| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
187393
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The comparative study of atrocities and atrocity prevention faces several obstacles including a lack of consensus on the universe of cases and too few cases to statistically test alternative theories. The brutality-based (BB) conception is based on the idea that widespread, state-led violations of physical integrity rights constitute an assault on the personhood and human dignity of the members of society— a mass atrocity. Applying this idea to all countries annually systematically identifies a larger number of atrocities and facilitates categorization into three levels of intensity. The BB methodology for generating annual atrocity lists is replicable and transparent. The findings show that, between 1981 and 2019, the frequency of atrocities as defined and identified by other projects has been decreasing, but BB atrocities have been increasing. The sequence of different types of widespread physical integrity violations suggests new avenues for research on atrocity occurrence, escalation, de-escalation, and cessation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
163453
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
In contrast to the expansive literature on military casualties and support for war, we know very little about public reactions to foreign civilian casualties. This article, based on representative sample surveys in the United States and Britain, reports four survey experiments weaving information about civilian casualties into vignettes about Western military action. These produce consistent evidence of civilian casualty aversion: where death tolls were higher, support for force was invariably and significantly lower. Casualty effects were moderate in size but robust across our two cases and across different scenarios. They were also strikingly resistant to moderation by other factors manipulated in the experiments, such as the framing of casualties or their religious affiliation. The importance of numbers over even strongly humanizing frames points toward a utilitarian rather than a social psychological model of casualty aversion. Either way, civilian casualties deserve a more prominent place in the literature on public support for war.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
165015
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Between 2006 and 2007 an average of one Iraqi civilian was killed or injured at a coalition checkpoint each day. In many cases, civilians were shot because soldiers had misinterpreted their behaviour as hostile or as a demonstration of hostile intent. In other words, the soldiers responsible thought that they were acting in self-defence against an imminent threat. Some analysts have argued that these killings can be explained by ambiguities in the rules of engagement, but such explanations wrongly assume that the decision to kill is a purely rational calculation. Drawing upon the work of Sara Ahmed, William Connolly and George Yancy, I will argue that the interpretation of hostile intent and the decision to use lethal force are affective judgements rather than purely conscious decisions and, as such, are shaped by feelings, moods and intuitions. Moreover, I will argue that these judgements are never entirely neutral but clouded by a set of pre-existing assumptions that mark certain bodies as dangerous before they even have a chance to act. Drawing upon an archive of incident reports filed in the aftermath of these shootings and interviews with former soldiers, this article will show how seemingly innocuous behaviours were so readily mistaken for hostile acts with decidedly deadly consequences for the local population.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
089765
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2009.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
As everyone braces for a bloody summer, the new US administration has shaken up its top military command in Afghanistan. But is the continued focus on the military intervention still too predominant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|