IR 352 Midterm

autonomy, entitlements, from state or society, liberties, inalienable, birthright, non-discriminatory, universal, moral, individual, equal, just, security of all, potential, dignity, indefinitely, health, responsibility, international community

consequence of being human” individual or group of individualsenhance human agencydeclared to be universal in character Routledge Encyclopedia defsimply because they are human beings, are entitled to be treated according to certain minimum standardsUDHR“recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice, and peace in the world"go on to make a list of all the rights

different than just believing in dignityneed to come up with list that you can make on the state or society not just  a principle of everyone being born with right to human dignity, but needs to be explicithaving a right refers to an “entitlement” —> right to demand something, something the government should guarantee yourule-governed interactions“last resort” AKA usually only claimed only when things are not going wellideal world, rights would remain not only out of sight but out of mind as wellif claim something is universally accepted as human right, but not being followed everywhere, conundrum of how can it possibly be universal not necessary to write a rule about it if everyone generally agrees on it, so only claim it if there’s a problem when it is denied, we articulate itnot just abstract values, they are particular social practices to realize those valuesroadmap on how you get there

“needed for a life of dignity"“man’s moral nature"have to get in touch with sense of right and wrong Donnelly argues against; plenty of evidence if left to our own devices we will treat each other badly Idea of human rights is newnot always been there grow out of self interest of how to lead a decent life not rooted in human nature his answer: “human rights ultimately rest on a social decision to act as though such things existed—and then, through social action directed by these rights to make real the world that they envision” international have developed a consensus

if not inherent to us, we have to search for originsarose in specific historical and geographic contest: Western Europe and North American in 19th and 20th centuriesTwo main historical sourcesJudeo-Christian religious moral teachingsEnlightenment era liberal philosophical principles and related political documentselements of human rights found in other cultures/religions; but origins of what we think of as human rights today lie in those two main sources

human rights asserts something more specific: that all people, without distinction, deserve dignified treatment according to a specific set of codified standards where did this particular concept come from?look next time at liberal political philosophy for source of idea of specific codified standardswhat points in the bible could be seen as precursors to human rights? all people are the same (and in the eyes of god)Sabbath applies to all treatment of the poor rights of the disabled justice (fair judgment/unbiased judgment)

• Define religion:
• set of beliefs/teachings about big/existential questionsapplied aspect; moral code/how you actgroup of people; organized aspect element that is beyond humans; set of practices; ritual; worship; combination of big questions etc and set of practicessocial institutionfor both Durkheim and Weber, about morality

Ten Commandments relationship of people w/god “brought out of the house of slavery” —> you’ve been oppressed before, have sympathy for others god is higher law than the individual —> human rights as a higher law than any individual country; higher principle individual moral behavior layout principles of human dignitylimits on behavior regulates society through articulation of specific moral standards supremacy of god; Essence of the Law emphasizes subservience to higher law and adherence to moral codeDeuteronomy and Leviticus readings equalizes people of Israel; debts forgiven; slaves freed; etcevery seventh year wiped awayonly applies if you are a jewSignificance of Jonah? Nineveh is capital of Assyria, Israel’s chief enemyGod has compassion for them and is their God as well Introduces concept of more universal humanitymad about god killing a tree, but no compassion for the city of nineveh to be burned?emphasis that god is the god of everyoneSamaritan woman12 tribes of Israel, over time boiled down to unified in one kingdombroke apart into twogalile; judea between two territories is sumeria; their version of judaism unacceptable to other jews jesus applying jewish law to samaritan women at the well; god is the god of everyone and these moral codes apply to everyonesignificance fo circumcision debatebarrier to conversionimportant to jews christian salvation is for everyone not just jewsbig message in paulcan’t really earn salvation, it comes from godjust have to believechild of god because you’re born into ; don’t earn it

other people are deserving of respect—selfishness is sinthere is an authority higher than the gov against which human law can be judgedbehavior should be constrained by principles for the good of oneself and the communitychristianity adds concept of universality— particularly in Paul. Jesus was a prophet first within the Jewish community but Paul created Christianity as w world religionto what extent are these ideas present in other religions?

