DOCSLIB.ORG

1 Spring 2018 PSC 3192W – Political Violence Prof. Evgeny Finkel, [email protected] Class Office Hours Mon. 11:10AM-1:00PM

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
1 Spring 2018 PSC 3192W – Political Violence Prof. Evgeny Finkel, Efinkel@Gwu.Edu Class Office Hours Mon. 11:10AM-1:00PM Spring 2018 PSC 3192W – Political Violence Prof. Evgeny Finkel, [email protected] Class Office Hours Mon. 11:10AM-1:00PM Wed. 1-2PM or by appointment Monroe Hall, Room 351 Monroe Hall, Room 419 Course Description Millions of people around the globe are confronted with violence on a daily basis. This can include violence such as civil wars, ethnic riots, suicide bombings, famines, and genocide. While these types of violent phenomena are ancient, only in recent decades have scholars devoted serious study and attention to analyzing political violence in its various forms. The goal of this seminar is to introduce students to this thriving field of study, to present key academic works on various aspects and forms of violence, to discuss the similarities and differences between various forms of political violence, and to analyze the theoretical and methodological approaches to studying violence. We will end by discussing the impact of violence on the societies and people that have experienced it and the ways to prevent and manage future violent conflicts. Learning Objectives and Outcomes As a result of completing this course, students will be able to: Understand the main theories that explain the emergence and the unfolding of various types of violence as well as the key concepts of the field; To write short response papers that critically evaluate the field’s main theories and arguments To be able to translate academic knowledge into writing for broader audiences To write an independently researched academic paper Requirements and Class Policies The class is a seminar. This means that the students are expected to attend the lectures and to read all the required materials. The class is structured around weekly meetings, in which the 1 instructor and the students critically evaluate and discuss the readings. Hence, students’ active participation in the discussions is required and class participation is a substantial part of the final grade. This is a writing-oriented class and the students will be required to conduct various research and writing assignments that culminate in the end-of-class final research paper. In addition, the students will be required to submit three short response papers. Response Papers During the semester the students will be required to submit three response papers. The papers should be about three pages long. The exact dates of the papers will be determined during the first lecture. The goal of each response paper is to critically evaluate the readings that have been assigned for the coming lecture and raise points and questions for the classroom discussion. In addition, the students who wrote the week’s response papers will serve as “discussion leaders” and will present a short summary of their paper at the beginning of the lecture. The response papers should be sent to me by pre-class Friday 5pm (EST). The response papers will be graded and the feedback will help you to proceed with your final research paper. Research Paper The research paper provides you with the opportunity to pursue any analytical, theoretical, or historical question about political violence that interests you. A good paper both informs and persuades; to do this it must be logically organized, clearly argued, well researched, and well documented. Avoid writing a paper that merely restates the readings. You are expected to do some original thinking, research, and analysis in this paper. There are several excellent guides on the web that I encourage you to consult on how to go about writing an analytical research paper. Some good sites include: How to Research a Political Science Paper, by Peter Liberman: http://qcpages.qc.edu/Political_Science/researching.html Writing Political Science Papers: Some Useful Guidelines, by Peter Liberman,: http://qcpages.qc.edu/Political_Science/tips.html Reading, Writing, and Researching for History: A Guide for College Students, by Patrick Rael: http://www.bowdoin.edu/writing-guides/ 2 Writing a Research Paper, by Sarah Hamid: http://owl.english.purdue.edu/workshops/hypertext/ResearchW/index.html An accurate summary of some things not to do, which (unfortunately) students commonly do, can be found at Advice on How to Write a Bad Paper. Paper proposals (about one page) which include the topic and at least five relevant sources are due by Friday, March 