Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T10:06:56.455Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Genocide: Theories of Participation and Opportunities for Intervention

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 November 2023

Aliza Luft*
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor, Department of Sociology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, United States. Email: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This essay evaluates the current United Nations approach to preventing and punishing genocide by considering micro-level research on behavioral variation in genocide and proposing two ideas for intervention. The first idea extends the theory that economic inequality explains people’s decisions to kill or not kill in genocide and suggests specific economic remedies to intervene in ongoing violence. The second idea extends the theory that local authorities shape civilians’ decision making about violence and suggests specific ways to bolster moderate meso-level authorities to mitigate violence. The essay concludes by considering how social science research and theory can practically impact international law concerning genocide.

Type
Articles
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the American Bar Foundation

INTRODUCTION

On the tenth anniversary of the Rwandan genocide, April 7, 2004, the United Nations established the Office of the Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide (OSAPG). Its mandate, a corrective to the United Nations’ failure to intervene in Rwanda and in the former Yugoslavia, is to focus on “prevention and punishment” via the activities of two Special Advisers: one on the Prevention of Genocide and another on the Responsibility to Protect—also commonly known as R2P.Footnote 1 The former serves to raise awareness, advocate for action, and mobilize a reaction to genocide; the latter to develop and refine R2P in dialogue with UN Member States. Both positions are important; both goals deserve praise. However, missing from the OSAPG mandate is any focus on genocide intervention beyond a call for “diplomatic, humanitarian, and other peaceful means” to stop genocide, including “collective action” if necessary.Footnote 2 This is imprecise when precise tools are needed.

The OSAPG’s emphasis on prevention and punishment without a specific strategy for intervention is glaring; the United Nations’ past inaction is what spurred then-Secretary General of the United Nations Kofi Annan to create the OSAPG in the first place.Footnote 3 Hence, this essay, inspired by John Hagan’s pathbreaking research linking sociological theory to international law concerning genocide,Footnote 4 considers how to theorize behavioral variation in genocide as one strategy to develop mechanisms of intervention that will helpfully extend the OSAPG’s mandate. I draw from my own and others’ work in Rwanda to make my case and connect this work to findings from research on other genocides where possible.

MAKING SENSE OF BEHAVIORAL VARIATION

Research on genocide tends to pregroup actors as perpetrators, victims, bystanders, and rescuers and to study each as a cohesive unit identifiable by their social category (Fujii Reference Fujii2009, Reference Fujii2021; Luft Reference Luft2015, Reference Luft2020a; Williams Reference Williams, Williams and Buckley-Zistel2018, Reference Williams2020; Jessee Reference Jessee, Smeulers, Weerdesteijn and Hola2019; Nyseth Brehm, O’Brien, and Wahutu Reference Nyseth Brehm, O’Brien and Wahutu2021). In Rwanda, for example, the term “Hutu” is often conflated with the term “perpetrators,” even though, as research increasingly shows, many Hutu resisted participation in genocidal violence, helped rescue Tutsi, or were victimized themselves (Des Forges Reference Forges and Liebhafsky1999; Fuji Reference Fujii2009; McDoom Reference McDoom2013; Luft Reference Luft2015; Fox and Brehm Reference Fox and Brehm2018; Thomson Reference Thomson2018; Jessee Reference Jessee, Smeulers, Weerdesteijn and Hola2019; Luft and Thomson Reference Luft and Thomson2021). Some even engaged in all four behaviors at different moments in time (Fujii Reference Fujii2009; Luft Reference Luft2015; Thomson Reference Thomson2018; Jessee Reference Jessee, Smeulers, Weerdesteijn and Hola2019). In the Armenian genocide, the Holocaust, the Cambodian genocide, and in mass violence against Bosnian Muslims following the breakup of Yugoslavia, research has also found evidence of participants who shifted stances from killing to not killing and vice versa, from killing to rescuing, and from killing to being victimized as well (Hovannisian Reference Hovannisian, Oliner, Oliner, Baron, Blum, Krebs and Smolenska1992; Hukanovic Reference Hukanovic1996; Browning Reference Browning1998; Gushee Reference Gushee2003; Campbell Reference Campbell2010; Press Reference Press2012; Williams Reference Williams, Williams and Buckley-Zistel2018, Reference Williams2020). What explains this behavioral variation in genocide and what are its implications for developing practical opportunities for intervention?