human rights report try to shock; to spur changea problem with moral movements is that it tends to be reactionary to one event, so if you ban the slave trade, it doesn’t really create a lasting law/become permanentfix the problem and are done kind of ideafleeting, not long lasting solutionDefinition of “law”?britannica: customs, practices, and rules of conduct of a community that are recognized as binding by the communitysocial sciences dict: set of rules established by political authority in oder to govern human affairs within its jurisdictionlaw is something beyond the state itself; kind of have a life of its own laws continuehelp create predictabilityget rid of arbitrariness

earliest found lawdeath penalty for many crimes exercise law w/heavy handgovernment setting laws limits itself; makes predictable; law makes it easier to contain the govTraditional view of authorityGod —> Monarch —> Peopleliberalism = shift of authority to God —> People —> Governmentpurpose of gov is to improve our society

confronted with reality that not everyone had same religion anymore, so how does he base his argument? law of nature = people act in own self interestlogic = reason through things the state of nature“thought experiment” -> what is life like before gov? "life of man nasty, poor, brutish, and short"“war of every man against every man” with nothing to constrain us we will do whatever we want, whatever we think is best for us to avoid this state, people come together in a SOCIAL CONTRACT (precursor human rights) i.e. they form societies with mutual obligations argument for why you should follow the monarchy

how does Locke differ from Hobbes? believes people are more rational In Locke’s perspective, we produce a social contract because it protects us from our own rights (w/o gov, probably cheat eachother) we need someone to issue money, enforce contracts, help maintain some order etcstate of nature for him is not dismal but impoverished less cynical view of human nature, less feat that we will all kill eachotherhas greater fear of government tyranny. he argues that we don’t give up all our liberties but only what is necessary key freedom for him is freedom to make profits (economy) to enjoy our freedoms, government needs to be constrained. Division of powers raised as important institutional necessity current international law as social contract

eally far away fro king for ruling, so needed some laws to govern by on their ownmass. bay colony (in charlestown)written just for that group people themselves idea fair trials: people should be judged only according to the law, through courts, not arbitrarily equality under the lawmakes distinctions between social categories, yet each social group has some rights

Habeus Corpus “Produce the Body” —people cannot be detained indefinitely gov can’t just hold you because they think you’re a threat can hold people without charge guantanamo: defined “combatants of enemy” ; not on US soil; on some territory HAPPEN to control therefore don’t have to provide with US rightsBritish Bill of RightsLays out what the monarchy can do (opposite of US bill of Rights, which specifies what government CANT do) glorious revolution (no blood was shed); king was becoming more catholic, parliament came together, invited his daughter to be queen and husband but only if they signed this document marks strong shift towards parliamentary rule in Britain Argument for Americans’ right to rebel this is how gov came about, and if they do certain things we have the right to rebel

est. core concept human dignitysocial contract for role/accountability of gov gov there to serve peopleuniversality (to everyone; some limits though —> MA one) centrality of individual freedom gov should be constrained to guarantee freedomItems like Massachusetts Body of Liberties and Habeus Corpus Act involve codification of constraints on government

much still based on appeals to religionlack of universality (mostly for specific national contexts; rights are granted only to citizens) over time, came to realize that rights had to be guaranteed by something more than individual governments

Treaties defining Laws of War provided precedent for human rights and shaped how human rights law was developedLaws of War rooted in part in concept of Just WarGeneva Conventions regarded as oldest human rights doc because they focus on protecting human dignity —but not really human rights in current senseBuild on tradition of treaty-writing—respect rather than challenge concept of sovereignty that has dominated international system since Peace of Westphalia

Geneva Conventions came about because of this man Battle of Solferino June 1859 came through Solferino day after conflict, horrified by what sawfield of battle still littered w/bodies wounded; not a practice to collect them and care for them A Memory of Solferino 1862 Main appealsCreation of relief societies to care for woundedProtection of volunteers through international agreement Original Geneva Convention 1864, short, handwritten, 5pgs

