International Law As a Dialectical Progression Of
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
THE POWER OF “GENOCIDE”: INTERNATIONAL LAW AS A DIALECTICAL PROGRESSION OF HARD POWER THROUGH SOFT POWER TOWARD LEGAL POWER by Tal Buenos A dissertation submitted to the faculty of The University of Utah in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Political Science The University of Utah December 2017 Copyright © Tal Buenos 2017 All Rights Reserved The University of Utah Graduate School STATEMENT OF DISSERTATION APPROVAL The dissertation of Tal Buenos has been approved by the following supervisory committee members: M. Hakan Yavuz , Chair 5/3/2017 Date Approved Yanqi Tong , Member 6/3/2017 Date Approved Janet Theiss , Member 5/3/2017 Date Approved Howard Lehman , Member 5/3/2017 Date Approved John Francis , Member 5/3/2017 Date Approved and by Mark Button , Chair of the Department of Political Science and by David B. Kieda, Dean of The Graduate School. ABSTRACT In the existing academic literature on “genocide” there is an emphasis on moralistic arguments toward public acceptance of using the term genocide popularly in relation to specific events. This practice is unaccompanied by a recognition that the created genocide discourse is the product of a biased process, and that it is empowered to affect international law without being legally sanctioned to do so. Since the currently available scholarly information on “genocide” is grounded in self-assured presentations that the works of the genocide scholarship are social-scientific and reflective of the conscience of humanity, there is a lack of significant knowledge regarding the political use of the term genocide in the governing of global affairs. By employing a power-based theory, this study offers an interpretive analysis of available historical data to understand how “genocide” has been used as a tool for the advancement of international law. It shows that the term genocide has functioned as soft power through which hard power has been particularized toward legal power. Meaning, “genocide” has been used to bring governance closer to international law by appealing to group identity. Such a view of a dialectical progress identifies the power of “genocide” in the context of international law and invites new considerations of how the idea of international law may yet attain the combined qualities of authority and legitimacy in the quest for unified standards of governance worldwide. I Am the Lord Thy God. Why were the Ten Commandments not said at the beginning of the Torah? They give a parable. To what may this be compared? To the following: A king who entered a province said to the people: May I be your king? But the people said to him: Have you done anything good for us that you should rule over us? What did he do then? He built the city wall for them, he brought in the water supply for them, and he fought their battles. Then when he said to them: May I be your king? They said to him: Yes, yes. Likewise, God. He brought the Israelites out of Egypt, divided the sea for them, sent down the manna for them, brought up the well for them, brought the quails for them. He fought for them the battle with Amalek. Then He said to them: I am to be your king. And they said to Him: Yes, yes. —Mekhilta De-Rabbi Ishmael Extravagant claims as to the role which the American Government has had in relation to the development of international law are to be avoided. —Robert Renbert Wilson, International Law in Treaties TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT…………………………………………………....……………………...…iii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS...........................................................................................vii Chapters 1. INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................1 Power.......................................................................................................................5 International Law...................................................................................................13 Meeting “Genocide”..............................................................................................21 Methodology..........................................................................................................30 Conceptual Framework..........................................................................................37 Outline....................................................................................................................41 2. A LITERARY REVIEW OF THE GENOCIDE SCHOLARSHIP...............................48 The Genocide Scholarship’s Narration of Its History and Purpose.......................50 The Holocaust Made Comparable.........................................................................61 The Armenian Focus..............................................................................................72 Controlled Information..........................................................................................88 Moralizing an American Agenda.........................................................................104 Tension with the Legal Definition.......................................................................118 Raphael Lemkin’s Centrality in the Origination of the Term ..............................130 Conclusion...........................................................................................................141 3. A POWER-BASED APPROACH TO “GENOCIDE”................................................143 Power and Political Science.................................................................................147 Hard Power and Law...........................................................................................160 Soft Power and the Genocide Scholarship...........................................................169 Legal Power and International Law.....................................................................179 Conclusion...........................................................................................................185 4. THE INITIATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, 1870s-1944................................187 The Balancing of Power in Europe......................................................................188 The Unification of Germany................................................................................192 International Arbitration......................................................................................196 The Civilizational Criterion.................................................................................202 The Eastern Question...........................................................................................209 The Armenian Question.......................................................................................217 The Macedonian Question...................................................................................234 Before Victory.....................................................................................................241 The League of Nations........................................................................................248 “Genocide”..........................................................................................................253 Conclusion...........................................................................................................265 5. THE DEVELOPMENT OF “GENOCIDE,” 1945-1988.............................................268 The Reeducation of Germany .............................................................................269 Lemkin’s Intellectual Property............................................................................282 American Display of Dissociation.......................................................................293 Popularity by Vilification of Communism..........................................................315 The Armenian Issue.............................................................................................328 Civil Wars............................................................................................................345 The Scholarly Discourse......................................................................................360 Conclusion...........................................................................................................380 6. TOWARD LEGAL POWER, 1989-2010s..................................................................385 “Genocide” against the Turkic People.................................................................386 The Advent of “Ethnic Cleansing”......................................................................399 Intervention for Genocide Prevention..................................................................417 The House that “Genocide” Built.........................................................................430 Misleading the Masses.........................................................................................450 American Soft Power as International Criminal Law ..........................................471 The Abuse of International Law..........................................................................486 Genocide Labels vs. Human Rights.....................................................................505 Conclusion...........................................................................................................517 7. CONCLUSION............................................................................................................521 The