国统一以来的争论

IF 0.5 Q3 AREA STUDIES Comparative Southeast European Studies Pub Date : 2022-06-01 DOI:10.1515/soeu-2022-0016
Robin Hering, Bernhard Stahl
{"title":"从科索沃大屠杀到大规模暴行。德国统一以来的争论","authors":"Robin Hering, Bernhard Stahl","doi":"10.1515/soeu-2022-0016","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Germany’s involvement in the Kosovo War marked its first active participation in combat operations since the Second World War. For many observers at the time, the intervention represented a fundamental policy shift in the West, and in Germany in particular. Mass atrocities, no longer to be observed from the sidelines, were now to be actively prevented. Twenty years later, this stance seems rather puzzling. Mass atrocities continued to be committed; Germany has neither championed efforts to prevent such acts, nor has it been proactive in this regard. In this article, the authors develop three proxies that serve to indicate whether mass atrocities were highly politicised: the existence of parliamentary debates, media coverage, and church statements. They show that Kosovo is an outlier within an otherwise clear continuity of German political silencing in the face of mass atrocities. To prove this claim, they turn to German domestic debates on twelve mass atrocity cases abroad since the country’s unification in 1990.","PeriodicalId":29828,"journal":{"name":"Comparative Southeast European Studies","volume":"70 1","pages":"246 - 266"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"From Kosovo Rush to Mass Atrocities’ Hush. German Debates since Unification\",\"authors\":\"Robin Hering, Bernhard Stahl\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/soeu-2022-0016\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Germany’s involvement in the Kosovo War marked its first active participation in combat operations since the Second World War. For many observers at the time, the intervention represented a fundamental policy shift in the West, and in Germany in particular. Mass atrocities, no longer to be observed from the sidelines, were now to be actively prevented. Twenty years later, this stance seems rather puzzling. Mass atrocities continued to be committed; Germany has neither championed efforts to prevent such acts, nor has it been proactive in this regard. In this article, the authors develop three proxies that serve to indicate whether mass atrocities were highly politicised: the existence of parliamentary debates, media coverage, and church statements. They show that Kosovo is an outlier within an otherwise clear continuity of German political silencing in the face of mass atrocities. To prove this claim, they turn to German domestic debates on twelve mass atrocity cases abroad since the country’s unification in 1990.\",\"PeriodicalId\":29828,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Comparative Southeast European Studies\",\"volume\":\"70 1\",\"pages\":\"246 - 266\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Comparative Southeast European Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1515/soeu-2022-0016\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"AREA STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Comparative Southeast European Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/soeu-2022-0016","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"AREA STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

摘要德国参与科索沃战争标志着其自第二次世界大战以来首次积极参与作战行动。对当时的许多观察家来说,这次干预代表着西方,尤其是德国的根本政策转变。大规模暴行不再是旁观者可以观察到的,现在应该积极防止。20年后,这种立场似乎相当令人费解。大规模暴行继续发生;德国既没有支持防止此类行为的努力,也没有在这方面积极主动。在这篇文章中,作者提出了三个指标,用来表明大规模暴行是否高度政治化:议会辩论的存在、媒体报道和教会声明。它们表明,在德国面对大规模暴行保持政治沉默的明显连续性中,科索沃是一个异类。为了证明这一说法,他们求助于德国国内关于自1990年德国统一以来发生在国外的12起大规模暴行案件的辩论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
From Kosovo Rush to Mass Atrocities’ Hush. German Debates since Unification
Abstract Germany’s involvement in the Kosovo War marked its first active participation in combat operations since the Second World War. For many observers at the time, the intervention represented a fundamental policy shift in the West, and in Germany in particular. Mass atrocities, no longer to be observed from the sidelines, were now to be actively prevented. Twenty years later, this stance seems rather puzzling. Mass atrocities continued to be committed; Germany has neither championed efforts to prevent such acts, nor has it been proactive in this regard. In this article, the authors develop three proxies that serve to indicate whether mass atrocities were highly politicised: the existence of parliamentary debates, media coverage, and church statements. They show that Kosovo is an outlier within an otherwise clear continuity of German political silencing in the face of mass atrocities. To prove this claim, they turn to German domestic debates on twelve mass atrocity cases abroad since the country’s unification in 1990.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
33.30%
发文量
40
期刊最新文献
The Politics of Covid-19 Vaccination Hesitancy in Southeastern Europe. The Slovenian Perception of the EU: From Outstanding Pupil to Solid Member Frontmatter The Age of Skin and the Epoch of an Author: A Eulogy to Dubravka Ugrešić Romania: A Case of Differentiated Integration into the European Union
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1