1899 Hague convention (added rules for war at sea and prohibition of bombs from balloons) 1907 Hague Convention expands on naval wars and other issues1929 Geneva Convention on protection of prisoners of war1949 Establishment of three conventions on land war, naval war, protection of prisoners and addition of fourth convention on protection of civilians

1925 Geneva protocol against poison gas and germ warfare1935 Roerich Pact on preservation of scientific and cultural institutions (expanded 1945 Hague COnv.)1929 Geneva Convention on protection of prisoners of war1977 Environmental Modification Convention bans weather warfare1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons prohibits some weapons like blinding laser and incendiary weapons1990 Ottawa Treaty banning land mines —ratified by 161 states but not US2000 treaty banning child soldiers Still only about wars between states need more legal language so there is no room for diff. interpretations (need to make VERY clear what is and isn’t allowed)

• Land war
• Naval War
• Protection of Prisoners

Article 2 defines war and conflicts covered by conventionsArticle 3 specifies basic principles that apply even outside the formal definition of war and application of conventions: protect wounded and don’t attack civiliansChapter IX of first convention specifies penalties for violations and presents idea of “grave breaches” (similar provisions in Chapter VIII in second convention, Section VI of third convention, and Part IV of fourth convention)“grave breaches” if you violate this convention a lot, it can constitute as this don’t define the breach reallyemphasis on enforcement how is it enforced? by signatory, country themselves are supposed to enforce and make sure there are no grave breachesif a country is not willing to do that, next step is International Committee of Red Cross;then Red Cross has option of going public,then can be done by states party of the convention; other signors can pressure them to accept Geneva conventions treaty on how to treat eachother, so as not to give up sovereignty 2nd Protocol added bit later in 1970s tried to apply to principles even if only one part is a staterebel groups don’t have right to target civilians, etc.

modeled after tradition of treaties sovereign states coming to agreement w/other sovereign states focused on conduct in war so don’t challenge Westphalian principle of sovereignty what was different (still important precedent) = focused on treatment of individuals, not just states, which is major development

moral/religious rootsempathy for othersuniversal humanityLiberal/Legal Rootslegal protection of rightslimitations on gov’t Both merge to form International Human Rights Lawsets international moral standards standards for protecting human dignity specifically spelled out and legally codified Principles apply equally to All PeopleLynn Hunt: source of human rights in the Enlightenmentrequire three interlocking qualities: natural, equal, and universal Claims that development of human rights required modern conception of the importance of individuals—empathy for others is necessary to protect their rightsYet human rights as universally applicable concept did not come for another 150 yrs

showed need for limitations on state power treatment of citizens by own govHolocaust was not illegal under German law under sovereignty, other countries had technically no rights to say Germany could not do thatno legal basis for it, at leastsovereignty may be important principle, but cannot justify such atrocitiesshowed potential for even worst regimes to be constrained by international law carried out treaties against other countries, but committed atrocities on own people

UN Charter is contradicotry: Preamble: “to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small….."Article II, 1: “The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.” strong assertion of sovereignty as contrasting UN being able to act to protect human rightsUniversal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)idea came out of 1945 San Francisco convention that founded the UNCommission on Human Rights designated to draft UDHR —Eleanor Roosevelt chair of Commission, Canadian John Peters Humphrey chief author Adopted by UN General Assembly Dec. 10, 1948Is a statement of ideas and thus not legally binding Generation of RightsFirst generation —negative rights—civil and political rights (involve constraints upon gov)Second generation—positive rights—economic and social rights Third generation —group rights or communal rights UDHR covers first and second (and one 3rd generation right—right to self determination) International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) focuss on first gen International Convenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) focuses on secondTogether UDHR, ICCPR, and ICESR constitute “international bill of rights” UDHR First generation rights? articles 1-21Second generation rightsarticles 22-27third generation rights/ article 15? individual right to nationality , not group right to self determinatio(as far as application of these principles go, men and women are equal. BUT doesn’t say women and men are equal) nothing about enforcement resolution not legally binding (why easy to pass) argument that over time it has become form of international common law

