Project and content management for Contemporary Authors volumes
WORK TITLE: International Responses to Mass Atrocities in Africa
WORK NOTES:
PSEUDONYM(S):
BIRTHDATE:
WEBSITE: http://kurtmills.org/
CITY: Glasgow, Scotland
STATE:
COUNTRY: United Kingdom
NATIONALITY:
au blog: https://kurtmills.wordpress.com/ * http://acuns.org/kurt-mills/ * http://kurtmills.org/Home_files/Web%20CV%202-17.pdf * http://www.gla.ac.uk/schools/socialpolitical/staff/kurtmills/ * http://www.e-ir.info/2014/09/25/interview-kurt-mills/
RESEARCHER NOTES:
PERSONAL
Male.
EDUCATION:Hampshire College, B.A., 1988; University of Notre Dame, M.A., 1990, Ph.D., 1995.
ADDRESS
CAREER
Writer and professor. University of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland, senior lecturer in international human rights. Taught previously at American University in Cairo, Mount Holyoke College, James Madison University, and Gettysburg College.
WRITINGS
Contributor of articles to publications, including Criminal Law Forum, International Journal of Human Rights, Human Rights Quarterly, Peace Review, and Journal of Human Rights.
SIDELIGHTS
Kurt Mills is senior lecturer in international human rights at the University of Glasgow and convenor of the Glasgow Human Rights Network. He is the founder of the Human Rights section of the International Studies Association and currently serves as vice president elect. Mills has taught at the American University in Cairo, Mount Holyoke College, James Madison University, and Gettysburg College and has served as the assistant director of the Five College Program in Peace and World Security Studies at Hampshire College.
Mills received his B.A. from Hampshire College and his M.A. and Ph.D. from the University of Notre Dame. His teaching and writing focuses on issues affecting primarily sub-Saharan Africa, with an emphasis on human rights, humanitarianism, humanitarian intervention, international criminal justice, and international organizations.
International Responses to Mass Atrocities in Africa
In International Responses to Mass Atrocities in Africa: Responsibility to Protect, Prosecute, and Palliate, Mills examines the ways in which the international community can respond most effectively to mass atrocities. The book is divided into three sections, each emphasizing one of three ways in which the international community ought to respond. These three ways are described as the three P’s: the responsibility to protect, to prosecute, and to palliate.
Mills uses the case studies of Rwanda, Congo, Darfur, and Uganda to provide historical examples of mass atrocities and what the international community did, or failed to do, in its response. He also examines the three P’s through an analytical and a normative lens, exploring both the theoretical and historical.
M.D. Crosston in Choice: Current Reviews for Academic Libraries characterized the book as having “intellectual and theoretical gravitas” while yet being “accessible for all readers.” It “clearly aims to provide positive momentum in policy generation.” The book opens with a theoretical examination of the obligations that the international community has in its response to mass atrocities. It then moves on to examine the four historical examples, contrasting how the international community could have responded versus how it actually responded.
An interesting theme that emerges in the book is Mills’s acknowledgment that, at times, these three P’s actually undermine one another. Mills cites the the peace-versus-justice dilemma that exists in international justice, which suggests that seeking justice through prosecution often hinders efforts to establish peace. Christof Royer in E-International Relations noted, “Mills, more elaborately than anyone before him . . . demonstrates . . . how the imperatives of palliation, prosecution and protection can be mutually undermining” but “unfortunately, stops short of contriving substantiated solutions for this problem.” Even so, this should not “diminish the overall quality of this remarkable work.”
BIOCRIT
PERIODICALS
Choice: Current Reviews for Academic Libraries, June, 2016, M.D. Crosston, review of International Responses to Mass Atrocities in Africa: Responsibility to Protect, Prosecute, and Palliate, p. 1543.
ONLINE
E-International Relations, http://www.e-ir.info (January 27, 2017), Christof Royer, review of International Responses to Mass Atrocities in Africa.
H-Net: Humanities and Social Sciences Onine, https://networks.h-net.org (December, 2016), Laura Roost, review of International Responses to Mass Atrocities in Africa.
Interview – Kurt Mills
E-INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, SEP 25 2014, 464 VIEWS
Interview – Kurt Mills
Interview – Kurt Mills
Dr Kurt Mills is Senior Lecturer in International Human Rights at the University of Glasgow and Convenor of the Glasgow Human Rights Network. He previously taught at the American University in Cairo, Mount Holyoke College, James Madison University, and Gettysburg College, and served as the Assistant Director of the Five College Program in Peace and World Security Studies at Hampshire College.
He is the founder of the Human Rights section of the International Studies Association (ISA), and currently serves as Vice-President-Elect of the ISA. His work focuses on human rights, humanitarianism, humanitarian intervention, international criminal justice, and international organisations, with a focus on sub-Saharan Africa, and he has published widely in these areas. Recent publications include ‘R2P3: Protecting, Prosecuting or Palliating in Mass Atrocity Situations?’ and ‘The Responsibility to Protect and the International Criminal Court: Complementary or Conflicting?’ He has two books coming out in 2015: International Responses to Mass Atrocities in Africa: Responsibility to Protect, Prosecute and Palliate, and Human Rights Protection in Global Politics: Responsibilities of States and Non-State Actors (edited with David J. Karp).
In this interview, he answers questions on the R2P, neo-humanitarianism, the limits of norms, the practicality of the International Criminal Court, and the importance of academic networks.
Where do you see the most exciting research/debates happening in your field?
That’s a rather large question. With regard to responsibility to protect (R2P), there’s been an immense explosion of work in the field. You can see this in a number of panels given at the recent International Studies Association (ISA) convention. One of the areas that’s probably of the most interest is trying to think more about what R2P actually means, because there’s been a lot of work done on big theoretical issues, but the most important questions surround its practical applications. Does it mean a Libya-style intervention, or can it mean other types of things as well? More work needs to be done to make our understanding of the latter more concrete.
What came out of the World Summit in relation to R2P is quite important, but the most important part of R2P is this recognition that the Security Council might sanction the use of military force to protect people. This was the new addition to the R2P mandate—everything else had been seen before, in terms of a focus on prevention and so on. The shifting understandings of sovereignty have changed the way ‘people’ and ‘the state’ are seen, which was probably the most important change.
In terms of the practice of R2P, obviously Libya is one way to go, however, you need other approaches. We’re seeing other types of activities under the rubric of the ‘protection of civilians’, which is doing some of the same types of things that people would consider the mandate of R2P, but they’re more consensual peace-keeping operations. There’s a blurry line between some of the activities we’ve seen with the intervention brigade in the Eastern Congo and R2P, and more work needs to be done in that area to figure out exactly how such activities should be classified.
How has the way you understand the world changed over time, and what (or who) prompted the most significant shifts in your thinking?
I did my undergraduate work in the 1980s, during the Reagan Cold War. Everything I studied was about that – nuclear weapons, star wars, etc. – and everything was put within a Cold War framework. When this all fell apart, the biggest shifts in my thinking took place. I realized that many of the theoretical constructs that we had to explain international relations just really made no sense whatsoever—nobody predicted that this was going to happen.
In terms of thinkers, the role of identity and what makes states do what they do – the constructivist project – has been more important to me in recent years. I don’t think this can be used to explain everything, but I think it’s really quite important. For example, the work of Thomas Risse, Kathryn Sikkink, and Martha Finnemore.
There have so far been only trivial international responses to the current bloody conflicts in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and Central African Republic. Given what the international community learnt about the importance of intervention during the Rwanda genocide in 1994, why do you think powerful global actors are still hesitant to become involved in conflicts in sub-Saharan Africa?
I don’t think the reactions have necessarily been trivial. You’ve had massive amounts of money and a very large peacekeeping force in place for a very long time. Efforts there have also been ramped-up recently with the intervention brigade. It also has the most robust protection of civilians mandate of any peacekeeping operation. On the other hand, it has not been given the resources to carry out that mandate and the contributing countries have been fairly reluctant to allow their troops to be involved.
With regard to the Central African Republic, again, it’s taken a long time to get to the point where we’re talking about a peacekeeping force, and it’s not going to be deployed for another three months. Nonetheless, the reaction to CAR has been somewhat quicker than in previous situations. The types of responses you’re seeing indicate that the different actions one can take have been far more routinized in terms of humanitarian responses, talking about the International Criminal Court and talking about some sort of military protection. But again, that’s still taken far too long to be debated.
In relation to Rwanda, after the atrocities there, people would say, just like they did after the Holocaust, ‘never again, never again’. But in order for the required actions to be taken, states need to have some sort of interest. That is at least partially behind the comparatively quick international response to the crisis in South Sudan, which has rich oil reserves. This oil argument is also made in regard to Libya. I don’t know if that was the case, but I think the key element that motivated involvement from the US, etc., was that it was relatively easy to do. There weren’t many risks involved.
A state’s interest may also come about from a change in its thinking about what it means to be a participant in the protection of human rights, which leads into the whole constructivist debate. But if you’re going to be sending your troops halfway around the world to be killed, or if you’re going to be involving your military in other ways, that requires state-based interests that are fairly substantial. It also requires a prudential analysis of the situation, which is, at least partially, what I believe has happened with regards to Syria. Nobody has an interest in intervening, and part of that is because nobody knows what will happen if there’s an intervention, as the situation is so volatile; al Qaida is involved, Iran and Israel are also in the mix. From my own personal perspective, I don’t think that means we take a step back from Syria. But as it stands, there aren’t any global powers that want to get involved.