2, 5PM; the paper outline and summary (two to three pages) are due by Friday, April 6, 5PM. Remember, by that time you should also be in an advanced stage of research. The paper drafts will be reviewed by your peers and discussed in class. The draft paper is due by Thursday, April 26, 5PM. The final paper should be 18-20 pages, double spaced, Times New Roman 12 font (not including bibliography), with one-inch margins. The final papers are due by Wednesday, May 9, 5PM. Late submission of proposals, outlines, and papers (both draft and final) will be penalized by a half of a letter grade for every day of the delay. The paper topic should be approved by the instructor. The students are strongly encouraged to discuss their ideas and progress with the instructor, and I do expect to meet every student at least twice during the class. If you are unable to come to my office hours, I will be happy to schedule a meeting at a different time. Grading Criteria Response Papers: 15% Final Research Paper: 60% Participation: 25% Academic Conduct I personally support the GW Code of Academic Integrity. It states: “Academic dishonesty is defined as cheating of any kind, including misrepresenting one's own work, taking credit for the work of others without crediting them and without appropriate authorization, and the fabrication of information.” For the remainder of the code, see: http://www.gwu.edu/~ntegrity/code.html Special Needs and Support outside the Classroom 3 Any student who may need an accommodation based on the potential impact of a disability should contact the Disability Support Services office at 202-994-8250 in the Marvin Center, Suite 242, to establish eligibility and to coordinate reasonable accommodations. For additional information please refer to: http://gwired.gwu.edu/dss/ The University Counseling Center (UCC, 202-994-5300) offers 24/7 assistance and referral to address students' personal, social, career, and study skills problems. Services for students include: Crisis and emergency mental health consultations Confidential assessment, counseling services (individual and small group), and referrals 4 Course Outline and Schedule Lecture 1. 01.22: Course Overview and Description Lecture 2. 01.29. Studying Violence: Perspectives and Concepts Vittorio Bufacchi, "Two Concepts of Violence," Political Studies Review 3:2 (2005), pp. 193-204. Stathis Kalyvas, “The Ontology of Political Violence,” Perspectives on Politics, 2003, 1(3), pp. 475-494. Peter Turchin, “Dynamics of political instability in the United States, 1780–2010,” Journal of Piece Research, 49(4), 2012, pp. 577-591 Lecture 3. 02.05. Ethnic Conflict Barry Posen, “The Security Dilemma and Ethnic Conflict,” Survival, 1993, 35(1), pp. 27- 47. Charles King, “The Benefits of Ethnic War: Understanding Eurasia's Unrecognized States,” World Politics, 2001, 53(4), pp. 524-552. James Fearon and David Laitin, “Ethnicity, Insurgency, and Civil War,” American Political Science Review, 2003, 97(1), pp. 75-90. Lecture 4. 02.12. Riots and Pogroms Donald Horowitz, The Deadly Ethnic Riot (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2001), pp. 1-42. Ashutosh Varshney, “Ethnic Conflict and Civil Society: India and Beyond,” World Politics, 2001, 53(3), pp. 362-398. Steven Wilkinson, Votes and Violence: Electoral Competition and Ethnic Riots in India, (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004), ch. 1,2. Jeffrey Kopstein and Jason Wittenberg, “Deadly Communities: Local Political Milieus and the Persecution of Jews in Occupied Poland,” Comparative Political Studies, 2011, 44(2), pp. 259-283. 5 02.19. President’s Day. No Classes Lecture 5. 02.26. Resistance, and Rebellion Ted Gurr, Why Men Rebel, (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1970), ch. 2. James Scott, The Moral Economy of the Peasant: Rebellion and Subsistence in Southeast Asia, (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1976), ch. 7. Jack Goldstone and Bret Useem, “Prison Riots as Microrevolutions: An Extension of State‐Centered Theories of Revolution,” American Journal of Sociology, 104(4), 1999, pp. 985-1029. Gunes Murat Tezcur, “Ordinary People, Extraordinary Risks: Participation in an Ethnic Rebellion,” American Political Science Review, 110(2), 2016, pp. 247-264. **PAPER PROPOSALS ARE DUE BY THE END OF THE WEEK** Lecture 6. 03.05. Terrorism Alan Krueger and Jitka Maleckova, “Education, Poverty, and Terrorism: Is There a Causal Connection?” Journal of Economic Perspectives, 2003, 17(4), pp. 119–44. Andrew Kydd and Barbara Walter, “The Strategies of Terrorism,” International Security, 2006, 31(1), pp. 49-80. Robert Pape, “The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism,” American Political Science Review, 2003, 97(3), pp. 1-19. Max Abrahms, “Why Terrorism Does Not Work,” International Security, 2006, 31(2), pp. 42-78. 