Envisioned at same time as UDHR in 1945  as document containing binding commitments, but more difficult to develop Decision to divide into two documents with separate one for second generation rightsAdopted by UN General Assembly Dec. 16, 1966. Went into force March 23, 1976 (three months after 35th ratification—Art 49)“naming and shaming” for violation human rights if brutal regime want people to be afraid but also want to prove usefullness/be likedIS a legally bingidn doc (can put on trial for it) Rights Protected in ICCPR physical integrity of the individual procedural fairnessnon-discrimination and equal protection basic freedoms: expression, belief, speech, association Rights to political participation and representation Enforcement mechanism in ICCPR? first line is one by the states themselves Make domestic laws consistent with treaty provisions Provide legal recourse for people whose rights have been violated Articles 28-45 create Human Rights Committee (different from Commission on Human Rights) Art. 40 States party submit periodic reports

enforcement mechanisms? Each state party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measure to prevent make sure all acts of torture are offense un tis criminal law will making states enforce human rights principles on themselves make it work? legal system must hold accountable those who commit torturestates should cooperate in enforcementstates must train personnel in rules about torture and include it in all manuals of conduct Committee Against Torturecome together talk about how been living these principles

slavery convention 1926/1927 (date 1 =when treaty put out; date 2= date went into force b/c had enough countries signed on) Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide 1948/`951Convention Relation to the Status of Refugees (1951/1954) (US signd 1967 protocol only) when pres. signs one, says believes in principles and try to get adoptedratified = Senate = super majority needed International Convention on the Elimination of All forms of Racial Discrimination (1965/1969) Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid (1973/1976) (US not signed) CEDAW (signed never ratified) Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989/1990) signed but not ratified, only one not ratified it) Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (Clinton admin. signed but not ratified) US has not ratified a human rights treaty since 2002 US doesn’t think a lot of international lawUS exceptionalism think domestic laws are what really matters (don’t want international law interfering w/that) care about sovereignty ; don’t want others to interfere in our own affairs ‘not like we even really won our own war’ fear of prosecution for us around the world since 2002 countries began adopting Universal Jurisdiction idea that when it comes to offense of international law, every country has a right to enforce those rules fear of soldiers, etc being put on trial and used maliciously against US General observations on enforcement Until Rome Statute, conventions lacked “hard law” —recourse to coercive force to enforce lawMost important enforcement is self-enforcement by statesOther states, statutory committees, and UN use non-coercive means to enforce—commonly spoke of as “soft law”

“controlling or managing group, or the system of control and management adopted by it” established system or way of doing things treaties, treaty bodies established, regimes are involved in promotion, implementation, and enforcement International community mostly does enforcement and to lesser extent implementation enforcement mostly done domestically international community = promotion as main thingmain type of enforcement of international is soft law, using diplomats etc