All of this raises important questions about the will to engage in the activities that the UN agreed to in 2005—the three pillars of the responsibility to protect.
You coined the term ‘neo-humanitarianism’ to refer to the cynical imbedding of humanitarian norms in discourse surrounding modern conflicts. You’ve previously referred to the Bush Administration’s use of humanitarianism to justify the war in Afghanistan. Where have you seen this occur in more recent conflicts? Do you think this humanitarian framing has become ‘normalised’ in modern conflict discourse?
We’ve seen Russia use the ‘responsibility to protect’ and humanitarian discourse to justify its activities in Crimea and now its presence in Eastern Ukraine. This is concerning, as Russia’s behaviours have nothing to do with either of these two concepts. But on the other hand, its use of these terms has been completely and utterly rejected by the international community. So states can try to use these justifications, but that doesn’t mean they’ll be accepted. This is also what happened with Bush’s justification for the war in Iraq.
I think governments are more comfortable using humanitarian framing to influence how their activities are viewed because human rights and humanitarian issues have become more prominent on the international agenda. Human rights norms have become more powerful also, and when this happens, states will try to use them for reasons other than what they were originally intended. In a way it’s a good thing, because it shows that human rights are more powerful now, but it also means that we need to be more wary about how they might be used.
You’ve argued that the distinction between humanitarians and military forces has been deliberately blurred by the latter, which will ultimately cost humanitarians in conflict situations. Do you think military forces are aware of this (potential) outcome? What are ‘genuine’ humanitarian organisations doing to try to protect their differentiation?
There are clear cases where states have tried to use humanitarian organisations in this manner. We saw it in Afghanistan and Iraq. In Afghanistan, the military would be engaging in civilian activities – medical assistance, supplying aid, and so forth – in civilian clothing, which is a really dangerous blurring of the lines between military and non-military actors. We’re seeing a similar dynamic in central Africa right now, where the US military has been sent in to aid in the hunt for Joseph Kony.
Humanitarian organisations are quite aware of this occurring, but they’re also put in a difficult situation because they need to be where people most require their help, which is in war zones. They try to do what they can to keep a distance, but it can be challenging.
The US has recently legislated that SEC-reporting companies that manufacture or contract to manufacture products containing ‘conflict minerals’ (gold, tin, tungsten, or tantalum) must determine and report whether or not these minerals have originated in the DRC. Do you think this law is a suitable response from a hegemonic power like the US to the security crisis in the DRC? What would you like to see the US do to help bring about an end to the conflict in the DRC?
It is one positive response, and several companies, like Apple, have released statements about conflict minerals in their supply chains. It’s creating more corporate social responsibility, but it’s obviously not nearly enough to address the very complex situation in Eastern DRC, which is partially fuelled by access to minerals. We’re seeing a similar thing in the Central African Republic right now, where the rebels have tried to use their position to gain access to minerals in the country. So, in summary, the Dodd-Frank is a positive step, but it’s a very small one. It’s often extremely challenging to trace the minerals, which is what the Kimberley Process has experienced with its conflict-free diamond certification system.
You’ve argued before that governments can often use a ‘sub-par’ response to an international crisis to deflect attention away from their lack of interest in committing to anything more substantial. Do you think Dodd-Frank is an example of that?
No, I wouldn’t say that. The situation in the DRC has been going on for over a decade, yet there has only been a minimal amount of media attention. Therefore, the US would not be experiencing significant international pressure designed to encourage it to respond more substantially to this crisis. The Obama administration would not have backed this law because it felt under the gun to do something about DRC.
You’ve argued that humanitarian norms can strongly influence how states act. President Obama has faced significant international humanitarian pressure to intervene to protect civilians from state-sponsored violence in Syria, but has so far failed to. What do you think this state of affairs says about the limitations of humanitarian norms in crisis situations?
It certainly shows that there are very significant limitations surrounding humanitarian norms. It’s when these norms and pressures come up against what states see as their ‘core interests’ that a struggle for precedence takes place. The Obama administration would like to see al-Assad gone—they’ve made no bones about that, but even if Russia was not vetoing action, I don’t think the US would be rushing in. I don’t think there’s any political will or interest in getting into Syria. This is well-evidenced by Obama’s subdued response to the regime’s use of chemical weapons.
Your current research project is in part looking at how international criminal justice is used in response to conflicts in the Great Lakes Region of Africa. What have you found so far about the efficacy of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in this region? What are the major successes/failures?
The main findings are that the application of international criminal justice and the ICC is very difficult and ambivalent right now. We’ve seen situations where it’s quite clear that the ICC must get involved, but it feels like its hands are tied, for a number of reasons. For example, in Uganda and the DRC, the prosecutions that the ICC prosecutor has undertaken have been very one-sided, only going after rebels and ignoring government troops who have also committed mass atrocities. This is because the prosecutor feels he won’t be able to get the support of the government if he pursues troops. This is probably true, and it shows the limits of the ICC’s power.
We’ve also seen these limitations in relation to conducting trials; as the ICC has no police force and no way of arresting people, it relies on the government and peacekeepers to transfer alleged criminals to its custody. For example, in the DRC, the government protected a man named Bosco Ntaganda, who had an arrest warrant issued against him by the ICC, because he was seen as a key element in the peace process, despite having been a rebel. The government didn’t want to hand him over, even though they had a legal obligation to do so, which again shows the limits of the ICC at this point.
What is the most important advice you could give to young scholars in your field?
It’s extremely important to build up your networks, as academics don’t do research in isolation (even though it seems like that sometimes). There’s currently much more of a focus on networks and the building of affiliations and collaborative activity.
The interview was conducted by Dr Yolande Kyngdon-McKay.
Dr Kurt Mills
Senior Lecturer (Politics)
telephone: 01413305091
email: Kurt.Mills@glasgow.ac.uk
Biography
Office Hours: Monday 3:00pm-4.00pm, Thursday 2:00pm-3:00pm
I joined the University in 2004. I received my BA from Hampshire College (1988), and MA (1990) and PhD (1995) from the University of Notre Dame. I previously taught at The American University in Cairo, Mount Holyoke College, James Madison University, and Gettysburg College, and served as the Assistant Director of the Five College Program in Peace and World Security Studies at Hampshire College. My main teaching and research interests are in the areas of international organizations, human rights, refugees, and humanitarianism. My regional area of interest is sub-Saharan Africa, and I have conducted research in the Great Lakes region of Africa.
Research interests
My current research project, for which I have received grants from the British Academy and the Carnegie Trust for the Universities of Scotland, is on the relationship between three related sets of international human rights norms - the responsibility to protect, international criminal justice, and humanitarianism - and how they are used in international responses to conflict in the Great Lakes Region of Africa. I am also involved in a project looking at the relationship between
Grants
'Responsibility to protect, to prosecute, or to feed: evaluating the interaction of normative frameworks'
British Academy, £7,436
September 2007 to December 2009
'International Responses to Mass Atrocities in Africa: Responsibility to Protect, Prosecute, and Palliate'
Carnegie Trust for the Universities of Scotland, £1660
2011
British Academy Overseas Conference Grant, £500
2011
'Human Rights and Security'
Chancellor's Fund, £5,050
2011-12
Supervision
Supervision areas
International Relations
Human Rights
Refugees/Humanitarianism
Current research students
Past research students
Chris Lamont
Thesis title: Corecion, norms and atrocity: explaining state compliance with International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia arrest and surrender orders
Graduated in 2008
Ahmed Ben Aessa
Thesis title: Libyan foreign policy: a study of policy shifts in respect of Libya's Nuclear Programme
Graduated in 2015
Kate Spence
Thesis title: The Influence of Neoconservatism on US Foreign Policy Debates During the Obama Administration
Graduated in 2016
Teaching
Undergraduate
Honours: Human Rights in Global Perspective
Postgraduate
Human Rights in Global Politics
Humanitarian Intervention
Administrative Roles
Convener, MSc/MRes in Human Rights and International Politics
Convenor, Glasgow Human Rights Network
Additional information
Other University Roles
Director, Glasgow Human Rights Network
Other External Roles
Editorial Board, Journal of Human Rights
Vice-Chair, Academic Council on the United Nations System
Former Vice-President, International Studies Association
Founding Chair, Human Rights Secion, International Studies Association
Professional Memberships
Academic Council on the United Nations System
British International Studies Association
International Studies Association
Publications
List by: Type | Date
Number of items: 34.