FOUR EXPLANATIONS; TWO INTERVENTIONS

My research on behavioral variation in the Rwandan genocide identifies four mechanisms—transactional, relational, social psychological (here, vertical-observational), and cognitive—that explain when an individual with no preexisting history of violence is more or less likely to kill (Luft Reference Luft2015). The transactional and vertical-observational mechanisms speak directly to the question of genocide intervention, while the relational and cognitive mechanisms raise complex questions for future work that seeks to link theories of participation in genocide to legal and political tactics.

Transactions: Economic Capital and Agency

Per capita income is one of the best-known predictors of violent conflict (Elbadawi and Sambanis Reference Elbadawi and Sambanis2000, Reference Elbadawi and Sambanis2002; Stewart, Holdstock, and Jarquin Reference Stewart, Holdstock and Jarquin2002; Fearon and Laitin Reference Fearon and Laitin2003; Collier and Hoeffler Reference Collier and Hoeffler2004; Fearon Reference Fearon2004; Doyle and Sambanis Reference Doyle and Sambanis2006; Justino Reference Justino2009; Justino et al. Reference Justino, Brück and Verwimp2013). However, existing research offers few accounts of the micro-channels through which high poverty levels affect the likelihood that an individual will join in or desist from participation in genocide. One assumption is that low per capita income correlates with group-based grievances and low economic opportunity costs to fighting—that is, poorer people have less to lose and more to gain through perpetrating violence. Yet interviews with Hutu who both killed and saved Tutsi in the Rwandan genocide or who observed peers trying to resist participation at some points while killing at others indicate another possibility: sometimes poverty means not having the resources to desist.Footnote 5

Consider the following story recounted by Alison Des Forges (Reference Forges and Liebhafsky1999) in her masterful Human Rights Watch report on the Rwandan genocide, Leave None to Tell the Story: two militiamen came upon a Tutsi girl who had been pushed into a hole by a sergeant who had intended to kill her later. One wanted to kill her; the other knew the girl—Marthe—and told him not to. He gave the other man 5,000 Rwandan francs (about US $25) and pushed him away. This same soldier killed many other people during the genocide—he was a longtime leader of the extremist MRND political party and an important figure in the Hutu “civilian self-defense program.” But when it came time to save someone he knew, the soldier used monetary resources to bribe his partner, saving a girl marked for death and ensuring that he would not be killed in turn (404).

Similarly, a Tutsi woman interviewed by Jean Hatzfeld (Reference Hatzfeld2005) for the book Machete Season spoke of local “violent entrepreneurs” and how only those with resources could resist them: “The farmers were not rich enough, like the well-to-do city people, to buy themselves relief from the killing. Some doctors and teachers in Kigali paid their servants or their employees so as not to dirty themselves” (74). Validating this woman’s statement, ordinary Rwandans with less economic capital who participated in the genocide explained in a separate series of interviews, “[a]nyone who sneaked off behind his house [to avoid participating] was denounced by a neighbor and punished with a fine” and “[w]hoever got caught shirking was punished with a fine. Ordinarily it cost two thousand francs, but it depended on the seriousness” (72–73). Hence, as in times of peace, those with capital have options and opportunities that others lack. In a genocide, this means rich people can sometimes “buy off” participation in violence while poor people are more likely to kill.

This finding suggests that it is not always poverty per se that causes participation in genocide, but that inequality between social groups as well as inequality within them shapes who does and does not participate in violence.Footnote 6 Thus, one strategy for intervention is to even the playing field: to lower the capital of violent entrepreneurs while increasing that of potential recruits. In this two-pronged approach, one tactic would use targeted financial measures such as economic sanctions and asset freezing, divestment from firms that fund genocidal governments, or the removal or neutralization of third-party economic actors.Footnote 7 Second, relief efforts might focus not only on food, medicine, and housing for the displaced, but also on creating economic opportunities that can reduce the potential for exploitation among those whom violent entrepreneurs would recruit as foot soldiers in their wars.Footnote 8