landlocked country bordered by Tanzania, Democratic Republic of Congo, and Rwanda10,747 sq milesover 11 million people (2015 estimate)Second most densely populated country in Africa most people live on farms (rural)mirror image to Rwandaboth existed before colonialism “kingdoms” colonialism inserted itself into systems with indirect rule three main ethnic groups <1% Twa (orignial inhabitants ?)14% Tutsi85% HutuColonized by Germany beginning 1895, then taken over by Belgium in WWIColonial indirect rule policies heihtened ethnic divisionsAll ethnic groups spoke same language, integrated livingTutsi top of mountains, hutu on sides, Twa in forest same religion, same territory, same languageperiod in which Europeans believed a lot in race “science” everyone clearly defined by a race group defined personality etc could “perfect” racebrought racial idea to Africatea were pigmy, dishonest, stupid, etc tutsi were seen as related to europeans in some way; smarter, taller; possibly descendants hemiditic group related to Ham …… maybe related somehowHutu; hard working, sturdy, not too smart group idea of three racial groupspygmy groupbantu grouphemiditic grouppassed laws that concentrated more power in hands of tutsi than before hutu cheifs/kingdoms with land, etc eliminatedconsolidated into one central government tutsi given access to education, jobs, Hutu had to pay special taxes most people in Burundi came to believe these differences, because it defined their lives history taught in schools bases of policy and lived experienceUprising against Tutsi rulers of Rwanda in 1959 hardened Tutsi resolve in Burundi 1961 Moderate Prince Rwagasore assassinated 1962 Independence 1965 Hutu Prime Minister Ngendandumwe assasinated1966 Minister of Defense Michel Micombero deposes King in coupMIcombero limiting opporutnities for Hutu, strict hand 1972 “Selective Genocide” targets Hutu intellectuals ~200,000 killed, thousands flee (very little international attention; height cold war; vietnam;) 1987 Coup by Pierre Buyoya June 1993 first popular elections Ndadaye named first Hutu president Assassinated in October 1993 couppeople from 1966, to 1987 three were all cousins from little communityBuyoya more moderate thought strict hand would make Hutu rise up and make Tutsi sufferallowed elections to be held in 1993 and voluntarily stepped out of power when he lost Hutu refugees begin civil war against regime1996 Buyoya returns to power in coupArusha Peace Accords signed by most parties in 2000 and transitional government installed 2005 leader of CNDD-FDD Pierre Nkurunziza elected president2006 last main rebel group FNL signs accord Deteriorating ConditionsArusha Accords established “consociational” system that requires inclusion of both Hutu and Tutsi Arusha Accords called for trials and truth commission for atrocities in Civil war , but neither created gradual move toward authoritarianism as Nkurunziza consolidated power and suppressed opposition army was Tutsi, and some opposition groups that were Hutu based in refugee camps in Tanzania; after accords many started to come back woldemariam and why groups divided no family names; born given a name that means something; don’t tell you who are related to; can’t tell by names or physical features what ethnic group someone is conflict going on now is between Hutu rebel groupstutsi often get targeted because seen as critic of regime

2010 elections with sharp competition between CNDD-FDD And FNL Growing assassinations especially against FNL Youth militia assume larger role— IMbonerakurelack of arrests and prosecutions creates impunity Crack down on media and civil society Current Crisis President Nkurunziza’s decision to run for 3rd term leads to protests and police attacksCoup attempt May 13 followed by crackdown on opposition, media, and civil society only allowed by constitution to run 2 terms; he claimed he could run for third because one was nomination by court/etc and not peopleelection held July 21, with Nkurunziza winning overwhelmingly expansion of violence since— gov repression and anti- government attacks

right to free association (being targeted based on association with groups)right to life the ICCPR etc do not specifically state death penalty as human right if killing someone, have to have fair trial, charged formally, and given chance to defend themselves executing someone OUTSIDE LEGAL PROCESS (extrajudicial executions) attacks on protestersAttacks on civil society and press Unfair election and attacks on opposition right to political participationattacks on civiliansrigh tto liferight to trialpresumption of innocence requirement to discriminiate between combatants and non-combatants violation of legal processnot everything bad is a human rights violation (corruption, crimes) human rights as actions by the statepolice/military seen as legitimate targets (or crime if not in war) harder to make the case to apply human rights to rebel groups

Modern human rights concepts few out ofreligious/moral tradition of empathy and idea of universal humanity liberal/legal tradition in which governments are constrained through law to protect individual rightsHuman rights law is thus essential—but moral appeals remain relevant Human rights law more available for 1st hand 2nd generation rights