03.12. Spring Break. No Classes Lecture 7. 03.19. Civil War 1 Paul Collier and Anke Hoeffler, “Greed and Grievance in Civil War,” World Bank, 2001 Stathis Kalyvas, “‘New’ and ‘Old’ Civil Wars: A Valid Distinction?” World Politics, 54 2001, 54, pp. 99-118. 6 Michael Ross, “What Do We Know about Natural Resources and Civil War?” Journal of Pease Research, 2004, 41(3), pp. 337-356. Stathis Kalyvas, The Logic of Violence in Civil War, (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006), pp. 1-15, 146-209, 330-363. Lecture 8. 03.26. Civil War 2 Stathis Kalyvas, “Ethnic Defection in Civil War,” Comparative Political Studies, 2008, 41(8), pp. 1043-1068. Jason Lyall, Are Co-Ethnics More Effective Counter-Insurgents? Evidence from the Second Chechen War,” American Political Science Review, 2010, 104(1), pp. 1-20. Dara Kay Cohen.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Patterns in the Mindset Behind Organized Mass Killing
    Genocide Studies and Prevention: An International Journal Volume 12 Issue 1 Article 8 6-2018 Democidal Thinking: Patterns in the Mindset Behind Organized Mass Killing Gerard Saucier University of Oregon Laura Akers Oregon Research Institute Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/gsp Recommended Citation Saucier, Gerard and Akers, Laura (2018) "Democidal Thinking: Patterns in the Mindset Behind Organized Mass Killing," Genocide Studies and Prevention: An International Journal: Vol. 12: Iss. 1: 80-97. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5038/1911-9933.12.1.1546 Available at: https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/gsp/vol12/iss1/8 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Open Access Journals at Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Genocide Studies and Prevention: An International Journal by an authorized editor of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Democidal Thinking: Patterns in the Mindset Behind Organized Mass Killing Acknowledgements Thanks are due to Seraphine Shen-Miller, Ashleigh Landau, and Nina Greene for assistance with various aspects of this research. This article is available in Genocide Studies and Prevention: An International Journal: https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/gsp/vol12/iss1/8 Democidal Thinking: Patterns in the Mindset Behind Organized Mass Killing Gerard Saucier University of Oregon Eugene, Oregon, USA Laura Akers Oregon Research Institute Eugene, Oregon, USA In such a world of conflict, a world of victims and executioners, it is the job of thinking people, as Albert Camus suggested, not to be on the side of the executioners. –Howard Zinn1 Introduction and Background Sociopolitical violence is a tremendous social problem, given its capacity to spiral into outcomes of moral evil (i.e., intentional severe harm to others).
    [Show full text]
  • Love, Resilience, and Creativity During Genocide and Mass Atrocities
    *Love, Creativity, and Resilience During* Genocide and Mass Atrocities INTS 4011 Spring 2020 Dr. Marie Berry Josef Korbel School of International Studies Wednesdays, 9:00 – 11:50 am Via Canvas [email protected] Office Hours: Thursday via Zoom from 1-4 pm *This syllabus is still a draft* Welcome to INST 4011, Comparative Genocide (that is the official title). Why study love, creativity, and resilience during genocide and mass atrocities? To be honest, the thought of teaching a course on genocide while we are all watching the COVID19 pandemic unfold has been incredibly unsettling. We are in the middle of a global crisis; our lives, our families, our communities, our economy, and even our planet are being threatened. I go online and see so much pain. I talk to my friends and they are scared—and some are sick. The “social distancing” has created a tremendous sense of loss for all that we had imaged and hoped we would be doing. And we don’t know how long this will last for, or what we will lose. Thus, instead of teaching this class as I usually do—with a focus on the historical and political legacies of genocides from the past 70 years—I am pivoting slightly, to focus instead on love, resilience, and human creativity. This class will still cover the historical process of genocide over the past century, but will now focus on how individuals and communities have resisted such atrocities through solidarity, art, non-violent direct action, and other creative strategies to reclaim their humanity together.
