Suchergebnisse

Conventional peacebuilding literature posits strong state capacity or empowerment of local knowledge as potential mechanisms for conflict resolution. Using process-tracing and ethnography, I show that an alternate pathway to peace lies in a dialectical approach by examining the armed conflict between indigenous Igorot communities against the Philippine state. When indigenous peoples strategically modernise by 'cherry-picking' and adapting traditions, they create opportunities to manoeuvre around and access state power. Exploiting the state's own preconceived notions of indigeneity, Igorot communities defined the terms of their autonomy. This study introduces the understanding that statebuilding and indigenisation as hybrid processes for peacebuilding.

In the decades following the Cold War, scholars of International Relations (IR) have struggled to come to grips with how the fundamental shifts in the international system affect the theoretical underpinnings of IR. The debates on peacebuilding have served as a fierce battleground between the dominant IR research programs—realism and liberalism—as to which provides both the best framework for understanding contemporary security challenges as well as policy prescriptions. I engage with the recent arguments made by David Chandler and Mark Sedra, two prominent critical scholars of IR, and argue that IR as a field would be best served to leave behind the "great debates" of the different research programs, and instead focus on middle-range problem-solving and analytically eclectic approaches. This essay further argues that the best way forward is for critical theorists to take a conciliatory approach with the contributions from the other research programs.

This paper seeks to explain the counterfactual occurrence of non-genocide under conditions of nationalism, colonialism, and war. Thus, this paper contributes to the debate on the necessary and sufficient conditions for genocidal violence. By controlling for regime type, colonialism, and the presence of nationalism, this paper argues that key junctures in state-formation and specific types of nation-building—namely through total militarization and exclusionary founding narratives—are the conditions that lead societies towards a genocidal turn. The interaction of these elements enables would-be genocidaires to overcome the problem of collective action in mass mobilization. By comparing the similar cases of Nazi Germany, Shōwa Japan, and Fascist Italy, this paper demonstrates how the presence of an exclusionary nationalist ideology in and of itself can be a necessary but insufficient condition, and there are other contingent conditions that must be met in order for elites to be able to mobilize this ideology towards collective and mass violence.

All cases of genocide in the modern era feature counterinsurgency in some capacity. Often, genocidal acts are justified as counterinsurgency, and counterinsurgency doctrines and tactics are employed to carry out many genocides. While genocides often have international dimensions, they are mostly carried out within the context of intrastate armed conflicts, almost all of which can be characterized as counterinsurgency. In this article, I expand upon Martin Shaw's model of Genocide as War by exploring the theoretical linkages between counterinsurgency and genocide to demonstrate where counterinsurgency fits into the genocide process. Two specific linkages are drawn to show how counterinsurgency complements the genocide process: total transformation of society through militarization, and exploitation of the asymmetries of power between the opposing groups. The relationship between counterinsurgency and genocide is not constructed as a causal one, but recursive (i.e., mutually reinforcing). By examining the Rwandan and Guatemalan Genocides, I demonstrate how genocide is operationalized through counterinsurgency in both cases. I conclude by providing areas for further investigation toward a unifying theory between the scholarships on genocide and counterinsurgency.

This paper makes a normative argument about transformations of public health as a necessary condition required in any transitional justice process. We seek to bridge the gap between the fields of genocide and public health to understand the recursive relationship between genocide and the social determinants of health. We show that structures and institutions established during genocide create enduring impacts on the public health outcomes of victim and survivor groups even after the ousting of the original perpetrators. Our comparative analysis of the Rwandan Genocide and the colonial genocide of Indigenous communities in Canada surveys the available public health literature and argues that perpetrators of genocide deliberately design public health systems for the explicit purposes of destroying target communities over the longue durée. When these systems are insufficiently transformed, post-genocide societies face significant barriers to transitional justice and reconciliation as a direct result of their impacts on survivor communities. In Rwanda, delayed addressal of the HIV/AIDS epidemic engineered by the Hutu Power regime continued to victimize Tutsi women decades after the mass killings have ended; in Canada, legacies of family separation and the Indian Residential School system have straddled Indigenous communities with high rates of comorbidities and early death consistent with colonial genocide policies.