Florida International University FIU Digital Commons FIU Electronic Theses and Dissertations University Graduate School 12-3-2018 Genocide in the Modern Age: State-Society Relations in the Making of Mass Political Violence, 1900-2015 Zachary Karazsia [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/etd Part of the Comparative Politics Commons, International Relations Commons, and the Other Political Science Commons Recommended Citation Karazsia, Zachary, "Genocide in the Modern Age: State-Society Relations in the Making of Mass Political Violence, 1900-2015" (2018). FIU Electronic Theses and Dissertations. 4068. https://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/etd/4068 This work is brought to you for free and open access by the University Graduate School at FIU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in FIU Electronic Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of FIU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY Miami, Florida GENOCIDE IN THE MODERN AGE: STATE-SOCIETY RELATIONS IN THE MAKING OF MASS POLITICAL VIOLENCE, 1900-2015 A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in POLITICAL SCIENCE by Zachary A. Karazsia 2019 To: Dean John F. Stack, Jr. choose the name of dean of your college/school Steven J. Green School of International and Public Affairs choose the name of your college/school This dissertation, written by Zachary A. Karazsia, and entitled Genocide in the Modern Age: State-Society Relations in the Making of Mass Political Violence, 1900-2015, having been approved in respect to style and intellectual content, is referred to you for judgment. We have read this dissertation and recommend that it be approved. _______________________________________ Hannibal Travis _______________________________________ Oren Stier _______________________________________ Richard S. Olsen _______________________________________ Harry D. Gould, Co-Major Professor _______________________________________ John F. Clark, Co-Major Professor Date of Defense: December 3, 2018 The dissertation of Zachary A. Karazsia is approved. _______________________________________ choose the name of dean of your college/school Dean John F. Stack, Jr. Steven J. Green School of International and Public Affairs _______________________________________ Andrés G. Gil Vice President for Research and Economic Development and Dean of the University Graduate School Florida International University, 2019 ii © Copyright 2019 by Zachary A. Karazsia All rights reserved. iii DEDICATION To my mom and dad, without your support, care, and love this would all have been in vain. Thank you for always believing in me. iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank my dissertation committee – chair John F. Clark, co-chair Harry D. Gould, committee members Richard S. Olson, Oren Stier, and Hannibal Travis – for their patience, guidance, support, and encouragement. This has been a long, arduous, and trying journey but I have only been able to reach this point with the delicate and sometimes firm guidance you all have provided. From the bottom of my heart, thank you! v ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION GENOCIDE IN THE MODERN AGE: STATE-SOCIETY RELATIONS IN THE MAKING OF MASS POLITICAL VIOLENCE, 1900-2015 by Zachary A. Karazsia Florida International University, 2018 Miami, Florida Professor John F. Clark, Co-Major Professor Professor Harry D. Gould, Co-Major Professor This dissertation presents a new conceptual framework for understanding genocide and mass political violence. I build upon existing theories of mass violence that take into account motivations for committing mass atrocities, combine these with the task of counting civilian casualties, and propose a new framework based on the perpetrators’ socio-political standing in society. This model develops a four-part typology of perpetrators by examining the level of government participation and societal participation in the process of violence. Four patterns of perpetrators emerge from this deductive assessment of large-scale violence. These mass political violence perpetrator categories are: a) state perpetrators; b) state-society coalitions; c) state-sponsored groups; and d) non-state actors. Based on the evidence and analysis in this dissertation I found four central conclusions. First, perpetrator type implicitly limits the scope of violence and target group(s). Second, when assessing the severity and destructive power of each perpetrator category, we must use both absolute and relative thresholds. Neither on its vi own is sufficient for understanding why and how perpetrators target and eliminate vast segments of society. Third, based on this typological framework, there are variations between perpetrator categories (i.e., state perpetrators and state-society coalitions) and there is variation within each perpetrator category. The final conclusion is that scholars must question the so-called unitary role of the state when theorizing about genocide and mass political violence perpetrators. The role of state and society is not unitary nor as parsimonious as previous theories of mass violence suggest. vii TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE I. INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................1 a. Statement of Problem ...............................................................................1 b. Thematic Literature Review ....................................................................7 c. The Structure of this Dissertation ............................................................16 II. A CRIME BY MANY NAMES: MASS POLITICAL VIOLENCE AND GENOCIDE ...................................................................................................18 a. Introduction ..............................................................................................19 b. Raphael Lemkin: A New Perspective on an Old Crime ..........................21 c. Problems and Pitfalls: Barriers to Explaining and Prosecuting the Crime of Genocide ...................................................................................30 i. Problem 1: The Contested Meaning of “Intent” ....................31 ii. Problem 2: Who Counts? .......................................................34 iii. Problem 3: Thresholds and Scales of Violence .....................36 iv. Problem 4: Politicization of the “G-Word” ...........................37 v. Problem 5-6: Inside Baseball: Dilemmas in Adhering Too Rigorous, Scientific Standards in Genocide Research ...........40 d. The Post-Lemkin Era: Terms and Categories ..........................................43 i. First Wave: Changes Around the Edge: Alternative Definitions of “Genocide” .....................................................45 ii. Second Wave: Qualifications and Caveats: Sub-Categories of Genocide ............................................................................49 iii. Third Wave: Discontent with “Tradition”: Substitutive Terms for Genocide ...............................................................56 e. What is Mass Political Violence? ............................................................63 III. THE CAUSES AND CONSEQUENCES OF MASS POLITICAL VIOLENCE....................................................................................................72 a. Introduction ..............................................................................................72 b. A Typology of Mass Political Violence...................................................76 i. Assumptions and Debates in Theory Building ............................76 ii. On Perpetrators ............................................................................84 c. Four Modes of Mass Political Violence...................................................91 i. State Actors ..................................................................................96 ii. State-Society Coalitions ...............................................................99 iii. State-Sponsored Groups...............................................................102 iv. Non-State Actors ..........................................................................105 d. Conclusion ...............................................................................................106 viii IV. STATE ACTORS AND MASS POLITICAL VIOLENCE ..........................108 a. Introduction ..............................................................................................109 b. A Dynamic Structural Approach to State-Led Mass Political Violence ..115 c. The Soviet Union .....................................................................................121 i. Existing Polity Structures ............................................................121 ii. Cycle of Violence ........................................................................136 iii. Decision Points ............................................................................138 iv. The Victims ..................................................................................143 d. Cambodia .................................................................................................145 i. Existing Polity Structures ............................................................145 ii. Cycle of Violence ........................................................................153 iii. Decision Points ............................................................................163