    [Show full text]
  • Constructing a Democratic Iraq Constructing a Daniel Byman Democratic Iraq Challenges and Opportunities
    Constructing a Democratic Iraq Constructing a Daniel Byman Democratic Iraq Challenges and Opportunities Now that the United States and its allies have toppled Saddam Hussein’s regime, the knotty ques- tion of Iraq’s future government is rising to the fore. Although the Bush administration, nongovernmental organization ofªcials, and exiled Iraqis dis- agree on interim measures for governing Iraq, there is a surprising consensus on the eventual nature of Iraq’s government: Almost all parties believe that Iraq must have a democratic, and highly federal, government.1 President George W. Bush declared that “all Iraqis must have a voice in the new govern- ment, and all citizens must have their rights protected.”2 Zalmay Khalilzad, who was the special presidential envoy and ambassador at large for Free Iraqis, called for “a broad-based representative and democratic government” in a post-Saddam Iraq.3 Indeed the Bush administration’s vision for democracy extends beyond Iraq. Richard Perle, an inºuential strategist with close ties to the administration, Daniel Byman is an Assistant Professor in the Security Studies Program at Georgetown University and a nonresident Senior Fellow at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution. The author would like to thank Kai-Hendrick Barth, Donald Daniel, David Edelstein, Bernard Finel, Jennifer Lind, Daryl Press, Jeremy Shapiro, Samer Shehata, Benjamin Valentino, Stephen Van Evera, and an anonymous reviewer for their input into previous drafts of this article. Additional thanks go to the participants of a Georgetown University School of Foreign Service seminar and a Dartmouth College International Relations faculty group session for their constructive criticism.
    [Show full text]
  • Slaughter of the Innocents: Understanding Political Killing, Including Limited Terror but Especially Large-Scale Killing and Genocide 6–8 March 1998
    S t a n f o r d U n i v e r s i t y C I S A C Center for International Security and Arms Control The Center for International Security and Arms Control, part of Stanford University’s Institute for International Studies, is a multidisciplinary community dedicated to research and train- ing in the field of international security. The Center brings together scholars, policymakers, scientists, area specialists, members of the business community, and other experts to examine a wide range of international security issues. CISAC publishes its own series of working papers and reports on its work and also sponsors a series, Studies in International Se- curity and Arms Control, through Stanford University Press. Center for International Security and Arms Control Stanford University 320 Galvez Street Stanford, California 94305-6165 (415) 723-9625 http://www-leland.stanford.edu/group/CISAC/ Slaughter of the Innocents: Understanding Political Killing, Including Limited Terror but Especially Large-Scale Killing and Genocide 6–8 March 1998 Workshop of the MacArthur Foundation Consortium on Challenges to the Study of International Peace & Cooperation (Stanford University, University of Minnesota, University of Wisconsin–Madison) Pamela Ballinger June 1998 1 The Center for International Security and Arms Control, part of Stanford University’s Institute for International Studies, is a multidisciplinary com- munity dedicated to research and training in the field of international security. The Center brings together scholars, policymakers, scientists, area specialists, members of the business community, and other experts to ex- amine a wide range of international security issues. CISAC publishes its own series of reports and papers on its work and also sponsors a series, Studies in International Security and Arms Control, through Stanford University Press.