• Radical Universalism ——————————————— Radical Relativism to make yourself seem reasonable place self in center (donnelly does) Radical Universalism contends human rights principles apply everywhere
• are in all societies simply because they are right
• absolute rightsinnately believe in human rights Example: Aryeh Neier

can’t make assertions about human rights because too broad of anthropological critiquecultures vary too widely for common concept of human rights in socieites in asia, africa, easter europe, etc "the liberal doctrine of human rights does not speak to the people’s world view “ Adamantia pollis other cultures see things differentlyPost modern critique humans are not autonomous subjects but social constructs can’e make any universal statementsdeconstructs identity, society "everything becomes relative, localized, and ephemeral.” J A L AlvesWeak Universalism/Strong Relativismwhere donnelly places himself: centercome together around human rights (rejects argument that some societies can’t adopt) does not think innate, etc Basis of argumentmost cultures have not embraced human rightsbut cultures adapted, and have changednow embraced human rightshuman rights become a hegemonic discoursemost states have signed onto main treatieshuman rights concerns are now major part of relations between stateshuman rights discourse is increasingly invoked in most countries in internal affairs when given the chance, people in the contemporary world usually choose human rights development of “overlapping consensus” (ONE KEY CONSENSUS)different than full consensus where everyone shares same ideas for same reasons“buy in” for everyonedifferent societies may have differeent reasons, but have to come to consensus on Universal Declaration of rights through legal protectionspartial ratiher than complete; converge but do not coincide = overlapping consensuswhere does this consensus come from ? spread of state and markets everywhererise of political claims of equality and tolerationthe Modern stateterritoriality states have bordersnot historically always the case (porous and unclear) centralized authority legal system no longer single monarch to make every decisionmax weber: state is entity with “monopoly on legitimate use of violence”started in west, exported to others via colonialism the problem: by their nature, states seek to expand their autonomy from their societies and seek to expand their control constitutionalism and law should ring in the excessive power of statebut continuing excesses lead to appeal for international standards and support: hence idea human rightsthe Market Systemsystem where econ decisions and pricing are determined by individual interactionsspread pretty much everywhere in worldfree market w/free competition; in contrast to planned econ or centralized econThe Problem: if profit is the only motive, it will lead to exploitation of people (workers&consumers) ability of states to limit markets increasingly limited by globalizationhence, need for international standards and protectionsspread of liberal ideas idea that people should have right to express themselvesidea gov should be responsible to citizenssocial contractetc

may disagree on how universal rights look in own countries, but common standard of achievement for all peoplesspread of markets and states made human rights necessary and led to embracing of itstates have become more intrusive than used to be

“overlapping consensus” has developed across the globe in support of principles expressed in UDHR one source is global spread of modern states and marketsstates inherently seek to maximize their control over the population and autonomy from it, so must be constrained by law markets will seek to maximize profit in ways that are detrimental to people so also must be constrained by law Difficulty of constraining states and markets source of overlapping consensus second source of the consensus is spread of human rights ideas “political claims of equality and toleration” what does this mean? spread of liberalism —the ideas thatgovernments are responsible to their people that all people should have equality under the law that diversity of opinion and identity should be tolerated how widespread are these ideas really ?

chapter 4 argues that human rights have become universal because of the spread of states, markets, and liberal ideas chapter 5 clarifies that human rights concepts have NOT been present in all societies historically, even in the west

what freedom of speech varies from society to society can’t shove western idea on to everyonewe all shares these values and you may think of implementing them a different way, but doesn’t mean don’t all believe in basic concept

argues for universality within diversity"overlapping consensus on substance of human rights but diversity in interreptations and implementationwhere substance is contested, a large common core of agreement existseven where disagreement exists, human rights may be dominant position that outweighs objections

what we think of today sa western cultures is largely a result, not a cause, of human rights ideas and practices chapter 8 then explores western origins concepts of human dignity at base of human rightshistorically human rights have not been a concept in pre-modern west, traditional africa, confucian china, or hindu south asiayet, human rights means to realize human dignity….. as defined by goals of these countries themselves, human rights area as effective as, or more so, than either traditional approaches or modern strategies not based in itDefense against asian values argumentchapters 9a dn 10 explore expansion of human rights concepts in china and indiaasian values are not frozen in an ancient past. no less dynamic than western values—r anywhere else in the modern world people in power abusing other people saying their culture doesn’t believe in human rights, but the vast majority of the population seems to evidence of human rights abuse is NOT evidence that the concept is not supported. we only need to articulate rights that are violated. we don’t protect rights because we don’t believe in them but because states and markets and some individuals do not always respect them in practice