Articles
Mills, K. (2015) R2P and the ICC: at odds or in sync? Criminal Law Forum, 26(1), pp. 73-99. (doi:10.1007/s10609-015-9246-3)
Mills, K. (2013) Constructing humanitarian space in Darfur. International Journal of Human Rights, 17(5-6), pp. 605-618. (doi:10.1080/13642987.2013.805125)
Mills, K. (2013) R2P3: protecting, prosecuting or palliating in mass atrocity situations? Journal of Human Rights, 12(3), pp. 333-356. (doi:10.1080/14754835.2013.812421)
Mills, K. (2012) 'Bashir is dividing us': Africa and the International Criminal Court. Human Rights Quarterly, 34(2), pp. 404-447. (doi:10.1353/hrq.2012.0030)
Borer, T.A., and Mills, K. (2011) Explaining post-apartheid South African human rights foreign policy: unsettled identity and conflicting interests. Journal of Human Rights, 10(1), pp. 76-98. (doi:10.1080/14754835.2011.546278)
Mills, K. (2009) Vacillating on Darfur: responsibility to protect, to prosecute, or to feed? Global Responsibility to Protect, 1(4), pp. 532-559. (doi:10.1163/187598509X12505800144990)
Mills, K. (2008) Which Responsibility in Darfur? Peace Review, 20(2), pp. 175-183.
Mills, K. (2007) Noble Human Rights Defender or International Band-Aid? On Contemporary Humanitarianism. Human Rights and Human Welfare, 7, pp. 25-34.
Mills, K., and Lott, A. (2007) From Rome to Darfur: norms and interests in US policy toward the international criminal court. Journal of Human Rights, 6(4), pp. 497-521. (doi:10.1080/14754830701713215)
Mills, K. (2006) The Postmodern Tank of the Humanitarian International. Peace Review, 18(2), pp. 261-267. (doi:10.1080/10402650600692466)
Mills, K. (2005) Neo-humanitarianism: The role of international humanitarian norms and organizations in comtemporary conflict. Global Governance, 11, pp. 161-183.
Mills, K. (2003) Pieces on our craft: using the Bush doctrine as a teaching tool. International Studies Perspectives, 4(3), pp. 325-326. (doi:10.1111/1528-3577.403poc)
Mills, K. (2002) Cybernations: identity, self-determination, democracy and the 'internet effect' in the emerging information order. Global Society, 16(1), pp. 69-87. (doi:10.1080/09537320120111915)
Mills, K. (2002) Refugees and security in the great lakes region of Africa. Civil Wars, 5(1), pp. 1-26. (doi:10.1080/13698240208402493)
Mills, K. (1998) Collaborating on the InfoBahn: a case study of using the Internet for scholarly discussion. International Studies Notes, 23, pp. 6-11.
Mills, K. (1998) United Nations intervention in refugee crises after the Cold War. International Politics, 35(4), pp. 391-424.
Mills, K. (1997) Reconstructing sovereignty: a human rights perspective. Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights, 15, pp. 267-290.
Mills, K. (1997) Sovereignty eclipsed?: The legitimacy of humanitarian access and intervention. Journal of Humanitarian Assistance,
Mills, K. (1996) Permeable borders: Human migration and sovereignty. Global Society, 10(2), pp. 77-106. (doi:10.1080/13600829608443101)
Mills, K. (1996) Refugees as an impetus for intervention: the case of Haiti. Refuge, 15,
Books
Mills, K. (2015) International Responses to Mass Atrocities in Africa: Responsibility to Protect, Prosecute and Palliate. Series: Pennsylvania studies in human rights. University of Pennsylvania Press: Philadelphia. ISBN 9780812247374
Mills, K. (1998) Human Rights in the Emerging Global Order: A New Sovereignty? Series: International political economy series. Macmillan: Basingstoke. ISBN 9780333721278
Book Sections
Mills, K. (2015) What responsibilities does the international community have in complex humanitarian crises and mass atrocity situations? In: Mills, K. and Karp, D. (eds.) Human Rights Protection on Global Politics: Responsibilities of States and Non-State Actors. Series: Global issues. Palgrave Macmillan: Basingstoke, pp. 223-244. ISBN 9781137463166
Mills, K., and Karp, D. (2015) Introduction: human rights responsibilities of states and non-state actors. In: Mills, K. and Karp, D. (eds.) Human Rights Protection on Global Politics: Responsibilities of States and Non-State Actors. Series: Global issues. Palgrave Macmillan: Basingstoke, pp. 3-22. ISBN 9781137463166
Mills, K. (2014) Humanitarian space in Darfur: caught between the national and the international. In: Acuto, M. (ed.) Negotiating Relief: The Dialectics of Humanitarian Space. Hurst and Company: London. ISBN 9781849042666
Mills, K. (2014) Africa and the international criminal court. In: Luban, D., O'Sullivan, J. R. and Stewart, D. P. (eds.) International and Transnational Criminal Law. Series: Aspen casebook series. Wolters Kluwer: New York, pp. 826-835. ISBN 9781454828341
Mills, K. (2011) Who will own outer space: governance over space resources in the age of human space exploration. In: Landfester, U., Remuss, N.-L., Schrogl, K.-U. and Worms, J.-C. (eds.) Humans in Outer Space – Interdisciplinary Perspectives. Springer. ISBN 9783709102794
Mills, K., and O'Driscoll, C. (2010) From humanitarian intervention to the responsibility to protect. In: The International Studies Encyclopedia. Wiley-Blackwell: London, UK, pp. 2532-2552. ISBN 9781405152389
Mills, K., and Sriram, C. (2010) Introduction: Human Rights. In: Denemark, R. (ed.) The International Studies Encyclopedia. Wiley-Blackwell: London, lxxxii-xci. ISBN 9781405152389
Mills, K. (2009) The United Nations and Human Rights: Implementing Humanitarian Intervention, International Criminal Justice and Humanitarianism. In: Kaufman, S. and Warters, A. (eds.) The United Nations, Past, Present, and Future: Proceedings of the 2007 Francis Marion University UN Symposium. Nova Science Publishers. ISBN 9781607414506
Mills, K. (2005) Refugee hosting/producing countries: Zaire/DRC. In: Gibney, M. J. and Hansen, R. (eds.) Immigration and Asylum: From 1900 to the Present. ABC-CLIO: Oxford, pp. 261-267. ISBN 9781576077962
Mills, K. (2004) Refugee return from Zaire to Rwanda: the role of UNHCR. In: Adelman, H. and Rao, G. C. (eds.) War and Peace in Zaire/Congo: Analyzing and Evaluating Intervention, 1996-1997. Africa World Press: Trenton, NJ. ISBN 9781592211319
Edited Books
Mills, K. and Karp, D. J., (Eds.) (2015) Human Rights Protection on Global Politics: Responsibilities of States and Non-State Actors. Series: Global issues. Palgrave Macmillan: Basingstoke. ISBN 9781137463166
Mills, K. and Sriram, C., (Eds.) (2010) The International Studies Encyclopedia ('Human Rights' section). Wiley-Blackwell: London, UK. ISBN 9781405152389
6‘Protecting Human Rights in Conflict: A Bed for the Night, a Modicum of Justice, or All Necessary Means?’ Fordham University, 15 October 2014.‘Middle Powers and Human Rights,’ Department of Political Science, University of Connecticut, 14 October 2014.‘Are Peacekeepers, Lawyers or Humanitarians Best Equipped to Deal with Contemporary Conflict?’ Human Rights Institute, University of Connecticut, 13 October 2014.‘What Happens When We Respond to Mass Atrocities? Insights from Africa,’ Asia-Pacific Centre for the Responsibility to Protect, University of Queensland, 9 May 2014.‘Intervention, the ICC, and Humanitarianism in Africa,’ University of Sydney, 30 April 2014.‘”You can’t stop every bad thing from happening”: The Perplexitiesand Problems ofImplementing Anti-Atrocity Norms,’ Australian Human Rights Centre, University of New South Wales, 29 April 2014.‘Dealing withMass Atrocities: The African Proving Ground,’ Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies, University of St. Andrews, 26 November 2013.‘TheResponsibility to Protect,’ Universitas 21 Undergraduate Summer School: Human Rights, University of Connecticut, July 2013.‘The Complexities of Responding to Genocide,’ Connecticut College, 5 November 2012.‘Africa and the ICC: Identity, Power and the African Renaissance,’ School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, 14 May 2012.‘The Responsibilitiesto Protect, Prosecute and Palliate: Complementary orConflicting?’School of Advanced Study, University of London, and London Transitional Justice Network, 8 May 2012.‘The Multiple and Conflicting Responsibilities in Responding to Mass Atrocities,’ University of Birmingham, 1 December 2011.‘International Responsibilities in Conflict: Protection, Prosecution, and Palliation,’ University College London, 17 November 2011.‘Moving from Humanitarian Intervention to Responsibility to Protect,’ Minority Rights Group International, 14 October 2011.‘Africa and the International Criminal Court,’ University of Aberdeen, 26 April 2011.‘International Responses to Mass Atrocities and Humanitarian Crises,’ Institute of Human Rights, Addis Ababa University, 7 December 2009.‘Human Rights and Education,’ plenary presentation, panel on ‘The Freedom Game: The Future of Our Liberty,’International PEN Writers in Prison Conference, Glasgow, 4 April2008.‘The United Nations and Human Rights: Implementing the Responsibility to Protect, to Prosecute, and to Feed,’plenary presentation, conference on The United Nations: Past, Present, and Future, Francis Marion University, 26 October2007.‘Building Peace and Dealing with the Past in Post-Conflict Situations,’seminar on International Conflict Resolution, with the Rt. Hon. Peter Hain and the Rt. Hon. Des Brown, University of Glasgow, 12 September2007.‘The Toyota Land Cruiser as Postmodern Tank: Evaluating the Role of the Humanitarian International,’University of East London, 29 November2006.