    [Show full text]
  • Moral Character Or Character of War? American Public Opinion on the Targeting of Civilians in Times of War
    Moral Character or Character of War? American Public Opinion on the Targeting of Civilians in Times of War Benjamin Valentino Downloaded from http://direct.mit.edu/daed/article-pdf/145/4/127/1830773/daed_a_00417.pdf by guest on 26 September 2021 Abstract: Since the end of the Vietnam War, the United States has refrained from the widespread, inten- tional targeting of civilian populations in times of war. Public opinion polls seem to reflect a marked de- cline in American support for targeting foreign civilians since that time. Drawing on original public opin- ion surveys, as well as other historical material, this essay explores several explanations for these changes. Although there is some evidence that the public’s views about the morality of civilian targeting have shift- ed, I argue that two other explanations also play an important role in the changes in the conduct of Amer- ican wars. First, a mounting skepticism, especially within the U.S. military, about the efficacy of killing civilians, has undercut the primary motivation to even consider such tactics. Indeed, many U.S. military leaders now perceive that killing adversary civilians in large numbers–intentionally or unintentionally – usually backfires, making the adversary fight harder or driving more civilians to join or support the ad- versary’s forces. Second, due to the lower stakes, and especially the dramatically lower fatality rates suf- fered by American troops in recent wars, the temptation to attempt to end wars quickly with a “death blow” against adversary cities has become less potent. Under certain conditions, however, a majority of Americans would still support today the kind of population bombing last practiced during World War II.
    [Show full text]
  • The Emerging Military Balance in East Asia the Emerging Military Michael Beckley Balance in East Asia How China’S Neighbors Can Check Chinese Naval Expansion
    The Emerging Military Balance in East Asia The Emerging Military Michael Beckley Balance in East Asia How China’s Neighbors Can Check Chinese Naval Expansion For 70 years, the U.S. military has dominated the seas and skies of East Asia, enjoying almost total freedom of movement and the ability to deny such freedom to enemies. Now, however, China may be able to destroy U.S. ships, aircraft, and bases within 500 miles of China’s territory and disrupt the satellite and computer networks that underpin U.S. military power throughout East Asia.1 Many American analysts fear that China could use these antiaccess/area-denial (A2/AD) capabilities to hold the U.S. military at bay while enforcing its expansive terri- torial claims, which include most of the East and South China Seas.2 Left un- checked, some analysts fear, China will eventually become the hegemon of East Asia and start projecting military power into other regions, including the Western Hemisphere.3 The debate about how the U.S. military should respond to China’s A2/AD Michael Beckley is a fellow in the International Security Program at the Belfer Center for Science and Inter- national Affairs at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University and Assistant Profes- sor of Political Science at Tufts University. Parts of this article draw on chapter 4 of his book, The Unipolar Era, forthcoming from Cornell University Press. The author thanks Stephen Brooks, Avery Goldstein, Eric Hundman, Jennifer Lind, Jonathan Markowitz, Daryl Press, Benjamin Valentino, Stephen Walt, William Wohlforth, and the anony- mous reviewers for excellent feedback on earlier drafts.
    [Show full text]
  • Final Solutions, Explores the Pro- Cess by Which Governments During the Twentieth Century Managed De- Bliberately to Kill Masses of People
    WHY ISN’T THERE MORE VIOLENCE? JOHN MUELLER ENJAMIN VALENTINO’S masterful book, Final Solutions, explores the pro- cess by which governments during the twentieth century managed de- Bliberately to kill masses of people. Most of the lessons that emerge from this examination are unsettling. In particular, we learn that mass killing is not all that difficult to carry out. To begin with, it appears that perpetrating regimes need mainly to set up the killing machinery and organize it with reasonable bureaucratic effectiveness. They do not need to force the executioners to carry out their grim duty nor do they need to propagandize to instill and sustain in the executioners great amounts of hatred or anger toward the victims. For the most part the horrors are carried out in a mechanical process. Second, the number of people required to perpetrate a mass killing does not need to be large. Over and over again, Valentino finds that the killing machinery was manned by relatively small numbers of people. This means that regimes sometimes need to recruit little more than small bands of sadists or criminals to carry out the task, though there is considerable evidence that, if properly organized and disciplined, ordinary men can also do the killing—or “dirty work,” as they may label it. Third, there is often a great deal of passive acceptance by the general pop- ulation of systematic destruction of human life being carried out by their gov- ernment in their name. It is not so much that people approve of the horrors, but that they don’t do much of anything to stop them and are inclined instead to look away, sometimes with regret, but effectively with what Valentino calls “negative support.”1 John Mueller is Woody Hayer Chair of National Security Studies and professor of Political Science at Ohio State University.