For example, in Democratic Republic of Congo—where more than six million civilians have been killed since 1996 and mass rape has been described as an “epidemic” and “a fact of life”—violent militias control vast amounts of the country’s mineral resources, especially Coltan, and mining companies in the East and West directly and indirectly fund violence by establishing lucrative contracts with local warlords who regularly “employ” child soldiers in their operations. The “Conflict-Free Coltan” US law of 2010 has helped to slow down mining production in DRC and weaken violent militias, but without a policy to structurally integrate the poor otherwise, or to create a regulated resource industry where workers are paid living wages, many impoverished Congolese, especially youth, continue to flee to where the militias still operate with funding from abroad. Still others engage in Coltan smuggling, including over the border to Rwanda, with the support of warlords and winking border police, creating a clandestine market for the metal that reproduces lawlessness and violence in turn.Footnote 9 Better tracing practices for corporations that benefit from Coltan is needed, coupled with firmer regulation, redistribution, and integration of civilians into the formal economy to disrupt the link between metals, money, and murder in DRC.Footnote 10

Vertical Observations: The Influence of Local Authorities

Another way to plausibly intervene in ongoing violence is to recruit and support moderate local authorities that oppose the intentions of genocidal governments. The cases of Butare and Giti, in South and North Rwanda respectively, are illustrative. Butare remained peaceful for two weeks after President Habyarimana was assassinated.Footnote 11 It was initially seen as a safe haven for Tutsi due to its high levels of integration before the genocide (about 25 percent of the population was Tutsi) and its status as a way station en route to Burundi. However, once extremists took over the commune, violence engulfed Butare.

The swift change came not because people suddenly believed in extremists’ ideas and burst into bloody warfare. Rather, moderate local authorities were publicly killed for resisting the violence and this sent a powerful signal to civilians who were behaving similarly. The prefect of Butare was branded an enemy of the state in a ceremony organized by the genocidal government, dismissed from his position, then murdered. Civilian Hutus in Butare became aware of the cost of resistance through such concrete examples, and it increased their likelihood of joining in the violence when asked (Des Forges Reference Forges and Liebhafsky1999, 167; Luft Reference Luft2015, 160–62).

By contrast, in Giti, most Tutsi survived the genocide and there were no Hutu-led organized massacres.Footnote 12 The Interahamwe never entered the area to instigate the violence Giti’s leaders argued against, nor were there public executions or violent targeting of resisters. Giti’s burgomaster explained that violence could have occurred as it had in Butare had “neighboring invaders” entered the commune, but because they stayed away and RPF opposition forces conquered Giti so quickly, he was able to prevent organized killings of Tutsi. A former deputy governor recalled, “leaders did not give a go-ahead,” and the burgomaster traveled throughout the region to deter attacks (Bangwanubusa Reference Bangwanubusa2009, 138). Where moderates remained in power and resisters witnessed no negative consequences for such behaviors, genocide did not take place.

This finding speaks to the ability of moderate local authorities to powerfully influence trajectories of violence. Particularly in high-risk contexts, the decision to support or resist calls for violence emanating from a genocidal government can be incredibly impactful: when local leaders take a stance, their public signals have the potential to shift collective alignments (Ermakoff Reference Ermakoff2008, 205–09). This is not just the case in Rwanda: during the genocide in East Timor perpetrated by the Indonesian New Order Government, local bishops, priests, and nuns risked their lives to defend East Timorese citizens, while the Catholic Church served as a “moral center of resistance to Indonesian rule” (Robinson Reference Robinson2009, 86). In developing a religious practice rooted in social justice and service, the Church also united East Timorese of different social, regional, and political backgrounds, thus strengthening their defense against Jakarta’s violent rule (87).Footnote 13

Subsequently, one very important but underexplored way to peacefully but powerfully intervene in mass violence is to recruit local leaders to help signal that killing is unacceptable. In any genocide, we find a state organizing mass violence and civilians struggling to figure out what to do. Identifying moderate local authorities, working with them to call for a halt to violence, and protecting them from the wrath of genocidal extremists is one way in which the OSAPG can help put an end to ongoing violence. Moderate religious authorities may be especially powerful by virtue of their moral authority (Grzymala-Busse Reference Grzymala-Busse2015, Reference Grzymala-Busse2016) and unique ability to transcend a state and its leaders by judging a regime’s activities as righteous or wrong by a higher deity’s standards (Luft Reference Luft2020b, 74).Footnote 14

