Defining Genocide

O’Brien, Melanie

doi:10.1163/18754112-0220104010

Cited by 2 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although Anderson (2015, p. 9) avers “the boundaries of genocide are persistently contested,” the internationally accepted definition of genocide was adopted in 1948 in Article II of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (GC) (1948). Despite the conceptual consistency of genocide, some scholars argue that the definition in the GC lacks details about the appropriate interpretation of each element of the crime of genocide, including a significant absence of how to interpret or understand the notions of “intent” or “destruction” (O’Brien, 2020; Özsu, 2020). Additionally, scholars have denounced how the legal definition diminished Raphael Lemkin’s initial concept (Özsu, 2020; Jacobs, 2018; Jones, 2006); the legal definition does not refer to intentional actions to destroy people’s cultures despite Lemkin’s position that genocide includes the dissolution of political, social, cultural, economic, biological, physical, religious and moral dimensions of communities (Lemkin, 1944).…”

Section: Genocide: Considerations and Criticismmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Lemkin’s original conceptualization far surpassed the notion of physical annihilation to include the targeting and destruction of “social” groups. Lemkin’s holism locates the loss of life as part of the genocide, “around which the other crimes pivot,” permitting a range of impact – from social to physical (O’Brien, 2020, p. 154).…”

Section: Genocide: Considerations and Criticismmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…definition in the GC lacks details about the appropriate interpretation of each element of the crime of genocide, including a significant absence of how to interpret or understand the notions of "intent" or "destruction" (O'Brien, 2020;O ¨zsu, 2020). Additionally, scholars have denounced how the legal definition diminished Raphael Lemkin's initial concept (O ¨zsu, 2020;Jacobs, 2018;Jones, 2006); the legal definition does not refer to intentional actions to destroy people's cultures despite Lemkin's position that genocide includes the dissolution of political, social, cultural, economic, biological, physical, religious and moral dimensions of communities (Lemkin, 1944).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Everyday genocide: femicide, transicide and the responsibility to protect

Standish

2021

JACPR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to establish a conceptual connection between gender-based violence (GBV) and genocide. Victims of gendercide, such as femicide and transicide, should be eligible for protections assigned to victims of genocide, including the Responsibility to Protect (R2P). Design/methodology/approach This study examines genocide, gendercide, femicide, transicide and the R2P doctrine to formulate a platform of engagement from which to argue the alignment and congruence of genocide with gendercide. Using a content analysis of the United Nations High Commission for Refugees definition of GBV, and Article II of the Genocide Convention (GC) five “directive” facets are examined, namely, identity, physical violence, psychological violence, oppressive violence and repressive violence. Findings Expressions of physical violence, psychological violence, oppressive violence and repressive violence reflected similarity, whereas the GCs omit sex and gender as facets of identity group inclusion. The only variation is the encapsulation of identity factors included in the acts of harm. Practical implications The elevation of gendercide to the status of genocide would permit us the leverage to make it not only illegal to permit gendercide – internationally or in-country – but make it illegal not to intervene, too. Social implications Deliberate harm based on sex and gender are crimes against people because of their real or perceived group membership, and as such, should be included in genocide theory and prevention. Originality/value This study explores a new conceptual basis for addressing gendercidal violence nationally to include sex and gender victim groups typically excluded from formal parameters of inclusion and address due to limitations in Article II. The analysis of genocide alongside GBV may inform scholars and activists in the aim to end gendered violence.

show abstract

Section: Genocide: Considerations and Criticismmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Genocide: Considerations and Criticismmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Everyday genocide: femicide, transicide and the responsibility to protect

Standish

2021

JACPR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Terrorism as Coalitional Predation: Explaining Definitional Ambiguities and Precautionary Responses

Moncrieff

2024

Evol Psychol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Terrorism continues to be an enigmatic and contested concept, lacking a universally accepted definition despite extensive scholarly debate. Lay intuitions, however, demonstrate a notable convergence in identifying acts as “terrorism” when specific situational features are present, such as indiscriminate violence and out-group perpetration. These features elicit predictable and robust precautionary responses, raising the question: Is there a unified and parsimonious explanation for these phenomena? It is hypothesized that a situational template exists in the human mind, the coalitional predation template (CPT), which evolved not to detect modern-day terrorism, per se, but to identify and respond to situations of predatory coalitional conflict. The paper examines the potential cues and mechanisms that constitute the psychological systems activated by such threats, suggesting that matching the input cues of the CPT triggers well-documented precautionary responses to terrorism. However, this cue-based system may not align neatly with contemporary threats, leading to disproportionate responses to some threats while underestimating others. The model also posits that interpretations of violence can vary due to incomplete cues and the social position of the evaluator, leading to public disagreements and inconsistencies in defining terrorism. Consequently, arriving at an unambiguous and widely accepted definition of terrorism may not be possible. The model presented may account for a range of phenomena, including the inclination towards attributing mental illness to particular violent incidents and the uncanny surface similarities between terrorism and war crimes. The findings have significant implications for both the theoretical understanding of terrorism and practical policy responses.

show abstract

Defining Genocide

Cited by 2 publications

References 0 publications

Everyday genocide: femicide, transicide and the responsibility to protect

Everyday genocide: femicide, transicide and the responsibility to protect

Terrorism as Coalitional Predation: Explaining Definitional Ambiguities and Precautionary Responses

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About