7‘The US and the International Criminal Court,’University of Edinburgh, 10 November2006.Panelist, ‘The role of the United Nations –60 years of peace,’Annual Meeting of the Modern Studies Association, Strathclyde University, 5 November2005.‘The Toyota Land Cruiser: The Postmodern Tank of the Humanitarian International,’School of International Relations, St. Andrew’s University, 24 October2005.‘The United Nations, Humanitarianism, and Contemporary Conflict,’United Nations Students Association of Glasgow University, 20 April2005.Roundtable Participant, ‘Assessing the 2004 U.S. Presidential Election’University of Edinburgh, 19 November 2004.‘Contemporary War and Humanitarian Action,’Connecticut College, 18 February2003.‘From Refugees to ‘Persons of Concern’: UNHCR As An Evolving International Actor,’Centre for Documentation and Research, UN High Commissioner for Refugees, Geneva, 19 August1998. International Conferences OrganizedProgramme committee, Revitalizing the United Nations for Human Rights, Peace and Development,Annual Meeting of the Academic Council on theUnited Nations System, Seoul, Korea, 15-17 June 2017.Human Rights in an Age of Ambiguity,co-sponsored by the human rights sections of the International Studies Association, International Political Science Association, European Consortium for Political Research, and the American Political Science Association, Fordham University,New York,13-15 June 2016.Human Rights and Justice,co-sponsored by the human rights sections of the International Studies Association, International Political Science Association, European Consortium for Political Research, and the American Political Science Association, The Hague Institute for Global Justice,The Hague,15-17 June 2015.Human Rights and Change, co-sponsored by the human rights sections of the International Studies Association, International Political Science Association, European Consortium for Political Research, and the American Political Science Association, Kadir Has University, Istanbul, 16-18 June 2014.Protecting Human Rights: Duties and Responsibilities of States and Non-state Actors,co-sponsored by the human rights sections of the International Studies Association, International Political Science Association, and the American Political Science Association, University of Glasgow, 18-19 June 2012.Fellowships/GrantsESRCResearch Grant (with Cian O’Driscoll and Phillips O’Brien) (£199,850)2014-16Staff Mobility Grant (£4450)2014International Studies Association Catalytic Workshop Grant ($5882)2013 Chancellor’s Fund Grant (£5050)2011-12Carnegie Trust for the Universities of Scotland (£1660)2011British Academy Overseas Conference Grant (£500)2011Employablity Award (£300)2009-10British Academy Research Grant (£7436)2007-09ISA Conference Travel Grant2007British Academy Overseas Conference Grant2006Robertson Bequest Research Grant2005British Academy Overseas Conference Grant2005
8ISA Conference Travel Grant2005Faculty Grant (MHC)2002Junior Researcher Grant (AUC)1999-2000Research Grant (AUC)Summer 1998Teaching Enhancement Grant (AUC)Spring 1998ISA Conference Travel Grant1997ISA Conference Travel Grant1996Conference/Workshop Papers/Presentations‘Human Rights, Justice and Peace in Uganda: Bridging the Local and the Global,’ to be presented at the Annual Meeting of the International Studies Association, Baltimore, 22-25 February 2017.Roundtable participant/chair, ‘Middle and Emerging Power Human Rights Foreign Policy in the Context of Changing Global Power Dynamics,’ Annual Meeting of the International Studies Association, Baltimore, 22-25 February 2017.Roundtable participant, ‘Moral Victories: The Ethics of Winning Wars,’ Annual Meeting of the International Studies Association, Baltimore, 22-25 February 2017.‘Responding to Syria: A Failureof Moral Imagination,’ workshop onDegrade and Destroy: Winning the War Against Daesh?, UK Defence Academy, 23 June 2016.‘Contesting International Criminal Justice,’presented at the annual meeting of the Academic Council on the United Nations System, New York, 16-18 June 2016.‘The Ambiguity of Human Rights Norms and Institutions: Antipreneurs and the International Criminal Court,’ presented at the conference on Human Rights in an Age of Ambiguity, New York, 13-15 June 2016.‘R2P byOther Means,’ Annual Meeting of the International Studies Association, Atlanta, 16-19 March 2016.‘New Norms, Institutions and the Ethics of Ending Wars,’ workshop on Moral Victories: What does it mean to win a just war?, University of Glasgow, 23-24 June2015.‘The Politics and Conundrums of Peace, Security and Justice in Africa,’ Annual Meeting of the Academic Council on the United Nations System, 11-13 June 2015.‘Human Rights, Justice and Peace in Uganda: The Role of Local and International Transitional Justice Mechanisms,’conference Human Rights and Justice, The Hague Institute for Global Justice, 8-10June 2015.Roundtable participant, ‘The Responsibility to Protect and the International Criminal Court: Common Aims, Shared Problems,’ Annual Meeting of the International Studies Association, New Orleans, 18-21 February 2015.‘(Local) Peace vs. (International) Justice in Uganda? Mato Oput, the ICC and the Conundrums of Transitional Justice in the Middle of Conflict,’ presented at the European Consortium for Political Research 8thGeneral Conference, University of Glasgow, 3-6 September 2014.‘R2P and the ICC,’ presented at the annual meeting of the Academic Council on the United Nations System, Kadir Has University, Istanbul, 19-21 June 2014.‘Anti-Atrocity Norms in a Time of Flux,’ presented at the conference on Human Rights and Change,Kadir Has University, Istanbul,16-18 June 2014.‘R2P and PoC in the DRC,’ presented at the Annual Meeting of the International Studies Association, San Diego, 3-6 April, 2013.
9Roundtable participant, ‘The Responsibility to Protect and Democracy: Intervention and the Arab Spring,’ Annual Meeting of the International Studies Association, San Diego, 3-6 April, 2013.‘What Responsibilties Does the International Community Have in Complex Humanitarian Emergencies and MassAtrocity Situations?’ presented at the conference on Protecting Human Rights: Responsibilties and Duties of States and Non-State Actors, Glasgow, 18-19 June, 2012.‘R2P3: The Conundrums of Protectors, Prosecutors and Palliators,’presented at the Annual Meeting of the International Studies Association, San Diego, 1-4 April, 2012.‘”Bashir is Dividing Us”: Africa and the International Criminal Court,‘presented at the Annual Meeting of the International Studies Association, Montreal, 16-19 March 2011.‘Post-Westphalian Politics and Law in the Neomedieval World of Outer Space: Sovereignty and the Tragedy of the Commons in the Final Frontier,’ presented at the Annual Meeting of the International Studies Association,New Orleans, 17-20 February 2010.‘R2P3:Protection, Prosecution and Palliation in Humanitarian Crises,’ presented at the conference Protecting People in Conflict & Crisis, Refugee Studies Centre, Oxford University, 22-24 September 2009.‘Humanitarian Responsibilities in War: Protection, Prosecution and Palliation,’ presented at the British International Studies Association-funded workshop on War and Humanitarianism, Royal Holloway, University of London, 19 June 2009.‘Politics in Outer Space: The Post-Westphalian Neomedieval World of the FinalFrontier,’ presented at the conference ‘Towards a Forward Look on Humans in Outer Space,’ Humans in Outer Space Project, European Science Foundation, La Palma, Spain, 2-3 April 2009.‘Faltering on Darfur: Responsibility to Protect, to Prosecute and to Feed,’ presented at the Annual Conference of the British International Studies Association, University of Exeter, 15-17 December 2008.Participant, Assessing Human Rights: A Compendium Project Panel,Annual Meeting of the International Studies Association, San Francisco, 26-29 March2008.‘The Meanings of Protection,’presented to the panel A New Norm or Realpolitik? Explaining the Responsibility to Protect,Annual Meeting of the International Studies Association, Chicago, 28 February -3 March2007.‘The US and the International Criminal Court: Problematizing the Norms-Interest Divide,’presented to the panel Norms vs. Interests?: Explaining State International Legal Behavior,Annual Meeting of the International Studies Association, San Deigo, California, 21-25 March2006.‘The Darfur Discourse: Continuing Evasion or New Responses?’presented to the panel Old Wine in New Bottles? Revisiting Familiar Challenges in a Changed Humanitarian Context,Annual Meeting of the International Studies Association, San Diego, California, 21-25 March2006‘Triangulating Explanations: The Geometry of Norms and Interests in US Foreign Policy’(with Anthony Lott), Global International Studies Conference, Istanbul 24-27 August2005.‘The US and the ICC: Five Years after the Millennium Declaration,’Annual Meeting of the Academic Council on the United Nations System, 16-19 June2005.‘Tool of Hegemony or Agent of Assistance? UNHCR As A Site of Strategic Contest,’presented to the panel Agents of Influence or Tools of Policy? International Humanitarian Organizations, States, and Strategic Contest in the Post-Cold War, Post-9/11 Global Context,Annual Meeting of the International Studies Association, Montreal, March 2004.