    [Show full text]
  • Macro, Meso, and Micro Research on Genocide: Gains, Shortcomings, and Future Areas of Inquiry
    Genocide Studies and Prevention: An International Journal Volume 7 Issue 1 Article 7 April 2012 Macro, Meso, and Micro Research on Genocide: Gains, Shortcomings, and Future Areas of Inquiry Evgeny Finkel Scott Straus Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/gsp Recommended Citation Finkel, Evgeny and Straus, Scott (2012) "Macro, Meso, and Micro Research on Genocide: Gains, Shortcomings, and Future Areas of Inquiry," Genocide Studies and Prevention: An International Journal: Vol. 7: Iss. 1: Article 7. Available at: https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/gsp/vol7/iss1/7 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Open Access Journals at Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Genocide Studies and Prevention: An International Journal by an authorized editor of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Macro, Meso, and Micro Research on Genocide: Gains, Shortcomings, and Future Areas of Inquiry Evgeny Finkel and Scott Straus1 University of Wisconsin, Madison The article critically reviews the existing literature on genocide and mass violence and divides it ac- cording to different levels of analysis: macro, meso, and micro levels. We discuss the main theories and findings at each level of analysis and suggest avenues for further research. We argue that the literature on genocide should pay more attention to meso and micro levels of analysis. We also iden- tify a number of other research problems, including conceptualization, selection bias, case compar- ability, the role of restraint, the question of change over time, and the need to engage in dialogue with the broader social science scholarship on political violence and intrastate conflict.
    [Show full text]
  • War As the Key to Unlocking Mass Murder the Rwandan Genocide Revisited
    ASPJ Africa & Francophonie - 4th Quarter 2013 War as the Key to Unlocking Mass Murder The Rwandan Genocide Revisited ARTHUR N. GILBERT, PHD* KRISTINA HOOK ince the term genocide was coined in the 1940s to classify specific crimes committed with the intent to destroy the existence of a group of people, this field of study has emerged as one of the most diverse and perhaps even the most divisive in modern academe. In his classic study Revolution and Genocide: On the Origins of the Armenian Genocide and the Holocaust, Robert SMelson argues that war, revolution, and genocide are intertwined as revolutionary regimes concurrently turn outward to fight wars and inward to exterminate ene- mies in their midst.1 Despite the influence of Melson’s framework in this scholas- tic field, Daniel Jonah Goldhagen dissents, arguing that genocide has little to do with war. In his view, genocide originates in the minds of people, who are in turn affected by culture and ideology.2 Such strong differences in opinion are of more than academic interest. Understanding genocide through the proper scholastic paradigm may aid in the prevention of future instances of mass murder. We have therefore identified Rwanda as an important test case for these two diverse hy- potheses. Drawing from a wide range of influential scholars and historical infor- mation, this article seeks to place the Rwandan case study within the general de- bate on mass murder. By doing so, we are able to identify not only current trends *An associate professor of international studies at the Josef Korbel School of International Studies, Uni- versity of Denver, for many years, Arthur N.
