Using the case of the Darfur region of Sudan as a basis, this research examines the role that judicial intervention plays in shaping acknowledgment, collective representation and memory of atrocities. It also considers how the related impact of UN Security Council and International Criminal Court (ICC) interventions vary across eight Western democracies as well as across the diverse institutions within each country.
Collective memory theory is concerned with the impact of current-day interests on representations and memory and with ways in which memories of past atrocities, differing across countries, shape representations of new atrocities. Theoretical ideas in this tradition speak to the potency of law in shaping collective representations and their consequences. But outcomes depend on the country-specific acceptance of the ICC and further, on nation-specific institutions (such as news media, NGOs, scholarship, consulting, policy-making institutions). The shape these institutions take should modify the impact neo-institutional theories suggest derives from new international human rights norms. A combination of quantitative and qualitative methods will be used in the current research. A sample of newspaper articles (from prominent liberal and conservative papers) and policy documents (including state department policy statements) from each country will be content analyzed. The resulting data will undergo statistical analysis. In-depth interviews will be conducted with producers of these texts (including journalists and policy-makers) and their sources within scholarship and rights- and humanitarian aid-oriented NGOs.
Collective representations and memories are mediating mechanisms that inspire intervention and promote, impede or end cycles of violence. This research seeks to advance insights into the country-specific role of judicial intervention in constructing such representations and memories. Policy conclusions concern the uses of international criminal justice.
How do United Nations Security Council (UNSC) and International Criminal Court (ICC) interventions color representations of mass violence in global society? What images arise instead from the humanitarianism and diplomacy fields? How do mass media communicate such competing perspectives to the public? Comprehensive media analysis of 3,387 news reports and opinion pieces, resulting in the Darfur Media Data Set, and in-depth interviews with Africa correspondents and experts from NGOs and foreign ministries from eight countries produced data to answer these questions. Findings Judicial interventions affect the representation of mass violence in all countries, in support of globalization arguments. Yet, they face competing representations generated by the humanitarian and diplomatic fields. The inclination of framing the violence as crime and using the genocide label varies substantially across countries. Responses to the Darfur conflict are part of the "justice cascade," the replacement of impunity by individual criminal accountability against perpetrators of grave human rights violations. Driving forces are international organizations (IOs) and human rights NGOs, examined in detail for Amnesty International. The United States, civil society groups and government, stood out in international comparison, seeking to advance the crime frame and a definition of the violence as genocide. American media, more than media in other countries, use the crime frame, the genocide label and dramatic bridging metaphors to shed light on the violence of Darfur by referencing past genocides, including the Holocaust. Representations of mass violence in the humanitarian aid field differ from human rights narratives. Suffering that can be addressed by humanitarian aid is highlighted. The Government of Sudan is treated cautiously. Long-term conditions of violence are privileged over government actions as direct causes. The humanitarian catastrophe frame is preferred over the crime frame and actors avoid the genocide label. The powerful position of the Government of Sudan vis-à-vis the humanitarian aid field is identified as a crucial condition. Findings for Doctors Without Borders are confirmed by the case of Ireland with a strong aid orientation. Representation of mass violence in the diplomatic field reveals a diplomatic master narrative: foci on long-term causes of the conflict; avoidance of naming responsible actors, using the crime frame and the genocide label. Diplomats have internalized their field’s institutional logic, relativizing arguments by Samantha Power according to which cautious language of diplomats, even in the face of genocide, is reflective of the reluctance of rational actors to get involved. Interview data show how Africa correspondents drew information from the human rights, humanitarian and diplomatic fields. Analysis of the Darfur Media Data Set shows that peaks in reporting and citations of the crime frame followed political initiatives and ICC interventions. The humanitarian field, a crucial source for journalists, and its humanitarian emergency frame initially fared prominently, but its use declined quickly. The diplomatic field produced dramatic moments, affecting representations more enduringly than humanitarians, but less so than the human rights field and ICC interventions. Below the nation-level, liberal papers more often address Darfur in the early stages, but that difference becomes neutralized with the onset of formal interventions. Gender matters as female reporters are more likely to address rape. These patterns are interpreted in light of globalization theory, field theory, and ideas from the sociologies of knowledge, law, culture and crime. Dissemination of findings Representing Mass Violence: Human Rights and Struggles over Darfur in a Globalizing World will be published in English and German (German version with Vittorio Klostermann, Frankfurt; English manuscript under peer review with the University of California Press). Selected findings are specified, in more technical language, in scholarly journal articles and chapters, some co-authored with Hollie Nyseth Brehm and Meghan Zacher. To achieve dissemination beyond the world of scholars, I co-organized a conference at the Rockefeller Bellagio Center in Italy on the representation of Darfur, which was attended by prominent journalists, scholars, NGO specialists and representatives of the ICC and the former Bill Clinton and George W. Bush administrations. Results from the research enriched my teaching, especially my course on "Crime and Human Rights" (upper division undergraduate), which I recently developed. Hollie Nyseth Brehm, my lead research assistant and former graduate student at Minnesota, experienced important parts of her professional socialization through this project. She is now an Assistant Professor of Sociology at The Ohio State University in Columbus, OH. Meghan Zacher served the project as an undergraduate RA (and recipient of an REU grant). She became co-author of one resulting publication and is now a graduate student at Harvard University. Five other graduate students gained experience with content analysis and knowledge about the Darfur conflict. In conclusion, funding by the National Science Foundation enabled the generation of insights into the generation of knowledge about mass violence. It has also yielded applied and educational benefits and contributed to the training of the next generation of scholars.