As but one example, though still in a postconflict context, the United States Institute for Peace (USIP) has been working with a coalition of two hundred Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, and Muslim faith leaders to help mitigate local conflicts through the Centre for Peacebuilding and Reconciliation.Footnote 15 In Colombia, USIP helped establish the Ecumenical Women Peacebuilders Network, which likewise connected women religious leaders across the country to advocate locally for the 2016 peace accords and to promote reconciliation among civilians and former combatants.Footnote 16 In Nigeria more recently, religious leaders have been found to influence perceptions of norms and attitudes toward the reintegration for former Boko Haram combatants, a crucial aspect of resolving the conflict: their high levels of social trust, ability to legitimately use and interpret religious themes about peace and forgiveness, and unique ability to influence those with strong religious beliefs have all contributed to their positive impact (Blair et al. Reference Blair, Littman, Nugent, Wolfe, Bukar, Crisman, Etim, Hazlett and Kim2021). Finally, the OSAPG has been exploring similar mechanisms of working with local religious authorities to prevent violence through its forum, in April 2015, on “the role of religious leaders in preventing incitement that could lead to atrocity crimes,” its drafting of the Fez Declaration following this forum,Footnote 17 and its launching of the plan two years later.Footnote 18 The Fez Plan of Action emphasizes the role of religious authorities in preventing genocide, but research on behavioral variation in genocide suggests that similar tools can be used for peaceful intervention and mitigation of ongoing violence as well.

LESSONS AND MOVING FORWARD

Scholars and policymakers frequently observe that civilians’ responses to violent mobilization vary: some become murderers, others become victims, and many become both. Still, most research on genocide assumes that individuals are organized into perpetrator and victim groups prior to the onset of violence. This error—an artifact of how we group subjects for research purposes—mires our understandings of how people make decisions to participate in violence. In remedying this error, we can better explain processes of decision-making and pinpoint places and moments when these decisions can be reversed. Specifically, this essay argues that reducing inequality both between and within social groups, and harnessing the voices of moderate local authorities while protecting them from genocidal governments, can offer two alternatives to the “extreme” solution of military intervention that is currently the norm.

In turn, the ideas proposed here, and the findings of the analysis, are consequential not only for theory but also for politics and policy. Knowing what prompts a person to kill or not kill as a genocide unfolds has powerful implications for intervention. This is because moments when individuals decide to kill or not kill, or to rescue a victimized neighbor, can reveal influences on decision-making that are missed when only perpetrating behaviors are examined. In breaking apart categories from actions, new questions about genocide become possible, new theories can emerge, and new prescriptions for intervening in ongoing violence can follow.

CONCLUSION

The study of behavioral variation in genocide can help the United Nations develop a comprehensive plan that links genocide prevention and punishment to intervention. Especially for the OSAPG, social scientific exploration of behavioral variation during genocide might prove not only illuminating, but also lifesaving. Where people make choices, other choices are possible.

Footnotes

I thank Marie Berry for her helpful comments on an earlier draft.

2. UN General Assembly, Resolution Adopted by the General Assembly on 16 September 2005, 60/1. 2005 World Summit Outcome, A/RES/60/1, available at https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N05/487/60/pdf/N0548760.pdf?OpenElement. Additionally, within R2P itself, there are three “obligations” and the second calls for “the responsibility to react.” However, within this “responsibility to react,” proposals are likewise vague. UN General Assembly, The Responsibility to Protect: Resolution Adopted by the General Assembly, 7 October 2009, A/RES/63/308, available at http://www.refworld.org/docid/4ad6d1fd2.html.

3. United Nations, Report of the Independent Inquiry into the Actions of the United Nations during the 1994 Genocide in Rwanda, 15 December 1999, S/1999/1257, available at http://www.securitycouncilreport.org/atf/cf/%7B65BFCF9B-6D27-4E9C-8CD3-CF6E4FF96FF9%7D/POC%20S19991257.pdf.

4. Examples of this research are as broad-ranging as they are plentiful; indeed, over the last two decades alone, Professor Hagan has published on genocide and other atrocity crimes in relation to international law and human rights in the Balkans, Darfur, Iraq, and elsewhere (for example, Hagan Reference Hagan2003; Hagan and Ivković Reference Hagan and Ivković2006; Hagan, Levi, and Ferrales Reference Hagan, Levi and Ferrales2006; Schoenfeld, Levi, and Hagan Reference Schoenfeld, Levi and Hagan2007; Hagan and Wenona-Richmond Reference Hagan and Rymond-Richmond2008a, Reference Hagan and Rymond-Richmond2008b; Hagan, Brooks, and Haugh Reference Hagan, Brooks and Haugh2010; Ivković and Hagan Reference Ivković and Hagan2011b, Reference Hagan, Kaiser and Hanson2016; Hagan, Kaiser, and Hanson Reference Hagan, Kaiser and Hanson2015). For related overviews, see Heitmeyer and Hagan (Reference Heitmeyer and Hagan2003); Hagan, Schoenfeld, and Palloni (Reference Hagan, Schoenfeld and Palloni2006); Levi and Hagan (Reference Levi and Hagan2008); Levi, Hagan, and Dezalay (Reference Levi, Hagan and Dezalay2016).

