I am a Professor in Global Security and Mass Atrocity Prevention in the School of Politics and International Studies, University of Leeds.I am internationally recognised for research excellence on the Responsibility to Protect which sets out to prevent four crimes: genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing. I have published one monograph, over a dozen peer reviewed journal articles, one book chapter, guest edited two special issue journals (international Politics 2016 and Global Responsibility to Protect 2015) and one special issue roundtable (Ethics and International Affairs 2021).In January 2021 I started a 2.5 year project ‘Explaining Non-State Armed Groups Perpetrating Mass Atrocities’ with Kaisa Hinkkainen (University of Leeds) which is funded by the Economic and Social Research Council (£500,000). It focuses on six cases: Syria, Iraq, Nigeria, the Central African Republic, Democratic Republic of Congo and Somalia.
As raised in Chapter 1, IR scholars are not necessarily well versed in the definitional debates t... more As raised in Chapter 1, IR scholars are not necessarily well versed in the definitional debates that surround genocide. This is neatly captured in Tim Dunne and Daniela Kroslak’s claim, ‘The consensus supporting the Genocide Convention masks important disputes around issues of intent, scale, and identity of victim-group.’1 In other words, IR scholars should not simply rely on the Genocide Convention in order to gain an understanding of what constitutes genocide because the legal definition masks definitional complexities regarding intent, scale and group identity (to name just a few). For example, regarding group identity, since the legal definition only identifies national, ethnic, racial, and religious groups, this means that if a political, economic, or gendered group is destroyed in its entirety then this cannot legally be defined as genocide.2 At the same time, this example reveals a fourth debate which Dunne and Kroslak fail to mention: what constitutes destroy? As shall be discussed, Raphael Lemkin, the man who coined the word genocide and ‘the father of the Genocide Convention’, did not view destruction as synonymous with mass murder and instead put forward a much broader understanding of how groups can be destroyed.3 Such examples illustrate that if one digs a little deeper into the question of how genocide should be defined, one is faced with a variety of competing interdisciplinary perspectives.
The idea of the ‘East Tennessee Question’ is taken from Ken Booth’s analysis on human rights and ... more The idea of the ‘East Tennessee Question’ is taken from Ken Booth’s analysis on human rights and the proposed need for inventing humanity.1 Booth recalls that William R Shulz (one-time director of Amnesty International) made a speech in Knoxville on human rights and human rights violations occurring around the world. The speech aroused the following question: ‘But what does this all have to do with the person in East Tennessee?’2 The question underpins the premise of the ‘East Tennessee Question’ proposed by Booth. Despite the fact that the question was raised in East Tennessee it could have easily been raised in any other part of the world: why should we here, care about those over there? As Booth explains: ‘One powerful response is to try and engage people’s sympathies by trying to make immediate the pain and oppression some suffer.’3 This is perhaps the most common response. However, as Booth notes, Shulz himself ‘was not convinced by the effectiveness of such an approach’.4 Essentially, Shulz questioned the impact of this approach and instead attempted to answer the ‘East Tennessee Question’ from a more pragmatic perspective. By which Schulz meant that legal and ethical issues had to be framed in the ‘language of realpolitik’ if they were to hold people’s attention.5
The disciplines of IR and Genocide Studies do not represent two singular families of thought that... more The disciplines of IR and Genocide Studies do not represent two singular families of thought that can be simply introduced to one another. Understanding genocide within the context of international relations requires not only an understanding of genocide (Chapter 2) but also of international relations. Accordingly, this chapter utilises Andrew Linklater’s application of Martin Wight’s three traditions (realism, rationalism, revolutionism) in order to distinguish between an international system, an international society, and an international community perspective of international relations.1 The value of this approach is that it enables a three-way dialogue to be forged between competing world views which highlights how the assumptions embodied within one’s view of international relations shapes one’s understanding of issues such as diplomacy, war, human nature, the security dilemma, and in this case, genocide. The utility of this tripartite framework, therefore, helps explain its revival over the last two decades and underpins the ES’s commitment to theoretical pluralism which will be discussed below.2 While this is something that is often alluded to in ES literature, Chapters 3 and 7 of this book put such thinking into practice as they engage with realist, ES, and cosmopolitan perspectives in order to provide insight into understanding genocide in international relations.