    [Show full text]
  • State Finance and National Power: Great Britain, China, and the United States in Historical Perspective
    This chapter will appear in: Sustainable Security: Rethinking American National Security Strategy, edited by Jeremi Suri and Benjamin Valentino. Copyright © 2016 The Tobin Project. Reproduced with the permission of Oxford University Press. Please note that the final chapter in the published volume may differ slightly from this text State Finance and National Power: Great Britain, China, and the United States in Historical Perspective Jeremi Suri State Finance and National Power: Great Britain, China, and the United States in Historical Perspective Jeremi Suri POWER FALLACIES Foreign policy analysis is only as good as the empirical foundation on which it stands. Policy-makers need sophisticated theories to make sense of the deluge of information they confront on a daily basis, but theories that misread basic global dynamics are like business plans that misinterpret the market. Impressive ideas and shiny products elicit bankruptcy, rather than profit, when they are out of touch with their surroundings. Understanding the trends in the external world—what Hegel called the “spirit of history”—is more important than building the best model. For about a generation, scholars of foreign policy (including both political scientists and historians) have written about national power with little attention to the most important recent empirical insights concerning the actual content of national power. In particular, scholars of foreign policy have treated national power as an end rather than a process, as a largely fixed and quantifiable measure rather than a set of evolving and ever-changing relationships. The noun “power” sounds fixed and firm, but the concept is, in historical terms, much more fluid and changeable on short notice.
    [Show full text]
  • Worksheet for Describing and Categorizing a Genocidal Event: a New Tool for Assembling More Objective Data and Classifying Events of Mass Killing
    social sciences $€ £ ¥ Article Worksheet for Describing and Categorizing a Genocidal Event: A New Tool for Assembling More Objective Data and Classifying Events of Mass Killing Israel W. Charny Institute on the Holocaust and Genocide, POB 10311, 91102 Jerusalem, Israel; [email protected]; Tel.: 972-2-672-0424 Academic Editor: Lisa Hajjar Received: 13 April 2016; Accepted: 29 June 2016; Published: 19 July 2016 Abstract: A new tool is presented for facilitating greater objectivity in the chaotic field of genocide studies: first, assembling the available factual data about any event of mass murder systematically; second, contextualizing each of our judgments of the nature of the crime as a choice being made by a given scholar or institution (e.g., a specific court), but not as “God’s word.” The Worksheet for Describing and Categorizing a Genocidal Event is believed to be innovative in several ways: (1) This model presents researchers with a methodology for developing systematic, extensive and objective information about many different aspects of an event of mass killing; (2) Emphasis is placed on identifying each researcher’s guiding concept of genocide; (3) The proposed methodology purposely postpones any effort at classification—including whether an event constitutes “genocide”—until after factual data have been assembled; (4) Categorization of an event is also to be understood as an act of judgment by each researcher, not as scientifically established truth; (5) It is also to be understood that classification in the language of social sciences is different than legal classifications that in turn also are to be understood as based on whatever specific code of law.
    [Show full text]
  • C I S a C Center for International Security and Arms Control
    S t a n f o r d U n i v e r s i t y C I S A C Center for International Security and Arms Control The Center for International Security and Arms Control, part of Stanford University’s Institute for International Studies, is a multidisciplinary community dedicated to research and train- ing in the field of international security. The Center brings together scholars, policymakers, scientists, area specialists, members of the business community, and other experts to examine a wide range of international security issues. CISAC publishes its own series of working papers and reports on its work and also sponsors a series, Studies in International Se- curity and Arms Control, through Stanford University Press. Center for International Security and Arms Control Stanford University 320 Galvez Street Stanford, California 94305-6165 (415) 723-9625 http://www-leland.stanford.edu/group/CISAC/ Slaughter of the Innocents: Understanding Political Killing, Including Limited Terror but Especially Large-Scale Killing and Genocide 6–8 March 1998 Workshop of the MacArthur Foundation Consortium on Challenges to the Study of International Peace & Cooperation (Stanford University, University of Minnesota, University of Wisconsin–Madison) Pamela Ballinger June 1998 1 The Center for International Security and Arms Control, part of Stanford University’s Institute for International Studies, is a multidisciplinary com- munity dedicated to research and training in the field of international security. The Center brings together scholars, policymakers, scientists, area specialists, members of the business community, and other experts to ex- amine a wide range of international security issues. CISAC publishes its own series of reports and papers on its work and also sponsors a series, Studies in International Security and Arms Control, through Stanford University Press.
    [Show full text]