5. Significantly, the overwhelming majority of violent offenders in the Rwandan genocide, single and repeat, were male farmers, with a mean age of 31.5 (Nyseth Nzitatira, Edgerton, and Frizzell Reference Nyseth Nzitatira, Edgerton and Frizzell2022). Unfortunately, we know little about the “murderers in the middle”—a minority of participants in the violence but important nonetheless because they zealously followed state orders and mobilized others to kill (Loyle and Davenport Reference Loyle and Davenport2020).

6. Relatedly, Straus (Reference Straus2012, 350) contends that a strong middle class can function as a preventative force in his article predicting factors that may accelerate or slow the outbreak of genocide.

7. Indeed, the “lessons learned” project recently conducted by the USHMM’s Center for the Prevention of Genocide to provide suggestions for US responses to genocide proposes targeted sanctions, trade and investment incentives, development assistance, and the support of civilian self-protection efforts through advice, funding, and provision of material goods (available at https://www.ushmm.org/genocide-prevention/simon-skjodt-center/work/lessons-learned, though see Taylor and Brehm (Reference Taylor and Hollie Nyseth Brehm2021) for an important critique of the effectiveness of economic sanctions specifically). Additionally, and coupled with these top-down tactics, civilian-led boycotts and social media campaigns can be used to pressure companies over their support for genocidal regimes. As existing research shows (for example, Andrews Reference Andrews2001; King and Soule Reference King and Soule2007; King Reference King2011), both economic and reputational concerns can motivate corporations to change their policies. For concrete examples of such an approach, see the recommendations suggested for intervention in genocide in Myanmar in Aliza Luft, “What We, as Citizens, Can Do to Fight Genocide,” Washington Post, January 26, 2018.

8. Following Jha (Reference Jha2013), who examines the history of Hindu-Muslim riots in South Asia, a related approach would see the construction of commercial institutions that provide economic and other incentives for cooperation.

9. “Why It’s Hard for Congo’s Coltan Miners to Abide by the Law.” The Economist, January 21, 2021.

10. It is worth noting that the first part of this two-pronged approach is presently being pursued by the US Biden administration concerning the Uyghur genocide in China. In December 2021, President Biden signed into law a bill banning imports from Xinjiang into the United States unless the affiliated company can prove the goods were not made using forced labor.

11. The Rwandan genocide began on August 6, 1994, when President Habyarimana’s plane was attacked by two surface-to-air missiles, killing everyone on board. That same night, Hutu extremists seized control of the capital, Kigali, and began to massacre political opponents and civil society leaders suspected of being open to negotiations with the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF). They also instigated a genocidal campaign targeting all Tutsi for elimination, regardless of political affiliation or status.

12. Significantly, once the RPF captured Giti, mass violence did happen, but it was organized by the RPF and targeted thousands of Hutu civilians there and in neighboring Kibeho (Nduwayo Reference Nduwayo2002).

13. Though not about genocide, in his analysis of the Kulen Vakuf massacre, in which local Croats and Muslims killed Orthodox Christian Serbs, and in his comparison with the lack of violence in demographically similar Bosanska Dubica, both in Bosnia Herzegovina during World War II, Bergholz (Reference Bergholz2016) also demonstrates how moderate local authorities can prevent violence.

14. Though, of course, it would be remiss not to mention that religious authorities can play and have played the opposite role: legitimizing and even encouraging violence, as was most often the case in Rwanda (Longman Reference Longman2010).