10‘Humanitarianism and Contemporary Conflict,’presented to the panel Nation-Building Lessons, at a joint conference sponsored by the International Security Studies Section of the ISA and the International Security and Arms Control of the APSA, US Army War College, 1 November2003.‘Neo-Humanitarianism: The Roleof International Humanitarian Organizations in the Emerging Global Order,’presented to the panel Neo-Humanitarianism and IR Theory, Annual Meeting of the International Studies Association, March 2002.‘Africa: The Great Lakes,’co-authored with Richard J. Norton, presented to the panel Exploring the Nexus Between Security and Migration, Annual Meeting of the International Studies Association, Chicago,February 2001.‘Security and Migration: Rwandan Refugees in the Great Lakes Region of Africa,’presented at the workshop on Victims, Intruders, or Invaders: The Place of Migrants in International Security, Los Angeles, March 2000.‘Humanitarianism and International Organization,’presented to the panel International Organization: Where Are We? Where Do We Need To Go?, Annual Meeting of the International Studies Association, March 2000.‘Forced Repatriation to Rwanda, 1996: Do We Need a New Paradigm for Return?,’presented to the panel New Issues in Refugeedom: The Politicization and Securitization of the Displaced, Annual Meeting of the International Studies Association, February 1999.‘Reflections on 50 Years of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,’English Public Lecture Series, The American University in Cairo, 14 December1998.‘The Virtualization of Identity: Cyberspace, the Relocation of Authority, and Self-Determination,’presented to the panel Global Cyberpolitics and Law, Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, September 1998.‘Reifying and Recreating Identity in Cyberspace: Virtuality and Self-Determination,’presented at the Fifth AUC Research Conference, Globalization: Blessing or Curse?, The American University in Cairo, 29-30 March1998.‘Cybernations: The Internet, Virtual Identity, and Self-Determination,’presented to the panel Cyberhype or the Deterritorialization of Politics?: The Internet in a Post-Westphalian Order, Annual Meeting of the International Studies Association, 17-21 March1998.‘Refugee Crises and UN Intervention: Security, Humanitarianism, Politics?’presented to the panel Lessons Learned and Applied in the Post-Cold War World, Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, 28-31 August1997.‘United Nations Intervention in Refugee Crises in the Post-Cold War World,’presented tothe panel Changing Responses to Refugee Crises, Annual Meeting of the International Studies Association, 18-22 March1997.‘Enhancing Undergraduate Computer and Library Research,’co-authored with William DeMars, presented at the symposium Mental Models/Virtual Worlds: Intersections of Computer Technology, Humanities and Social Science, The American University in Cairo, 24-25 November 1996.‘Refugee and Human Rights Research on the Internet,’Centre for Refugee Studies 1996 Summer Course on Refugee Issues, York University, 25 June1996.‘Identity, Community, and Citizenship in the Emerging Global Order,’presented at the conference on Citizenship: Nationality, Transnationality and Education, University of Toledo, 25-27 April1996.
11‘Human Rights, International Organizations, and Sovereignty: Humanitarian Access and Intervention,’presented to the panel Challenging Sovereignty: Globalization, Organization, and Identity, Annual Meeting of the International Studies Association, 16-20 April 1996.‘Permeable Borders: Human Migration and Sovereignty,’presented to the panel Ethics and Humanitarian Crises: The Limits of Sovereignty, Annual Meeting of the International Studies Association, 21-25 February1995.‘Nationalism, Ethnic Conflict, and Self-Determination: The Challenge for Sovereignty and Human Rights,’presented at the Annual Meeting of the International Studies Association, 29 March -1April1994.‘The New Sovereignty: Reconstructing Sovereignty in Response to the Humanitarian Challenges in the Emerging Global Order,’presented at the colloquium Problems Without Borders: Perspectives on Third World Sovereignty, University of Toledo, 23-25 April 1993.‘Humanitarian Intervention Reconsidered,’presented to the panel War and the Military Ethos, Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, 3-6 September1992.‘Humanitarian Intervention: A Legal, Political, and Moral Analysis,’presented to the panel Sovereignty and Human Rights in an Interdependent World, Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, 9-11 April 1992.Other Professional ActivitiesExternal Evaluations: Ludwig Boltzmann Human Rights Institute,Fordham University (new MSprogramin humanitarian affairsreview)University of Queensland (PhD), University of St. Andrews (PhD and honours programme), Keele University (PhD), University of New Hampshire (tenure), Pomona College (3rdyear review)Manuscript Reviewer: Global Governance,Global Responsibility to Protect,Global Society, International Political Science Review,International Relations,International Studies Quarterly,Journal of African Law,Journal of Human Rights, Journal of Refugee Studies,Lynne Rienner Publishers,Manchester University Press,Palgrave, Pearson Education, Politics, Routledge,Security Dialogue, Small Arms Survey, Sociology, Zed Books.Media Interviews: BBC Radio Scotland, Clyde Radio (Glasgow),Press Association (Glasgow),The Scotsman, Radio Ramadhan (Glasgow), de Volkskrant (Netherlands), WKCY (Harrisonburg, VA),The News Leader (Staunton, VA), Nile TV (Cairo).Member, Cross-Party Group on Human Rights, Scottish Parliament.Member, Global and Regional Governance Research ClusterMember, Global Security RoundtableMember, Scottish Network for Peace and Conflict Research.Member, Central Belt International Relations (CBIR) Group.Member, Glasgow Centre for International Development.Chair/organizer, panel on Human Rights and Justice, Annual Meeting of the International Studies Association, Baltimore, 22-25 February 2017.Invited Chair and Discussant, Junior Scholar Symposium on Institutions, Democratization, and Human Rights, Annual Meeting of the International Studies Association, Baltimore, 22-25 February 2017.
12Chair, Scottish Government conference Support the Human Rights Act, Edinburgh, 12 November 2015.Invited Chair and Discussant, Junior Scholar Symposium on ‘Norms –Human Rights, Access and Justice,’ Annual Meeting of the International Studies Association, New Orleans, 18-21 February 2015.Panelist, Roundtable on Chains of Justice, annual meeting of the Academic Council on the United Nations System, Kadir Has University, Istanbul, 19-21 June 2014.Chair, Amnesty International rountable discussion on ‘What is the role of human rights in determining alternate visions for the future of Scotland?,’ Dundee, 18 September 2013.Workshop Chair, ‘The Human Rights Question: What sort of Scotland, and what sort of constitutional future?’, Glasgow City Chambers, 1 May 2013.Chair and Organizer of the panel, ‘Responsibilityto Protect in Africa,’ Annual Meeting of the International Studies Association, San Diego, 3-6 April, 2013.Workshop Chair and Organizer (with David Karp),‘Protecting Human Rights: Responsibilities and Duties of States and Non-State Actors,’San Diego,2 April 2013.Chair and Organizer of the panel ‘Governing War Crimes: Politics and Practice of the International Criminal Court,’ Annual Meeting of the International Studies Association, Montreal, 16-19 March 2011.Chair and Organizer of the panel ‘Globalizing Authority: Evaluating the Responsibility to Protect,’ Annual Meeting of the International Studies Association, Montreal, 16-19 March 2011.Chair and Organizer of the rountable ‘Revolution on the Nile: Is Tahrir Square the Middle East’s Berlin Wall?’ Annual Meeting of the International Studies Association, Montreal, 16-19 March 2011.Convenor, Human Rights Network Scoping Workshop, University of Glasgow, 18 January 2011.Discussant, Drumhead,Tron Theatre, Glasgow, 14 May 2010, http://www.tron.co.uk/event/drumhead.Judge, Innovative Panel ‘Prosecuting a Head of State for Chemical/Herbicidal Weapons and Long-term Civilian Suffering Identified After a Peace Agreement as a Case of Crime Against Humanity at the International Criminal Court,’ Annual Meeting of the International Studies Association,New Orleans, 17-20 February 2010.Discussant, ‘Human Rights and the Media II: Possibilities and Pitfalls of Representations of Human Rights Issues,’ Annual Meeting of the International Studies Association,New Orleans, 17-20 February 2010.Co-organizer of the panel Human Rights and IR Theory: Explaining State Behavior, Annual Meeting of the International Studies Association,New York, 15-18 February 2009.Chair of the Panel Critical Approaches to State and Security, Annual Meeting of the International Studies Association, San Francisco, 26-29 March2008.Chair of the panel Human Rights and IR Theory, Annual Meeting of the International Studies Association, Chicago, 28 February 3 March2007.Chair, Roundtable on Conducting Research in Human Rights, Genocide, and State Repression in Difficult Settings, Annual Meeting of the International Studies Association, Chicago, 28 February -3 March2007.Co-organizer of the panel A New Norm or Realpolitik? Explaining the Responsibility to Protect, Annual Meeting of the International Studies Association, Chicago, 28 February 3 March2007.Organizer and chair of the panel Jus in Bello after 9/11,Annual Meeting of the International Studies Association, San Diego, California, 22-26 March2006.
