Religion and International Crimes

This chapter introduces insights from the field of religious studies to research on perpetrators in order to examine the relationship between religion and international crimes. To this end, the chapter focuses on the case of the Islamic State, and particularly its crimes against the Iraqi Yazidi community and its attacks in the West. Based on primary sources, it argues that religion plays a primary role in the perpetrators self-understandings, serving as a significant framework through which they shape, justify, and give meaning to their violence. However, the chapter also demonstrates that religion cannot be consistently distinguished from non-religious or secular aspects of violence. Therefore, it argues, attributing a particular role to religion in explaining international crimes is inconsistent, and distinguishing between ‘religious violence’ and its secular counterpart not very helpful. Based on these observations, the chapter concludes by providing suggestions for future research on the topic.

Studying Perpetrator Ideologies in Atrocity Crimes

Scholarly and public commentators frequently discuss the ideological backdrop of atrocity crimes, yet the actual role of ideology in such campaigns of violence remains a key source of disagreement between scholars. This chapter first briefly discusses the variation in contemporary theoretical perspectives on ideology’s relevance to the perpetration of atrocity crimes, and identifies some key shortcomings in most prevailing accounts. It presents the author’s ‘neo-ideological’ approach, which emphasizes ideology’s key role, but departs from some of the cruder, vaguer, or more compartmentalized characterizations of that role found in many existing accounts. It contends that the neo-ideological approach integrates a broad range of key findings from contemporary research on mass atrocities, and explicates the explanatory significance of ideology in the behaviour of various types of perpetrators. It illustrates the plausibility and value of the approach by briefly applying it to the case of the Stalinist Great Terror of 1936–1938.

Interviewing Perpetrators against the Backdrop of Ethical Concerns and Reflexivity

This chapter takes stock of experiences gained through a research project on the perspective of individuals accused by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY). Using interviews, it analyses the discourse of eighteen individuals accused of having indirectly (i.e. ordered, planned, not prevented) or directly (i.e. personally committing a crime) participated in international crimes. It shows how identity positions and power relations must also be accounted for in terms of their specific implications for ethical concerns and reflexivity when carrying out such research. It discusses how the interviewees’ particular status, in its legal and political dimensions, affected the sampling procedures, the organization of the interview situation, process, its outcomes, and outputs, as well as the researchers’ roles in shaping the interview process and research outcomes. It concludes by reflecting upon the significance of the ‘figure of the perpetrator’ in academia and beyond.

Perpetrators, Fieldwork, and Ethical Concerns

This chapter contributes to the discussion within the field of perpetrator studies on how to study alleged perpetrators of international crimes. It does so by focusing upon ethical concerns and fieldwork in the shadow of potential trials at the domestic or international level. Drawing upon the extended fieldwork of the author, and presenting case studies from Africa, Asia, and South America, it argues that researchers should be more attentive to the power-relations between researcher and researched. It also discusses the need for researchers to be aware of the role that research plays in analysis of alleged perpetrators inside and outside of judicial processes.

Beyond Perpetrators

This chapter considers the life histories of three convicted génocidaires—the term for those individuals who had some degree of criminal complicity in the 1994 Rwandan genocide. Since the genocide, the victorious Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) has, using a range of transitional justice mechanisms, disseminated an oversimplified official history of the genocide that divides the population into innocent Tutsi survivors or guilty Hutu perpetrators. However, convicted génocidaires’ actions surrounding the genocide were often more complex than the RPF’s official history acknowledges. For this reason, this chapter—building upon the work of Erica Bouris and Erin Baines—approaches génocidaires as ‘complex political actors.’ This framing allows for enhanced consideration of the individual circumstances that informed génocidaires’ actions. It similarly allows researchers to better comprehend génocidaires’ efforts to claim space as victims, bystanders, and survivors, for example, given the broader political, historical, and personal circumstances that informed their actions during the genocide.