kenyan law professorhuman rights promotion is more imperialistic than donnelly acknowledges in particular involves evangelical push to spread liberal democracy a lot of human rights advocates disingenuous promotion human rights = particular government systAfricans would emphasize economic rights firstconcepts of individual key to human rights not well rooted in Africa

overlapping consensus developed because of spread of modern state and free marketspread of ideas about equality and tolerancehow can we test Donnelly’s claims about this overlapping consensus? may be pressured to sign on to treaties, etcnot clear that states have really embraced conventionslook at how many states have domestic laws bills of rights, etcfreedom house scores

samantha power provides excellent history of genocide, with focus on US policy Project of one individual: raphael lemkinlemkin reacted to massacre of Armenians in Ottoman Empire during WWI young turks pushed to have ottoman empire become smaller and turkish stateneeded to change the identity of peoplecitizenship attached to particular identity armenians occupied large territory on border ottoman emp. on border of russiafeared that minority would ally themselves with russia against turkeyrelocated armenians to deserts in syrians and iraqmany men/boys taken aside and executedmany died from starvation, weather, etc intentional attempt to exterminate armenians critics mostly from outside, Britain lemkin lived in polandsaid different than what happens in war, etctargeting a group and trying to wipe out = problem etcfled German invasion of Poland. Began to document Nazi targeting of Jews compared it to armenians ,tried to raise issue with US, not getting a lot of attention Invented the term “genocide” during WWIIlemkin began pushing for treaty in 1945, building on Nuremberg trials1946 General Assembly adopts resolution condemning genocidetreaty put forward in 1948 entered into force in 1951 Despite Truman’s endorsement, US did not ratify convention until 1988 under Reagan The question now: whether it worked. Has naming this crime led to its diminishment?

n the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: intentions of perpetrators mattergoal must be to destroy groupgenerally understood to mean group within one country or territory as opposed to group everywherehow many deaths before it is considered genocide?doesn’t include gender, sexual orientation, political (like in Cambodia w/Khmer regime) Soviet bloc forced exclusion of political, class, and other social groupsacts to destroy can includekilling members of groupcausing serious bodily or mental harm to members deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in partimposing measures intended to prevent births within the groupforcibly transferring children of the group to another group

title is “Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide” don’t actually have to kill people to be tried for genocide (conspiracy to commit)direct and public incitement to commit genocide attempt to commit genocidecomplicity in genocide punished whether the persons committing it are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials, or private individuals "contracting parties undertake to enact… the necessary legislation… to provide effective penalties for persons guilty of genocide” states enforcing it on themselves or by such international penal tribunal as may have jurisdiction (before ICC) anticipates the international criminal court long before it happenedmay call on “competent organs” of the UN to take action stronger enforcement than the other conventions we’ve seen so far

three main groupshutu 85-90%tutsi 10-15Twa <1%same language, integrated across territory, but transformed into ethnic identities during colonial rule many tutsi fled country and were living in exile Political context Habayarimana regime threatened by pro-democracy movementinvasion by Tutsi refugeesrwandan patriotic front regime uses war to regain popular support by scapegoating TutsiTargeting killings begin after assassination of President Habyarimana April 6, 1994 supposition today that RPF (patriotic front) shot it downtargeted killings of opposition figures and prominent Tutsi and large-scale massacres of Tutsi “clean up” operations with roadblocks and patrols to find survivors

her research reveals that US Gov knew enough early on to save lives, but passed opportunities up to intervene implied US did fair job, but not enough refused to use tech to jam radio stations to help stopshunned the term genocide for fear of being forced to actexplicit US policy objective —> staying out of rwanda if we believe genocide is wrong, why didn’t we stop it?

was it genocide? targeted a specific groupsought to eliminate all Rwandan Tutsi, not just drive them out of the countryActs included a) killing and b) inflicting serious bodily harm exhumation of sites to show those killed were non-combatantsstrongest case since holocaust