References

REFERENCES

Andrews, Kenneth T.Social Movements and Policy Implementation: The Mississippi Civil Rights Movement and the War on Poverty, 1965 to 1971.” American Sociological Review 66, no. 1 (2001): 7195.10.1177/000312240106600105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bangwanubusa, Theogene. “Understanding the Polarization of Responses to Genocidal Violence in Rwanda.” PhD diss., University of Gothenberg, 2009. https://gupea.ub.gu.se/handle/2077/21470.Google Scholar
Bergholz, Max. Violence as a Generative Force: Identity, Nationalism, and Memory in a Balkan Community. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2016.10.7591/9781501705885CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blair, Graeme, Littman, Rebecca, Nugent, Elizabeth R., Wolfe, Rebecca, Bukar, Mohammed, Crisman, Benjamin, Etim, Anthony, Hazlett, Chad, and Kim, Jiyoung. “Trusted Authorities Can Change Minds and Shift Norms during Conflict.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 118, no. 42 (2021): 16.10.1073/pnas.2105570118CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Browning, Christopher R. Ordinary Men: Reserve Police Battalion 101 and the Final Solution in Poland. New York: HarperCollins, 1998.Google Scholar
Campbell, Bradley. “Contradictory Behavior during Genocides.” Sociological Forum 25, no. 2 (2010): 296314.10.1111/j.1573-7861.2010.01177.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collier, Paul, and Hoeffler, Anke. “Greed and Grievance in Civil War.” Oxford Economic Papers 56, no. 4 (2004): 563–95.10.1093/oep/gpf064CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forges, Des, Liebhafsky, Alison. Leave None to Tell the Story: Genocide in Rwanda. New York: Human Rights Watch, 1999.Google Scholar
Doyle, Michael, and Sambanis, Nicholas. Making War and Building Peace: United Nations Peace Operations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2006.10.1515/9781400837694CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elbadawi, Ibrahim, and Sambanis, Nicholas. “Why Are There So Many Civil Wars in Africa? Understanding and Preventing Violent Conflict.” Journal of African Economies 9, no. 3 (2000): 244–69.10.1093/jae/9.3.244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elbadawi, Ibrahim, and Sambanis, Nicholas. “How Much War Will We See? Explaining the Prevalence of Civil War.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 46, no. 3 (2002): 307–34.10.1177/0022002702046003001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ermakoff, Ivan. Ruling Oneself Out: A Theory of Collective Abdications. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2008.Google Scholar
Fearon, James D.Why Do Some Civil Wars Last So Much Longer than Others?Journal of Peace Research 41, no. 3 (2004): 275301.10.1177/0022343304043770CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fearon, James D., and Laitin, David. “Ethnicity, Insurgency, and Civil War.” American Political Science Review 97, no. 1 (2003): 7590.10.1017/S0003055403000534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, Nicole, and Brehm, Hollie Nyseth. “‘I Decided to Save Them’: Factors That Shaped Participation in Rescue Efforts during Genocide in Rwanda.” Social Forces 96, no. 4 (2018): 1625–48.10.1093/sf/soy018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fujii, Lee Ann. Killing Neighbors: Webs of Violence in Rwanda. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2009.Google Scholar
Fujii, Lee Ann. Show Time: The Logic and Power of Violent Display. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2021.Google Scholar
Grzymala-Busse, Anna. Nations under God: How Churches use Moral Authority to Influence Policy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2015.10.1515/9781400866458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grzymala-Busse, Anna. “Weapons of the Meek: How Churches Influence Public Policy.” World Politics 68, no. 1 (2016): 136.10.1017/S0043887115000301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gushee, David P. Righteous Gentiles of the Holocaust. 2nd ed. St. Paul, MN: Paragon House, 2003.Google Scholar
Hagan, John. Justice in the Balkans: Prosecuting War Crimes in the Hague Tribunal. Chicago Series in Law and Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003.10.7208/chicago/9780226312309.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hagan, John, Brooks, Richard, and Haugh, Todd. “Reasonable Grounds Evidence Involving Sexual Violence in Darfur.” Law & Social Inquiry 35, no. 4 (2010): 881917.10.1111/j.1747-4469.2010.01208.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hagan, John, Kaiser, Joshua, and Hanson, Anna. Iraq and the Crimes of Aggressive War: The Legal Cynicism of Criminal Militarism. Cambridge Studies in Law and Society. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2015.10.1017/CBO9781316221693CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hagan, John, Kaiser, Joshua, and Hanson, Anna. “The Theory of Legal Cynicism and Sunni Insurgent Violence in Post-Invasion Iraq.” American Sociological Review 81, no. 2 (2016): 316–46.10.1177/0003122416632212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hagan, John, and Ivković, Sanja Kutnjak. “War Crimes, Democracy, and the Rule of Law in Belgrade, the Former Yugoslavia, and Beyond.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 605 (2006): 130–51.Google Scholar
