Abstract
What is at stake in labeling a particular incidence of large-scale violence “genocide”? Mahmood Mamdani rightly argues that “genocide” is an insufficient description of the conflict in Darfur. I would suggest that the problematic nature of that terminology goes back to its inception after World War II. Activists have inherited the concept of “genocide” from a particular historical moment. Now, “ genocide” carries unique moral weight in the discourse of international politics. When violence against civilians has been widely accepted as a necessary outcome of the preservation of peace, activists find it necessary to imagine a worse evil than the mere fact of indiscriminate killing. The notion of “genocidal intent” fills that role. But the U.N. Commission’s inability to find “genocidal intent” in the killing of civilians in Darfur demonstrates the limits of that very notion. “Genocide” is considered the worst crime against humanity, but too many massacres and incidents of civilian casualties are not included under its rubric.
Copyright Statement / License for Reuse
All Rights Reserved.
Publication Statement
Copyright is held by the Josef Korbel School of International Studies, University of Denver. User is responsible for all copyright compliance.
Recommended Citation
Rice, David L. G.
(2007)
"The Moral Vocabulary of Violence,"
Human Rights & Human Welfare: Vol. 7:
Iss.
4, Article 4.
Available at:
https://digitalcommons.du.edu/hrhw/vol7/iss4/4
Included in
African Studies Commons, Holocaust and Genocide Studies Commons, Human Rights Law Commons, International Law Commons, International Relations Commons, Military, War, and Peace Commons, Near and Middle Eastern Studies Commons, Peace and Conflict Studies Commons