At the UN World Summit in 2005, the United Nations General Assembly unanimously endorsed the Resp... more At the UN World Summit in 2005, the United Nations General Assembly unanimously endorsed the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) principle which is grounded in the central idea that state sovereignty entails responsibilities as well as rights.1 This responsibility exists at both the national and international level as states have a responsibility to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and ethnic cleansing. If, for whatever reason, a state ‘manifestly fails’ in this responsibility, then international society is called on to fulfil this responsibility deficit.2 Accordingly, the R2P represents international society’s attempt to forge a new understanding of rightful conduct as legal, moral, and political expectations were altered. This has two points of relevance for this study. First, by applying the R2P to the crime of genocide, it is important to consider how this has impacted on the issue of genocide prevention. Second, by setting out to address the crises that had come to the fore over Kosovo, it is important to analyse the impact of the R2P on the sovereignty-intervention-authority dilemma, which as discussed in Chapter 5, underpinned the post-Cold War legitimacy crisis.3 As a result, this chapter analyses these two points from a legitimacy perspective. In short, the chapter concludes that while the R2P has helped resolve the sovereignty-intervention dilemma through certain aspects, it also suffers from being ‘R2P lite’ as it lacks any serious implementation strategy or new legal requirements; more worryingly, it failed to resolve the authority dilemma, and finally, introduced the prerequisite of a ‘manifest failure’ which may have unintentionally created an additional obstacle to genocide prevention in the future.4
change’ the world, basing such critical analysis on a normative project. Worth states that such a... more change’ the world, basing such critical analysis on a normative project. Worth states that such a project has been lost, with the ‘British School’ content to gear its work away from a positivist methodological approach without normative aspirations. Other chapters in this volume focus on post-structuralism, feminism, geography, Marxism and ideology. This is a vital intervention at a time when the field of IPE is being unnecessarily torn into two camps. From the point of view of a young scholar, such a division is unsatisfactory and seemingly serves academic egoism as opposed to penetrating to the heart of the biggest questions facing the international political economy. At a time when the globe faces economic and social unrest, this call to arms, based upon a normative projection of creating a more equitable world, should be welcomed by all within the social sciences who seek similar principles of emancipation.
Having established an understanding of genocide (Chapter 2) and genocide within International Rel... more Having established an understanding of genocide (Chapter 2) and genocide within International Relations (Chapter 3) the reader may be left thinking, so what? To return to the opening sentiment expressed in Chapter 1: if I am not a member of the group being targeted then why should I care about its destruction? It is here that the next two chapters focus on understanding the impact that genocide has on the ordering structure of international society. Essentially, it will be claimed that when states fail to confront the crime of genocide, states actually increase the likelihood of international instability. It is hoped that this approach highlights that there is more to genocide prevention than ‘just’ saving strangers. This novel approach utilises the ES’s focus on how order and justice is facilitated through the process and practice of international legitimacy. Accordingly this chapter will put forward an understanding of what is meant by international legitimacy prior to exploring the relationship between international legitimacy and genocide. It is argued that genocide holds a special relationship with international legitimacy because it is internationally regarded as the ‘crime of crimes’ from both a legal and moral perspective. This is important because it begins to highlight that genocide has an important impact on the institutional structure of international society as well as the groups being targeted.
As raised in Chapter 1, IR scholars are not necessarily well versed in the definitional debates t... more As raised in Chapter 1, IR scholars are not necessarily well versed in the definitional debates that surround genocide. This is neatly captured in Tim Dunne and Daniela Kroslak’s claim, ‘The consensus supporting the Genocide Convention masks important disputes around issues of intent, scale, and identity of victim-group.’1 In other words, IR scholars should not simply rely on the Genocide Convention in order to gain an understanding of what constitutes genocide because the legal definition masks definitional complexities regarding intent, scale and group identity (to name just a few). For example, regarding group identity, since the legal definition only identifies national, ethnic, racial, and religious groups, this means that if a political, economic, or gendered group is destroyed in its entirety then this cannot legally be defined as genocide.2 At the same time, this example reveals a fourth debate which Dunne and Kroslak fail to mention: what constitutes destroy? As shall be discussed, Raphael Lemkin, the man who coined the word genocide and ‘the father of the Genocide Convention’, did not view destruction as synonymous with mass murder and instead put forward a much broader understanding of how groups can be destroyed.3 Such examples illustrate that if one digs a little deeper into the question of how genocide should be defined, one is faced with a variety of competing interdisciplinary perspectives.
