International Intervention and the Severity of Genocides and Politicides

Abstract

This study examines the effectiveness of overt military intervention in slowing or stopping the killing during ongoing instances of genocide or politicide. Six alternative hypotheses regarding the potential effects of intervention on genocide/politicide severity are tested in a cross-national longitudinal analysis of all ongoing genodices or politicides from 1995 to 1997. The results suggest that interventions that directly challenge the perpetrator or aid the target of the brutal policy are the only effective type of military responses, increasing the probability that the magnitude of the slaughter can be slowed or stopped. Impartial interventions seem to be ineffective at reducing severity, and interventions to challenge the perpetrator do not make matters worse for the targets of genocide or politicide. The findings are consistent with recent arguments that attempts to prevent or alleviate mass killings should focus on opposing, restraining, or disarming perpetrators and/or removing them from power.

The Dynamics of Mass Killings: Testing Time-Series Models of One-Sided Violence in the Bosnian Civil War

“…However, recent studies nurture the pessimism that various instruments used by the international community are only limitedly able to prevent or at least reduce the killing and maiming of the unarmed. In a systematic examination of international interventions and the severity of genocides, Krain (2005) finds that only partisan military interventions reduce the brutality. The Bosnian case seems to support this view as the United Nations Protection Force (UNPROFOR) remained largely impotent when the Serbs continued the shelling or siege of areas that it had declared to be "safe.…”

A porous humanitarian shield: The laws of war, the red cross, and the killing of civilians

“…Another strand of literature blames the international community, or rather its absence in conflict areas, for the atrocities against the civilian population in times of armed conflict. Valentino (2004), for example, advances the view that international actors by means of military intervention can limit or even prevent the occurrence of mass killings during wars (see also Krain 2005).…”

“…Some contributions on the effectiveness of peacekeeping missions suggest that impartial interventions of the international community may have adverse effects on the civilian populations. Krain's (2005) study of the genocides between 1955 and 1997 indicates that only partial and militarily bolstered interventions enable the international community to shelter the civilian population against the malign intentions of the perpetrators and to dampen mass-killings. The UN peacekeepers' effective contribution to the protection of civilians depends crucially on whether they have a respective mandate (Hultman 2010) and the mission needs to be sufficiently staffed with military and police forces (Hultman et al 2013).…”

Scaling criminology: From street violence to atrocity crimes

“…Can such indiscriminate violence be met by programs of selective deterrence? Krain (2005) shows that interventions in such contexts that directly challenge perpetrators and restrain and disarm them are effective in slowing and stopping mass violence. The concentration of resources and targets makes these practices particularly adaptive to an environment where control is contested, where the capacity of protective forces is low and where criminal justice agencies are institutionally weak.…”