From comparative to international genocide studies: The international production of genocide in 20th-century Europe

Abstract

Genocide is widely seen as a phenomenon of domestic politics, which becomes of international significance because it offends against international law. Hence there are as yet inadequate International Relations analyses of the production of genocide. This article challenges the idea of the domestic genesis of genocide, and critiques the corresponding approach of 'comparative genocide studies' which is dominant in the field. It analyses the emergence of more fruitful 'relational' and 'international' approaches in critical genocide studies, while identifying the limitations of their accounts of the 'international system'. As first steps towards an adequate international account, the article then explores questions of the international meaning and construction of genocidal relations, and of international relations as the context of genocide. It argues for a historical and sociological approach to the international relations of genocide, and examines 20th-century European genocide in this light. Arguing for a broader conception of this historical experience than is suggested by an exclusive focus on the Holocaust, the article offers an interpretation of genocide as increasingly endemic and systemic in international relations in the first half of the century. It concludes by arguing that this account offers a starting point, but not a model, for analyses of genocide in global international relations in the 21st century.

An R2P Commission: A Proposal for Holding States Accountable to Their Responsibility to Protect

“…This ignores a vital question in how to hold the international community accountable for the duty of assistance under Pillar Two and its relevance to atrocity prevention. This also overlooks the interlinked concept of cosmopolitan negative duties to avoid the imposition of harm ( Linklater 2001 ;Shapcott 2008 ) and the actions of international actors-such as arms sales, regime ties, and damaging trade policies-that have been argued to weaken state resilience and contribute to outbreaks of mass atrocity ( Shaw 2012 ;Dunford and Neu 2019 ;Bohm and Brown 2021 ). Given that the three pillars are meant to be taken as equal under the R2P concept ( Bellamy and Drummond 2011 , 181), it is important that attention is paid not just to holding states accountable to their duty to respond under Pillar Three but also that states are held accountable for their responsibility to assist others, and not undermine this duty of assistance, under Pillar Two.…”

Interethnic Conflict and Genocide in Myanmar

“…There may be many “events, incentives, and constraints” that are responsible for pushing genocidal elites toward escalation (Straus, 2012, p. 550). Perpetrators evaluate their past failures, events, incentives, conditions, and the actions of their targets before they become involved in mass atrocities (Levene, 2000; Shaw, 2012). The 2012 riot in Rakhine was portrayed by the Myanmar government as spontaneous ethnic violence, but observers argued that the violence was well planned by the security forces, border patrol, and government (Stoakes, 2015).…”

Género, sexualidad y genocidio en Kanata

“…Yet, it is relevant to note that both this book and the majority of literature concerned with gender are part of comparative genocide studies, and thus focus mainly on the Holocaust and the genocides in Rwanda, Armenia, and Bosnia. Comparative genocide studies, as the dominant perspective in the fi eld, have been challenged by several authors (Shaw, 2012;Moses, 2008) and, as I will expand further on, tend to rely on Eurocentric assumptions of gender as if the concept was ahistorical and universal.…”