IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cog/poango/v5y2017i3p130-145.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Genocide Discourses: American and Russian Strategic Narratives of Conflict in Iraq and Ukraine

Author

Listed:
  • Douglas Irvin-Erickson

    (The School for Conflict Analysis and Resolution, George Mason University, USA)

Abstract

This paper presents the concept of “genocide discourses”, defined as a type of strategic narrative that shapes the way individuals and groups position themselves and others and act, playing a critical role in the production of violence and efforts to reduce it. Genocide discourses tend to present genocide as fundamentally a-political, and hold that genocidal systems are dislodged only when they are swept away through external violence. Secondly, genocide discourses are built on an assumption that the victims of genocide are necessarily moral innocents, not parties in conflict. These two factors make genocide discourses highly effective in conferring moral capital upon certain actors in a conflict. The two principles converge to produce strategic narratives that direct political and military actions in certain ways in the context of contentious conflicts and political violence, motivating humanitarian responses in defense of certain groups, or sustaining popular support for foreign wars. The paper illustrates the argument by examining two case studies between 2014 and 2017: the debates in the United States over Islamic State genocides, and the conflict between Ukraine and Russia.

Suggested Citation

  • Douglas Irvin-Erickson, 2017. "Genocide Discourses: American and Russian Strategic Narratives of Conflict in Iraq and Ukraine," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 5(3), pages 130-145.
    • Handle: RePEc:cog:poango:v5:y:2017:i:3:p:130-145
    DOI: 10.17645/pag.v5i3.1015
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cogitatiopress.com/politicsandgovernance/article/view/1015
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.17645/pag.v5i3.1015?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Goddard, Stacie E., 2006. "Uncommon Ground: Indivisible Territory and the Politics of Legitimacy," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 60(1), pages 35-68, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Martin Binder & Monika Heupel, 2020. "Rising Powers, UN Security Council Reform, and the Failure of Rhetorical Coercion," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 11(S3), pages 93-103, October.
    2. Thorin M. Wright, 2020. "Revisionist Conflict and State Repression," International Area Studies Review, Center for International Area Studies, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, vol. 23(1), pages 49-72, March.
    3. Charles H. Anderton & John R. Carter, 2011. "A Bargaining Theory Perspective on War," Chapters, in: Derek L. Braddon & Keith Hartley (ed.), Handbook on the Economics of Conflict, chapter 3, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    4. Gries, Thomas & Haake, Claus-Jochen, 2016. "An Economic Theory of 'Destabilization War' '- Compromise for Peace versus Conventional, Guerilla, or Terrorist Warfare," VfS Annual Conference 2016 (Augsburg): Demographic Change 145617, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    5. Thomas Gries & Claus-Jochen Haake, 2016. "An Economic Theory of 'Destabilization War'," Working Papers CIE 95, Paderborn University, CIE Center for International Economics.
    6. J. Patrick Rhamey Jr & Bryan R. Early, 2013. "Going for the gold: Status-seeking behavior and Olympic performance," International Area Studies Review, Center for International Area Studies, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, vol. 16(3), pages 244-261, September.
    7. Nam Kyu Kim, 2020. "Territorial disputes and individual willingness to fight," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 57(3), pages 406-421, May.
    8. Douglas Irvin-Erickson, 2017. "Genocide Discourses: American and Russian Strategic Narratives of Conflict in Iraq and Ukraine," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 5(3), pages 130-145.
    9. Gries Thomas & Haake Claus-Jochen, 2016. "Towards an Economic Theory of Destabilization War: Ideology and Beliefs, Indivisibles and Time Preferences," Peace Economics, Peace Science, and Public Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 22(4), pages 377-384, December.
    10. Jijian Fan, 2023. "Delay to Deal: Bargaining with Indivisibility and Round-Dependent Transfer," Games, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-8, September.
    11. Vahabi,Mehrdad, 2019. "The Political Economy of Predation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107591370, November.
    12. Anderton,Charles H. & Carter,John R., 2009. "Principles of Conflict Economics," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521875578, December.
    13. Shawna K. Metzger, 2017. "Time is on my side? The impact of timing and dispute type on militarized conflict duration," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 34(3), pages 308-329, May.
    14. Wong, P-H., 2014. "Insurgents in motion: Counterinsurgency and insurgency relocation in Iraq," MERIT Working Papers 2014-045, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    15. Alexander Libman, 2015. "Words or deeds: what matters? On the role of symbolic action in political decentralization," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 49(3), pages 801-838, November.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cog:poango:v5:y:2017:i:3:p:130-145. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: António Vieira or IT Department (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cogitatiopress.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.