13Co-organizer of the panel Norms vs. Interests?: Explaining State International Legal Behavior,Annual Meeting of the International Studies Association, San Diego, California, 22-26 March2006.Discussant, workshop on Non-HegemonicCooperation, San Diego, California, 21 March2006.Discussant on the panel Democracy and Foreign Policy in the U.S. Since 9/11,Global International Studies Conference, Istanbul, 24-27 August2005.Chair of the panel Post-Conflict Peacebuilding: Promoting Human Rights and Protecting the Vulnerable,Annual Meeting of the Academic Council on the United Nations System, 16-19 June2005.Organizer and chair of the panel Jus ad Bellum after 9/11,Annual Meeting of the International Studies Association, Honolulu, Hawaii, March 2005.Discussant on the panel Human Rights and Foreign Policy,Annual Meeting of the International Studies Association, Honolulu, Hawaii, March 2005.Chair of the panel Forgotten by Hegemony: Forced Migration in the New World Order, Annual Meeting of the International Studies Association, March 2004.Co-Organizer of two panels entitled Agents of Influence or Tools of Policy? International Humanitarian Organizations, States, and Strategic Contest in the Post-Cold War, Post-9/11 Global Context, Annual Meeting of the International Studies Association, March 2004.Public lecture, Iraq and the Bush Doctrine,part of a panel discussion entitled Should We Invade Iraq?James Madison University, 28 October2002.Organizer and chair of two panels entitled Neo-Humanitarianism and IR Theory, Annual Meeting of the International Studies Association, March 2002.Chair of the panel International Institutions and Their Capacity to Solve Global Migration Problems: The Search for Durable Solutions, Annual Meeting of the International Studies Association, March 2002.Participant, International Humanitarian Law and Current Conflicts,seminar sponsored by the Harvard Program on Humanitarian Policy and Conflict Research and the International Committee of theRed Cross, October 29-November 2, 2001.General discussant, conference on Ethics and Weapons of Mass Destruction, Mount Holyoke College, 27-29 April 2001.Organizer and Chair of two panels entitled The Refugee Convention 50 Years On: Critical Perspectives, Future Prospects, Annual Meeting of the International Studies Association, February 2001.Organizer and Chair of two panels entitled The UN High Commissioner for Refugees at 50, Annual Meeting of the International Studies Association, March 2000.Co-organizer of two panels entitled International Organization: Where Are We? Where Do We Need To Go? Annual Meeting of the International Studies Association, March 2000.Discussant on the panel The Regional Parties to the Conflict: The Zaire Crisis, 1996-1997, Annual Meeting of the International Studies Association, February 1999.Organizer of the panel New Issues in Refugeedom: The Politicization and Securitization of the Displaced, 1999 Annual Meeting of the International Studies Association, February 1999.Organizer of the panel Cyberhype or the Deterritorialization of Politics?: The Internet in a Post-Westphalian Order, 1998 Annual Meeting of the International Studies Association, 17-21 March1998.
14Participant, Five College Program in Peace and World Security Studies Faculty Institute, ‘Dilemmas of Hegemony: U.S. Paramountcy and Its Domestic and Foreign Critics,’Amherst College, 10-13 June1997.Organizer of the panels Changing Responses to Refugee Crises and The Role of International Governmental and Non-Governmental Organizations in Refugee Crises, Annual Meeting of the International Studies Association, 18-22 March 1997.Rapporteur, conference on ‘Synergy in Early Warning,’Centre for Refugee Studies, York University, Toronto, 15-18 March1997.Participant, 1996 ACUNS/ASIL Summer Workshop on International Organization Studies, ‘The Role of Governmental, Intergovernmental, and Nongovernmental Institutions in Global Governance: Nurturing the Next Generation of Scholars,’Brown University, 28 July 28-9August1996.Participant, Centre for Refugee Studies Summer Course on Refugee Issues, York University, 19-27 June1996.Guest Editor, Refuge,special issue on ‘Refugees and Intervention,’May/June 1996.Organizer of the panel Challenging Sovereignty: Globalization, Organization, and Identity, Annual Meeting of the International Studies Association, 16-20 April 1996.Coordinator of an electronic conference as part of the ongoing project ‘Toward the Reformulation of International Refugee Law’of the Refugee Law Research Unit, Centre for Refugee Studies, York University. January to June 1996.Coordinator, workshop on ‘Genocide in Rwanda: International Responsibilities and Responses,’Washington, DC, 8-9 December1995, part of the multi-donor Joint Evaluation of Emergency Assistance to Rwanda.Discussant for the conference The Rwanda Crisis: Healing and Preventive Strategies, York University, Toronto, 3-5 December1995.Chair and discussant on the panel Refugees, Immigrants, and State Sovereignty, Annual Meeting of the International Studies Association, 21-25 February1995.Discussant on the panel Subnational and Transnational Actors in International Politics, Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, 15-17 April1993.Other Professional Serviceand LeadershipMember, Ad Hoc Committee on the ISA-United Nations AcademicImpact Program Project, 2015-17Member, Professional Rights and Responsibilities Committee, International Studies Association, 2015-2017Editorial Board,Journal of Human RightsEditorial Board, Journal of International Political TheoryEditorial Board, International Studies ReviewEditorial Staff, PoliticsAHRC Fellowship ReviewerESRC Postgraduate Fellowship ExaminerLead editor (and founder),H-Human-Rights, a human rights discussion network(2007-)Co-moderator, ACUNS-IO, an electronic discussion list focused on international organization, co-sponsored by the Academic Council on the United Nations System and the International Organization section of the International Studies Association(1996-2007)Member, Editorial Board, PSRT-L (Political Science Research and Teaching List)University Committees/ServiceSchool Postgraduate Taught Commmittee (Glasgow)
15Co-convenor, College Theme on Security, Justice, Rights and Conflict (Glasgow)Working Group on Global Post-Graduate Taught Programmes (Glasgow)Adviser of Studies (Glasgow)Convenor, Working Group on Globalization Studies (Gettysburg)Faculty Advisor, International Affairs Association (Gettysburg)Member, Steering Committee, Five College Program in Peace and World Security Studies (MHC)Member, Five College African Studies Council (MHC)Member, University Web Development Committee (AUC)Faculty Advisor, All African Human Rights Moot Court, Maputo, Mozambique (AUC)Member, Departmental Curriculum Committee (AUC)Faculty Advisor, Friends of UNHCR (AUC)Chair, University Computer Users Committee (AUC)Member, African Studies Advisory Committee (AUC)
Kurt Mills
3 August 2016
Print pagePDF page
Director
2016–2019 From July 2017, Kurt Mills will be Professor of International Relations and Human Rights at the University of Dundee. He is currently Senior Lecturer in International Human Rights at the University of Glasgow. He previously taught at the American University in Cairo, Mount Holyoke College, James Madison University, and Gettysburg College, and served as the Assistant Director of the Five College Program in Peace and World Security Studies at Hampshire College. He is also the founder and Convenor of the Glasgow Human Rights Network, as well as the founder of the human rights section of the International Studies Association. His work addresses questions related to humanitarianism, international criminal justice and the responsibility to protect, with a regional focus on sub-Saharan African. He is the author of two books – Human Rights in the Emerging Global Order: A New Sovereignty? and, most recently, International Responses to Mass Atrocities in Africa: Responsibility to Protect, Prosecute and Palliate (University of Pennsylvania Press, 2015); co-editor of two books – Human Rights Protection in Global Politics: Responsibilities of States and Non-State Actors (Palgrave Macmillan, 2015) and Moral Victories: The Ethics of Winning Wars (OUP, forthcoming 2017); and author of numerous articles.
I teach international relations and human rights at the University of Glasgow, and am Convenor of the Glasgow Human Rights Network. You can find my web page, including CV, at kurtmills.org.
Mills, Kurt. International responses to mass atrocities in Africa: responsibility to protect, prosecute, and palliate
M.D. Crosston
CHOICE: Current Reviews for Academic Libraries. 53.10 (June 2016): p1543.
Copyright: COPYRIGHT 2016 American Library Association CHOICE
http://www.ala.org/acrl/choice/about
Listen
Full Text:
Mills, Kurt. International responses to mass atrocities in Africa: responsibility to protect, prosecute, and palliate. Pennsylvania, 2015. 302p bibl index afp ISBN 9780812247374 cloth, $69.95; ISBN 9780812291605 ebook, $69.95
(cc) 53-4583
JZ6369
CIP
Mills (Univ. of Glasgow, Scotland) has written a fascinating, important, timely work that undoubtedly will be long-lasting about what the international community needs to do about preventing atrocities. As the author mentions at the beginning, this treatise is simultaneously historical, analytical, and normative. Mills provides four thought-provoking, important African case studies (Rwanda, Congo, Darfur, Uganda) as the main body, but the work is not overly historical. Providing probing analysis and lensing this through a normative framework that takes as a given a global responsibility to "do something" has created the best kind of research, something this reviewer calls "scholarly policy." This means that the work holds its own in terms of intellectual and theoretical gravitas, but it is also written in a manner that is accessible for all readers and clearly aims to provide positive momentum in policy generation. Mills does not want his work to sit on the sidelines or not be addressed and considered by real-world decision makers. This is a good thing, given that the topic addressed is so depressingly serious. After all, three of the four tragic case studies are basically still ongoing. A much-needed addition to a growing literature. Summing Up: **** Essential. All levels/libraries.--M. D. Crosston, Bellevue University
Review – International Responses to Mass Atrocities in Africa
CHRISTOF ROYER, JAN 27 2017, 145 VIEWS
International Responses to Mass Atrocities in Africa – Responsibility to Protect, Prosecute and Palliate
by Kurt Mills
University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, 2015
“How have, can, and should mass atrocities be addressed?” (Mills 2015, p.1). In the aftermath of 2016, a year in which we witnessed atrocities in Syria on an almost unimaginable scale and a year in which the so-called “international community” responded to the ongoing slaughter with cataclysmic (yet, of course, not unfamiliar) inactivity, which question could possibly be more topical for students, scholars and practitioners of international relations?