“reveals that the US Gov knew enough early on to save lives but passed up countless opportunities” Why did Clinton not act? previous intervention in Somalia/Mogadishu (19 american troops killed, humanitarian issue, black hawk down)why care if UN involved US under impression that sooner or later would be called on to intervene. ultimately would get dragged in (because we’re only country capable of providing what is needed)“slippery slope"didn’t have vested interests in Rwanda (oil, gold, copper, etc) —> Rwanda = no raw materials land locked no econ profit not strategic not “horn of africa” not seen as influential in regionno constituency in US calling for it no large Rwandan pop in US, etclack of knowledgelack of understanding of context worries of political consequences tendency to see africans as just killing africans; tendency to not see their conflicts as modern

book builds on articles to recount failures of application of the convention not justin Rwandacambodaiarmenia, etcWhy US consistently failed to stop genocide? strategic considerations— security and economic interestsPolitical considerations — lack of public support and political will what does this tell us about the universality of opposition to genocide? problem is even if we believe in human rights, they aren’t necessarily our number one concern intervention—> not just hard law, but also soft law can change strategic considerationsget media to careget public on board, and politicians will probably follow out of power’s work is

vectors of identityRace—Arab/African divideEthnicity—19 major ethnic groups (lot of smaller groups) and each has own languageReligion—Muslim/Christian but also intra-muslim dividesRegion—North/South but also regions like Darfur and Kordofanpopulation 40 million (plus 12 mill in South Sudan)was largest country in Africa prior to partitionIslamization began 650 (very early on in Muslim history)1821 Egypt established control 1885-1899 Mahdist rule able to take control from egypt and be independent statebritish joined on the side of egyptians and established 1899-1956 Anglo-Egyptian ruleCountry gained independence in 1956 heavily dominated by population in capital city1969 Gafaar Nimeiri coup (claimed to be secular leader) 1985-89 multiple governments 1989 — Omar al Bashir takes power under Revolutionary Command Council for Salvation1996-North- South Civil Warsprior to colonial rule, South was source of slavesmostly christian and animistfirst war: 1956- 1972 numeiri began to go back on accords that promised relative autonomy/religious choice, etcSecond war: 1983-20052005 peace accord signed that comprehensive peace agreement for a lot of autonomy for south for 5 years where Khartoum could try to win them over and then they could vote on partition July 9, 2011 —Partition; South Sudan became country oilwhere most of the oil is —is in South Sudan sticking points in peace settlement was what happens to the oil

population: 8 millionethnic groups include: Fur, Zaghawa, Marsalit, Bergit, Arabs, numerous smaller groupsAll groups overwhelmingly muslim Islam takes hold around 1200 1640 - 1916 rule by Keira can of Fur as independent sultanate 1870s incorporated into Egyptian-controlled Sudan1899 Darfur was last refuge of Mahdist movement history of it being independent; history of religious rebellion/distinction SPLA got support from other groups who were also angry at Khartoum; some people with in Darfur supported SPLA rebellionat time of peace accords, people in Darfur concerned that negotioations just between North and South and that if South gained indpendence they would become even smaller minority in Sudan Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) and Sudan Liberation Army (SLA) emerge 2003 as peace being negotiated staged few minor attacks at outposts overreaction by regime (carpet bombed villages, militia group came in and attacked a lot of people) August 2004 first African Union troops Comprehensive Peace Agreement leaves out DarfurMay 2006 peace deal with SLA July 2008 charges in ICC against al-Bashir December 2010 start of Doha talks

history of it being independent/rebelliousmore complex than Arab-African divisionssometimes called first environmental war—struggle over land between farmers and herders (desert growing and creating conflict between farmers and herders) Divisions include struggle over nature of Islam in Sudan —Islamism along international lines, the Mahdist tradition, or a unique Sudanese form of Islamism? excess mortality rates; due to illness; no medical access, etcconflict still goes on 377,000 refugees still in chad Eric Reeves why mamdani so critical of save darfur movement; what implication sdoes he see this having for broader human rights issue? ; what does this say for universalism; is this genocide?