The idea of the ‘East Tennessee Question’ is taken from Ken Booth’s analysis on human rights and ... more The idea of the ‘East Tennessee Question’ is taken from Ken Booth’s analysis on human rights and the proposed need for inventing humanity.1 Booth recalls that William R Shulz (one-time director of Amnesty International) made a speech in Knoxville on human rights and human rights violations occurring around the world. The speech aroused the following question: ‘But what does this all have to do with the person in East Tennessee?’2 The question underpins the premise of the ‘East Tennessee Question’ proposed by Booth. Despite the fact that the question was raised in East Tennessee it could have easily been raised in any other part of the world: why should we here, care about those over there? As Booth explains: ‘One powerful response is to try and engage people’s sympathies by trying to make immediate the pain and oppression some suffer.’3 This is perhaps the most common response. However, as Booth notes, Shulz himself ‘was not convinced by the effectiveness of such an approach’.4 Essentially, Shulz questioned the impact of this approach and instead attempted to answer the ‘East Tennessee Question’ from a more pragmatic perspective. By which Schulz meant that legal and ethical issues had to be framed in the ‘language of realpolitik’ if they were to hold people’s attention.5
The disciplines of IR and Genocide Studies do not represent two singular families of thought that... more The disciplines of IR and Genocide Studies do not represent two singular families of thought that can be simply introduced to one another. Understanding genocide within the context of international relations requires not only an understanding of genocide (Chapter 2) but also of international relations. Accordingly, this chapter utilises Andrew Linklater’s application of Martin Wight’s three traditions (realism, rationalism, revolutionism) in order to distinguish between an international system, an international society, and an international community perspective of international relations.1 The value of this approach is that it enables a three-way dialogue to be forged between competing world views which highlights how the assumptions embodied within one’s view of international relations shapes one’s understanding of issues such as diplomacy, war, human nature, the security dilemma, and in this case, genocide. The utility of this tripartite framework, therefore, helps explain its revival over the last two decades and underpins the ES’s commitment to theoretical pluralism which will be discussed below.2 While this is something that is often alluded to in ES literature, Chapters 3 and 7 of this book put such thinking into practice as they engage with realist, ES, and cosmopolitan perspectives in order to provide insight into understanding genocide in international relations.
At the UN World Summit in 2005, the United Nations General Assembly unanimously endorsed the Resp... more At the UN World Summit in 2005, the United Nations General Assembly unanimously endorsed the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) principle which is grounded in the central idea that state sovereignty entails responsibilities as well as rights.1 This responsibility exists at both the national and international level as states have a responsibility to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and ethnic cleansing. If, for whatever reason, a state ‘manifestly fails’ in this responsibility, then international society is called on to fulfil this responsibility deficit.2 Accordingly, the R2P represents international society’s attempt to forge a new understanding of rightful conduct as legal, moral, and political expectations were altered. This has two points of relevance for this study. First, by applying the R2P to the crime of genocide, it is important to consider how this has impacted on the issue of genocide prevention. Second, by setting out to address the crises that had come to the fore over Kosovo, it is important to analyse the impact of the R2P on the sovereignty-intervention-authority dilemma, which as discussed in Chapter 5, underpinned the post-Cold War legitimacy crisis.3 As a result, this chapter analyses these two points from a legitimacy perspective. In short, the chapter concludes that while the R2P has helped resolve the sovereignty-intervention dilemma through certain aspects, it also suffers from being ‘R2P lite’ as it lacks any serious implementation strategy or new legal requirements; more worryingly, it failed to resolve the authority dilemma, and finally, introduced the prerequisite of a ‘manifest failure’ which may have unintentionally created an additional obstacle to genocide prevention in the future.4
change’ the world, basing such critical analysis on a normative project. Worth states that such a... more change’ the world, basing such critical analysis on a normative project. Worth states that such a project has been lost, with the ‘British School’ content to gear its work away from a positivist methodological approach without normative aspirations. Other chapters in this volume focus on post-structuralism, feminism, geography, Marxism and ideology. This is a vital intervention at a time when the field of IPE is being unnecessarily torn into two camps. From the point of view of a young scholar, such a division is unsatisfactory and seemingly serves academic egoism as opposed to penetrating to the heart of the biggest questions facing the international political economy. At a time when the globe faces economic and social unrest, this call to arms, based upon a normative projection of creating a more equitable world, should be welcomed by all within the social sciences who seek similar principles of emancipation.
Having established an understanding of genocide (Chapter 2) and genocide within International Rel... more Having established an understanding of genocide (Chapter 2) and genocide within International Relations (Chapter 3) the reader may be left thinking, so what? To return to the opening sentiment expressed in Chapter 1: if I am not a member of the group being targeted then why should I care about its destruction? It is here that the next two chapters focus on understanding the impact that genocide has on the ordering structure of international society. Essentially, it will be claimed that when states fail to confront the crime of genocide, states actually increase the likelihood of international instability. It is hoped that this approach highlights that there is more to genocide prevention than ‘just’ saving strangers. This novel approach utilises the ES’s focus on how order and justice is facilitated through the process and practice of international legitimacy. Accordingly this chapter will put forward an understanding of what is meant by international legitimacy prior to exploring the relationship between international legitimacy and genocide. It is argued that genocide holds a special relationship with international legitimacy because it is internationally regarded as the ‘crime of crimes’ from both a legal and moral perspective. This is important because it begins to highlight that genocide has an important impact on the institutional structure of international society as well as the groups being targeted.
Uploads
Papers by Adrian Gallagher