Precisely this question constitutes the linchpin of Kurt Mills’ book International Responses to Mass Atrocities in Africa – Responsibility to Protect, Prosecute and Palliate. In seeking to shed light on it, Mills tries to combine a historical (“have”) with an analytical (“can”) and a normative (“should”) approach and weave them into a coherent narrative. This, no doubt, is an ambitious and complex undertaking which requires Mills to strike a balance between theoretical and empirical analysis. Therefore, Mills structures his book in the following way: He starts with a (mainly) theoretical Chapter that “interrogates international obligations” in the context of mass atrocities such as genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes or ethnic cleansing. This Chapter, in other words, establishes the theoretical framework for the subsequent four case studies on Rwanda, the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Uganda and Darfur. In the last – and, unfortunately, by far the shortest – Chapter, Mills addresses some of the normative questions and conundrums that have emerged from the previous analysis: In particular, Mills argues that labels (such as “mass atrocities” or “genocide”) matter and that the media, diplomats and activists should employ these labels with increased sensitivity; secondly, he maintains that it would be a mistake to believe that different actors, norms and institutions of the “international community” necessarily pursue the same goals and purposes in a given conflict; and finally, he concludes that questions of global authority which inevitably arise in the context of mass atrocities are – despite the existence of organs like the UN Security Council or the International Criminal Court (ICC) – presently not sufficiently understood and, as a consequence, cannot be satisfactorily addressed.
Having provided this necessarily brief overview of the book`s structure, let us return to and look in more detail at Chapter 1 in which Mills constructs the theoretical lens through which he later analyses a selection of conflicts. The core argument developed here is that the international community’s responsibility with respect to mass atrocities entails, in fact, three separate responsibilities – he refers to this tripartite responsibility as “R2P³”: First, the international community has what Mills calls the “responsibility to palliate”, that is, the duty to provide humanitarian aid in cases of mass atrocities (p.16). The second international obligation, according to Mills, is the “responsibility to prosecute” perpetrators of mass atrocities under international law, primarily, of course, through the ICC. Finally, there is an international “responsibility to protect” civilians from mass atrocities. While this “responsibility to protect” is, as Mills indicates, the central dimension of R2P³, it has only recently been recognised as an international responsibility, most notably, with the publication of the report of the International Committee on Sovereignty and State Sovereignty in 2001 and the universal endorsement of its underlying principles at the 2005 World Summit (pp.31-39). The central theme of the book, and, in my view, its most valuable and original contribution to the existing literature on mass atrocities, is Mills’ diagnosis of the inherently problematic relationship between these three international responsibilities. This problem is succinctly summarised in the following way (p.48):
They all have the same goal – to protect lives. One might assume, then, that they are mutually enforcing. That is, the implementation of one would support the implementation of another…However, this is not necessarily the case. Indeed, applying one or more of these responses may, in fact, get in the way of, or undermine other responses.
According to the author, this “very complicated relationship” (p.51) between the responsibilities to palliate, prosecute and protect stems from the fact that “they all have a different balance” (p.39): Palliation, Mills maintains, is based on humanitarianism, prosecution is, in principle, legal action, and protection is, first and foremost, a political activity. This can lead to vexed conundrums in real-life situations: The paradox of palliation, for example, is that while it often provides desperately needed humanitarian assistance on the ground, it can also create a dangerous “illusion of adequate response when, in fact, the response is far from adequate” (p.48); after all, humanitarianism can only alleviate the suffering of victims but lacks the potential to end the conflict itself. This, Mills argues, is precisely what happened during the genocide in Rwanda in 1994 where the presence of aid workers created a deceiving illusion of protection which provided a fatal cover for inaction, reduced the prospects of effective protection and thus contributed to the continuation of the conflict (p.75).
Serious tensions can also arise between the responsibilities to prosecute and protect. Legal prosecution of perpetrators, Mills rightly observes, can, in theory, work at three different levels: First, international criminal law has, of course, primarily been developed as a “retrospective system” which is designed to legally prosecute perpetrators after they had committed atrocities (p.42). Recently, however, the idea has emerged that international criminal law can and should be used as a tool to prevent atrocities; the threat of criminal prosecution, so the argument goes, can be utilised as an effective deterrent to prevent the further escalation of crises. For Mills, however, empirical evidence clearly demonstrates that the deterrent capability of the ICC is “close to non-existent” (p.42). Finally, there remains the so-called “conflict management strategy”, that is, the prosecution of perpetrators during ongoing conflicts with the aim to facilitate the protection of potential victims. Again, Mills regards this strategy as deeply problematic (p.49):
Prosecution can punish people for their crimes. This is its institutional purpose. However, inserting prosecution into the middle of a conflict can have unforeseen consequences and require difficult trade-offs. The most obvious…is that potential prosecution can have an impact on peace negotiations, with the very unhumanitarian impact of prolonging the conflict. Combatants with arrest warrants against them may be less likely to come to an accommodation, knowing what possible fate might await them. Such international action might also interfere with domestic efforts to institute amnesty laws which might contribute to peace processes and post-conflict reconciliation.
Here Mills alludes to a problem which is known as the “peace versus justice” debate in the international criminal justice literature. The dilemma, to put it simply, is that the goal of delivering justice through criminal prosecution is often detrimental to efforts to establish peace. The textbook example in this context is, of course, the recent conflict in Uganda which Mills discusses at length in Chapter 4. This Chapter, in my view, perfectly reveals the true complexity of Mills` task, a complexity that excuses, maybe even justifies, Mills` habit of drawing seemingly overly cautious conclusions such as this: “Peace and justice are not inherently dichotomous” but “the dominant discourse in Uganda has put peace and justice in opposition” (p.159). All three dimensions of R2P³, Mills further argues, have been (and still are) at work in the Ugandan conflict; at times they have supported and at other times of the conflict they have undermined each other. Chapter 3, which analyses the protracted conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo, leads to a broadly similar picture. For what we see in the DRC, Mills concludes, “is a muddled mess where precursor and proto R2P activities debuted, international criminal justice gained prominence but was also problematized, and the dilemmas for humanitarians continued” (p.83). Needless to say, then, that the two remaining case studies on Rwanda and Darfur only confirm this general picture of highly complicated and, indeed, impenetrable crises in which it is a delicate task to balance the imperatives of humanitarian palliation, legal prosecution and political protection[1].
To be clear, Mills’ emphasis on the complexity and intractability of these crises should be regarded as one of the book`s strengths. What I do find disappointing, though, is the absence of constructive proposals how the tensions between the three responsibilities of R2P³ could be defused. Hence, while Mills, more elaborately than anyone before him, I believe, demonstrates that and how the imperatives of palliation, prosecution and protection can be mutually undermining, he, unfortunately, stops short of contriving substantiated solutions for this problem. In particular, it would be interesting to know whether Mills thinks that there are context-independent guidelines which could facilitate the easing of tensions between the three respective responsibilities or – as I think he does – if he insists on the unique nature and peculiar complexities of each and every conflict and thus advocates a case-by-case approach. This question, I think, could and should have been addressed in a more comprehensive final Chapter.
This critical remark, however, should by no means diminish the overall quality of this remarkable work. Mills’ convincing core thesis of the three frequently colliding responsibilities of R2P³ is skillfully developed in theory and corroborated by meticulously researched case studies. As such, this book should be required reading not only for students and scholars of International Relations but also for practitioners who all too often rather uncritically assume a harmony between humanitarian palliation, legal prosecution and political protection[2].
[1] Mills nicely illustrates this by providing tables which succinctly summarise the “Protection Conundrum” generated by each of the four conflicts (pp. 80, 127, 172, 203).
[2] See, for example, Fatou Bensouda`s recent argument that “accountability and the rule of law provide the framework to protect individuals and nations from massive atrocities…The Court (ICC) – and justice in general – are part of the responsibility to protect” (Stanley Foundation 2012).
References
Mills, Kurt, 2015, International Responses to Mass Atrocities in Africa – Responsibility to Protect, Prosecute and Palliate (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press)
Stanley Foundation 2012, ICC Prosecutor Elect Talks Court`s Role in R2P, Video, [ONLINE] Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suJIXSsGzL0&feature=youtu.be [Accessed 9 January 2017]
Roost on Mills, 'International Responses to Mass Atrocities in Africa: Responsibility to Protect, Prosecute, and Palliate'
Author:
Kurt Mills
Reviewer:
Laura Roost
Kurt Mills. International Responses to Mass Atrocities in Africa: Responsibility to Protect, Prosecute, and Palliate. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2015. 320 pp. $69.95 (cloth), ISBN 978-0-8122-4737-4.