‘Like Mirrors of Morality’

In the first sweep of trials after the Second World War, many perpetrators of atrocity crimes were sentenced by Allied and national courts in Germany. Soon campaigns were started, including high-ranking officials and politicians, to commute and reduce sentences. Networks of support emerged that helped sentenced perpetrators and their families during imprisonment and after release, but also assisted those who were the target of further prosecution, thereby often obstructing justice. Networks ranged from loose and informal associations of those who had been complicit in committing the crimes, to personal support groups, professional and local networks, and charitable organizations, including the Red Cross and both churches. This chapter explores the activities of these networks and organizations, their role in a society in transition, and the normative climate of ‘collective defiance’ in which they operated and thrived. Exemplary cases of individuals and organizations are used to illuminate these processes in post-war Germany.

Perpetrators on Trial

Existing research on atrocity crimes perpetrators is predominantly theoretical and generic. Exploration of characteristics of individuals tried for their involvement in war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide might provide an empirical basis for a better understanding of the nature of international crimes and of criminal trials after atrocities. This chapter analyses defendant-related and crime-related characteristics of perpetrators tried by all courts in Bosnia and Herzegovina and by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) following the armed conflict in the 1990s at the territory of former Yugoslavia. Based on original data, collected as of January 2016, it briefly examines perpetrators convicted of international crimes by domestic and international courts, and their socio-demographic and crime-related characteristics. In addition to enriching debates on perpetrators of international crimes, the results can serve as a basis for further discussions on transitional justice after atrocities in Bosnia, its scope, and merits.

Plausible Deniability

Outsourcing illegal violence and plausible deniability feature among the main reasons for states to establish, finance, equip, and direct actions of paramilitary units. Political and military leaders have an interest in distancing themselves from crimes, which are committed to further their political goals. This chapter discusses some of the reasons that make prosecuting paramilitary violence more difficult by analysing examples from the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY). After reviewing relevant trials and their outcomes, the main conclusion is that plausible deniability works and results in shielding high-ranking officials from criminal responsibility. Overall, it is the lower-level perpetrators that receive punishment, and not those who have sent them on their missions, especially when those missions are across state borders. If courts do not find ways to hold accountable those that establish, fund, and direct paramilitaries as they persecute civilians, future perpetrators will not be deterred.

The Female Tigers of Sri Lanka

This chapter discusses the motives and legitimation of female cadres of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) joining the fight against the Sri Lankan government. Tamil young women were, among others, motivated by grievances against the treatment of the Tamil minority by the government, their experience of sexual and gender-based violence by Sinhalese soldiers and Indian peacekeepers, and a wish to avenge the death of relatives. They also wanted to escape a suppressive and conservative Tamil culture that forced them into arranged marriages. The heroism and sacrificial martyrdom cultivated by the LTTE legitimized these women’s combat role among the Tamils in Northern and North-eastern Sri Lanka who admired their courage. Different societal and theoretical discourses exist concerning the supposedly victimizing, liberating, or empowering effects of female participation in armed struggle, but the situation in reality appears to be ambivalent, including both victimhood and emancipation.

Historical Overview of Perpetrator Studies

This chapter provides a historical overview of perpetrator studies. Starting with the Nuremberg Trials after the Second World War, the defendants were mainly studied by psychologists and psychiatrists. The contemporary predominant belief was that perpetrators of mass atrocities were mentally disturbed. Raul Hilberg’s book on the Holocaust, and Hannah Arendt’s on the trial of Adolf Eichmann, were turning points in our thinking. The new perspective saw perpetrators as ordinary people in extraordinary circumstances. Psychological experiments helped us to understand how ordinary people can be transformed into perpetrators, e.g. Milgram showed how his subjects felt compelled to obey orders from authorities, which they considered legitimate. In the 1990s, the debate between Browning and Goldhagen revolved around if the main causes of a person’s involvement in mass atrocities were situational or dispositional. The debate continues, but all scholars agree that the interaction between dispositional and situational factors is crucial. More recently, scholars have taken a broader approach to studying perpetrators; more case studies were included, new disciplines were used, new methodological approaches were taken, and the study of terrorism has developed into a separate field of expertise. The field of perpetrators studies is now a rapidly developing field of academic inquiry.