Hagan, John, Levi, Ron, and Ferrales, Gabrielle. “Swaying the Hand of Justice: The Internal and External Dynamics of Regime Change at the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia.” Law & Social Inquiry 31, no. 3 (2006): 585616.10.1111/j.1747-4469.2006.00023.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hagan, John, and Rymond-Richmond, Wenona. Darfur and the Crime of Genocide. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2008a.10.1017/CBO9780511804748CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hagan, John, and Rymond-Richmond, Wenona. “The Collective Dynamics of Racial Dehumanization and Genocidal Victimization in Darfur.” American Sociological Review 73, no. 6 (2008b): 875902.10.1177/000312240807300601CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hagan, John, Schoenfeld, Heather, and Palloni, Alberto. “The Science of Human Rights, War Crimes, and Humanitarian Emergencies.” Annual Review of Sociology 32 (2006): 329–49.10.1146/annurev.soc.32.061604.123125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hatzfeld, Jean. Machete Season: The Killers in Rwanda Speak. New York: Macmillan, 2005.Google Scholar
Heitmeyer, Wilhelm, and Hagan, John. International Handbook of Violence Research. Dordrecht: Springer Science & Business Media, 2003.10.1007/978-0-306-48039-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hovannisian, Richard G.The Question of Altruism during the Armenian Genocide.” In Embracing the Other: Philosophical, Psychological, and Historical Perspectives on Altruism, edited by Oliner, Pearl M., Oliner, Samuel P., Baron, Lawrence, Blum, Lawrence A., Krebs, Dennis L., and Smolenska, M. Zuzanna, 282305. New York: New York University Press, 1992.10.2307/j.ctt9qg24m.21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hukanovic, Rezak. The Tenth Circle of Hell: A Memoir of Life in the Death Camps of Bosnia. New York: Basic Books, 1996.Google Scholar
Ivković, Sanja Kutnjak, and Hagan, John. “Individual and Collective Responsibility: Structural Pre-Conditionality, Smoking-Gun Evidence, and Collective Responsibility.” In Reclaiming Justice: The International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and Local Courts, edited by Ivković, Sanja Kutnjak and Hagan, John, 84122. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011a.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195340327.003.0035CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ivković, Sanja Kutnjak, and Hagan, John. Reclaiming Justice: The International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and Local Courts. Illustrated edition. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2011b.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195340327.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ivković, Sanja Kutnjak, and Hagan, John. “The Politics of Punishment and the Siege of Sarajevo: Toward a Conflict Theory of Perceived International (In)Justice.” Law & Society Review 40, no. 2 (2006): 369410.10.1111/j.1540-5893.2006.00267.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ivković, Sanja Kutnjak, and Hagan, John. “Pursuit of Justice and the Victims of War in Bosnia and Herzegovina: An Exploratory Study.” Crime, Law and Social Change 65, no. 1 (2016): 127.10.1007/s10611-015-9573-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jessee, Erin. “Beyond Perpetrators: Complex Political Actors Surrounding the 1994 Genocide in Rwanda.” In Perpetrators of International Crimes: Theories, Methods, and Evidence, edited by Smeulers, Alette, Weerdesteijn, Maartje, and Hola, Barbora, 153–74. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019.10.1093/oso/9780198829997.003.0009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jha, Sumitra. “Trade, Institutions, and Ethnic Tolerance: Evidence from South Asia.” American Political Science Review 107, no. 4 (2013): 806–32.10.1017/S0003055413000464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Justino, Patricia. “Poverty and Violent Conflict: A Micro-Level Perspective on the Causes and Duration of Warfare.” Journal of Peace Research 46, no. 3 (2009): 315–33.10.1177/0022343309102655CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Justino, Patricia, Brück, Tilman, and Verwimp, Philip. “Micro-Level Dynamics of Conflict, Violence and Development: A New Analytical Framework.” IDEAS Working Paper Series from RePEc, 2013. http://search.proquest.com/docview/1698488065/?pq-origsite=primo.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199664597.003.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, Brayden G.The Tactical Disruptiveness of Social Movements: Sources of Market and Mediated Disruption in Corporate Boycotts.” Social Problems 58, no. 4 (2011): 491517.Google Scholar