Reviewed by Laura Roost (Pennsylvania State University)
Published on H-Human-Rights (December, 2016)
Commissioned by Courtney Hillebrecht
Bridging the Gap between Promise and Politics in the Responsibility to Protect Doctrine
Kurt Mills’s International Responses to Mass Atrocities in Africa is a much-needed addition to literature on the Responsibility to Protect (R2P), norms development, and humanitarianism. Mills makes explicit what is intended by the R2P-inspired call to “do something” about mass atrocities as he explains the three P’s of response (R2P3): responsibility to protect, responsibility to prosecute, and responsibility to palliate. His most interesting contributions to the literature are the framing of humanitarian work as palliation and questioning the usefulness of palliation when it is not undertaken in concert with other approaches. Mills’s perspective provides ample reason to be more reflective about responses to mass atrocity so that they can actually accomplish their intended goals.
The project of this book is to be more specific about the expectations of responses to mass atrocities. Examination of cases shows that goals are varying and, at times, conflicting, which makes naming them conceptually helpful. Protection focuses on a more substantial responsibility than is envisioned in more traditional protection of civilians (PoC) approaches. Prosecution is emphasized in the actions of ad hoc tribunals, national courts, special courts, or the International Criminal Court (ICC). Palliation is the work done by humanitarians to care for those in the middle of conflict, and Mills’s use of this term evoking end of life palliative care is quite purposeful. He describes the important and difficult work of humanitarians while also exposing the practical limitations of such work, as it focuses on the symptoms rather than the cure.
Access to populations in need of such care often requires an impartiality on the part of humanitarians which makes it difficult for them to engage in the other goals of R2P3. Being overly critical of the governments of host countries in which humanitarians operate may result in their expulsion. This consideration can also underscore conflicts between the broader, political goals of human rights responses--particularly prosecution--and the specific goals of humanitarianism, which focus primarily on keeping people alive in the middle of conflict. Mills uses the analogy of the refugee camp as hospice as he explains the challenge of humanitarian care, in which people are kept alive “until the war--either directly through an attack by armed forces or indirectly through malnutrition and war-associated disease--kills them” (p. 22). Through explaining the three P’s of R2P3 Mills is able to highlight the at times incongruous nature of these components, and the complexity of responses to mass atrocity.
It is the lack of specificity about what response is required, what the relationship between actors ought to be, and where responsibility lies that allows governments to strategically use the language of R2P to their political advantage. Without such specificity, states are able to actively obfuscate their responsibility to meaningfully do something as they instead back measures that provide a veneer of response without doing what actually needs to be done to reach the goals of R2P. In other words, the norm of R2P has grown even as international political will remains selective.
In choosing cases on the African continent, Mills shows this variation of political will as he compares the relative lack of response in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) despite millions of dead against the much more substantial attention given to anything that can be construed as part of the war on terror. While both certainly feature violations of basic human rights, Mills makes clear that action related to the war on terror garners significantly more international political will than do the horrors related to the DRC and Africa’s World War.
Mills goes through extensive reviews of four key cases to provide cautionary tales of piecemeal responses that permit atrocities to cross borders (Rwanda to the DRC, and Uganda to both the DRC and South Sudan), of responses in which the lack of coordination of actors can disproportionately impact humanitarians given their daily local interactions (kidnappings or attacks on humanitarians after ICC warrants in the DRC and Darfur), or of responses that rely on the state in such a way that humanitarians find themselves either enabling state control of local populations (Uganda) or being unable to more overtly criticize human rights violations if such criticism risks endangering humanitarian access to populations in need (DRC, Uganda, and Darfur).
The must-read case study which best highlights the gap between the norm of R2P and the responses to mass atrocities at the local level is the chapter on Uganda. In this carefully presented chapter, Mills is able to show the full complexity of responses to mass atrocity, and the problem of unreflective imperatives to do something. The Ugandan government was able to co-opt humanitarian imperatives to “do something” to such an extent that humanitarian aid could be counted upon in calculations of government actions to bring populations under more direct government control. This was shown in the example of Ugandan government’s mass relocation projects, which would have been prohibitively expensive had not food, medical supplies, and shelter aid come from humanitarians who intended to respond to the very real needs of people on the ground without looking at the overall cause of the crisis. The government was also able to encourage international concern about and criminal warrants for the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) while escaping criticism of its actions, even when some of these actions employed tactics similar to those of the LRA. This case also showed the challenges of the peace versus justice debate in an ongoing conflict, when attempts at prosecution may prolong conflict while at the same time local peace initiatives may be inadequate for victims who do want prosecutions. This chapter builds on previous cases of palliation that made it easier for states to avoid actual responsibility to “do something” while simultaneously lowering the costs for the Ugandan government to commit atrocities of its own.
Through these cases, Mills shows that each of the three P’s, unsurprisingly, do not automatically reinforce each other. The goals for different actors can conflict with the work of other actors. This is most strongly emphasized in conflicts between human rights actors’ emphasis on prosecution and humanitarian actors’ emphasis on providing care to those in the midst of war. Mills also highlights the challenges for humanitarians themselves in terms of the broader goals of ending mass atrocity, as their palliative neutrality can instead prolong the conflict or even be co-opted by state actors. Indeed, these state agents sometimes find thatthey can include humanitarian care as part of their strategic and logistical considerations in order to provide a veneer of good will toward ending mass atrocity. Mills’s framing particular humanitarian responses as palliation helps highlight the ways in which the very good motivations of humanitarians--the motivation to provide care--may sometimes interfere with broader goals to end the conflict fueling the atrocities.
Mills provides voice to the realistic power concerns of those who may hold responsibility but do not want to use resources to do something any more than will pacify activists, those who are concerned about the impact of R2P on their sovereignty but who also see ways that the language of R2P can be capitalized on to advocate for interventions which benefit their side, and those human rights and humanitarian actors on the ground whose goals often need to be balanced with the practical questions of what can be done in that moment given lack of political will to provide the support needed for such actors to more fully realize their goals. In providing this voice, he also calls readers to be more cautious and reflective. Most importantly, his text provides concrete reasons why those using international norms like R2P to encourage their own states to respond to mass atrocity themselves need to take such power concerns much more realistically. In the messiness of response to mass atrocity, if the political will garnered is minimal it is unlikely to meet local activists’ demands.s. Unsupported and poorly coordinated responses can actually lead to spreading conflict across other borders rather than ending atrocity. Unsupported humanitarians are left to garner what access they can, which often involves turning an eye away from atrocities committed by the government in whose state they find themselves, or at least avoiding systemic documentation and outcry against such behaviors. The takeaway for those committed to a meaningful response to mass atrocity that can live up to the norm of R2P is that they should pay close attention.
Mills also shows the distance between the development of the R2P norm and the implementation of the norm as he carefully shows the conflicts within the norm itself, and the strong influence of political will on the success or failure of its implementation. In showing this process of norm creation, development, and implantation on the African continent, Mills situates the continent as a fundamental site of knowledge for international relations, both in the development of R2P after international failures in Rwanda and in the implementation of R2P. He frequently highlights the disparity between the norm and the practice in very helpful ways that permit readers to see exactly why specificity about R2P3 is required for successful attainment of goals. It is the selective application of norms by those without the political will to fully implement them that is often the problem. This is certainly not a new phenomenon, as this challenge from power politics is seen more broadly in human rights norms, but it is helpful that Mills specifically names the problem within the R2P literature.
In helping readers understand the palliative component of humanitarianism, the selective application of R2P norms, and the tensions between human rights goals and humanitarian goals, Mills shows the messiness of international efforts to “do something” when the political will does not exist for concrete measures that will end mass atrocities. Part of this is answered by naming the goals of responses in R2P3 so that expectations are clear, facilitating coordination and thoughtful responses. The other part of the answer is to encourage advocacy from specialists and other readers of his text as they use the more specific language of R2P3 and a healthy hope that drives all such actors committed to seeing more meaningful application of norms. The epigraph quoting Zap Mama which starts the book shows why Mills’s cautionary tale still gives cause for hope: “it’s not too late for making a new world; it’s not too late for making a better world.” Making R2P3 explicit makes it possible to see its differing, and sometimes conflicting, goals, and, to plan a response accordingly. Not just any response will do, if the goal is to end atrocities.
In addition to helping practitioners better coordinate, Mills’s approach can strengthen the advocacy efforts of all who wish to see R2P employed to actually end mass atrocities under way. Specificity in the advocated response lets governments and international organizations know exactly what response will satisfy the demands of the advocacy, making it difficult to satisfy demands for actions with veneers which lack substance. It is better to have some response than no response, but Mills demonstrates that this type of response to situations of atrocity often leaves victims in an in-between world by keeping them alive without making anything about the underlying situation better.
Mills helps us more clearly understand what is increasingly meant by R2P, particularly the question of R2P3, and is especially successful at showing the tensions between the conflicting responses to mass atrocity and the contexts in which humanitarians find themselves. Mill's work helps to question the gap between the goals of humanitarian action and the practice. By connecting this with palliative care, readers are able to rethink humanitarianism itself as well as responses to mass atrocities more broadly so that such responses can make a new and better world.
Printable Version: http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showpdf.php?id=46950
Citation: Laura Roost. Review of Mills, Kurt, International Responses to Mass Atrocities in Africa: Responsibility to Protect, Prosecute, and Palliate. H-Human-Rights, H-Net Reviews. December, 2016.
URL: http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=46950
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.
Add a Comment