King, Brayden G., and Soule, Sarah A.. “Social Movements as Extrainstitutional Entrepreneurs: The Effect of Protests on Stock Price Returns.” Administrative Science Quarterly 52 (2007): 413–42.10.2189/asqu.52.3.413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levi, Ron, and Hagan, John. “Penser les ‘crimes de guerre’.” Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales 173, no. 3 (2008): 627.10.3917/arss.173.0006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levi, Ron, Hagan, John, and Dezalay, Sara. “International Courts in Atypical Political Environments: The Interplay of Prosecutorial Strategy, Evidence, and Court Authority in International Criminal Law.” Law and Contemporary Problems 79, no. 1 (2016): 289314.Google Scholar
Longman, Timothy. Christianity and Genocide in Rwanda. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010.Google Scholar
Loyle, Cyanne E., and Davenport, Christian. “Some Left to Tell the Tale: Finding Perpetrators and Understanding Violence in Rwanda.” Journal of Peace Research 57, no. 4 (2020): 507–20.10.1177/0022343319885173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luft, Aliza. “Toward a Dynamic Theory of Action at the Micro Level of Genocide: Killing, Desistance, and Saving in 1994 Rwanda.” Sociological Theory 33, no. 2 (2015): 148–72.10.1177/0735275115587721CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luft, Aliza. “Three Stories and Three Questions about Participation in Genocide.” Journal of Perpetrator Research 3, no. 1 (2020a): 196206.10.21039/jpr.3.1.37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luft, Aliza. “Religion in Vichy France: How Meso-Level Actors Contribute to Authoritarian Legitimation.” European Journal of Sociology 61, no. 1 (2020b): 67101.10.1017/S0003975620000041CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luft, Aliza, and Thomson, Susan. “Race, Nation, and Resistance to State Symbolic Power in Rwanda since the 1994 Genocide.” Global Historical Sociology of Race and Racism, Political Power and Social Theory 38 (2021): 105–34.10.1108/S0198-871920210000038006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDoom, Omar Shahabudin. “Who Killed in Rwanda’s Genocide? Micro-Space, Social Influence and Individual Participation in Intergroup Violence.” Journal of Peace Research 50, no. 4 (2013): 453–67.10.1177/0022343313478958CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nduwayo, Léonard. Giti et le génocide rwandais. Paris: L’Harmattan, 2002.Google Scholar
Nyseth Brehm, Hollie, O’Brien, Michelle L., and Wahutu, J. Siguru. “Problems with Oversimplified Categories in the Study of Collective Violence.” Sociology of Development 7, no. 4 (2021): 394415.10.1525/sod.2020.0006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nyseth Nzitatira, Hollie, Edgerton, Jared F., and Frizzell, Laura C.. “Analyzing Participation in the 1994 Genocide in Rwanda.” Journal of Peace Research 60, no. 2 (2022): 291306.10.1177/00223433221075211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Press, Eyal. Beautiful Souls: The Courage and Conscience of Ordinary People in Extraordinary Times. New York: Picador, 2012.Google Scholar
Robinson, Geoffrey. “If You Leave Us Here, We Will Die”: How Genocide Was Stopped in East Timor. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2009.Google Scholar
Schoenfeld, Heather, Levi, Ron, and Hagan, John. “Extreme Crises and the Institutionalization of International Criminal Law.” Critique internationale 36, no. 3 (2007): 3754.10.3917/crii.036.0037CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stewart, Frances, Holdstock, Douglas, and Jarquin, Antonio. “Root Causes of Violent Conflict in Developing Countries: Commentary: Conflict—from Causes to Prevention?BMJ 324, no. 7333 (2002): 342–45.10.1136/bmj.324.7333.342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Straus, Scott. “Retreating from the Brink: Theorizing Mass Violence and the Dynamics of Restraint.” Perspectives on Politics 10, no. 2 (2012): 343–62.10.1017/S1537592712000709CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, Whitney K., Hollie Nyseth Brehm, And. “Sanctioning Genocide: To What Effect?Sociological Perspectives 64, no. 6 (2021): 10811103.10.1177/0731121421990071CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomson, Susan. Rwanda: From Genocide to Precarious Peace. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2018.Google Scholar
Williams, Timothy. “Thinking beyond Perpetrators, Bystanders, and Heroes: A Typology of Action in Genocide.” In Perpetrators and Perpetration of Mass Violence, edited by Williams, Timothy and Buckley-Zistel, Susan, 1534. Oxfordshire: Routledge, 2018.10.4324/9781351175869CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, Timothy. The Complexity of Evil: Perpetration and Genocide. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2020.10.36019/9781978814332CrossRefGoogle Scholar