Guest  

 
Search: 
Search By: SubjectAbstractAuthorTitleFull-Text

 

Showing 1 through 5 of 550 records.
Pages: Previous - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ... 110 - Next  Jump:
2004 - International Studies Association Words: 262 words || 
Info
1. Kinsella, Helen. "'What is a a civilian? Who is a civilian?: An Arendtian analyses of the category and concept of the 'civilian' in international humanitarian law." Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Studies Association, Le Centre Sheraton Hotel, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, Mar 17, 2004 <Not Available>. 2019-09-16 <http://citation.allacademic.com/meta/p72614_index.html>
Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: My effort here is to think through the development of the concept and category of the 'civilian' as codified within the 1949 IV Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilians in light of the distinction Arendt draws between a 'who' and a 'what.' I argue that the concept and category of the 'civilian' articulated in the 1949 IV Convention draws from and depends upon the demarcation of necessarily physical characteristics all civilians are said to share, weakness, dependency, and vulnerability, but which are uniquely and innately ascribed to the female sex. As a result, the civilian can be theorized as a 'what' category--a category necessarily determined by traits all members of the female sex are said to share by virtue of their reproductive and sexual capacities. Reduced to biological species-being, held captive by a biological process, the 'civilian' (and necessarily the female sex) is constructed as an exquisitely apolitical category. To return to Arendt's terms, the civilian is denied the capacity and possibility of relevatory political action which distinguishes 'who' we are from what' we are. Indeed, the juridical protection of the 'civilian' is premised upon an abstaining from participation in the hostilities,a vague and undefined sphere of politics. Informing this exploratory paper is the political and practical question: How may a sustained analyses of the 'civilian' in light of this (sexed) distinction of who and what assist us in evaluating the rights and protections afforded to civilians? Due to panel changes, this paper was not presented, please email me at Helen_Kinsella@ksg.harvard.edu for a copy

2007 - International Studies Association 48th Annual Convention Pages: 25 pages || Words: 6621 words || 
Info
2. Jose-Thota, Betcy. "The Ambiguous Civilian: Challenges to the Civilian Immunity Norm" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Studies Association 48th Annual Convention, Hilton Chicago, CHICAGO, IL, USA, Feb 28, 2007 <Not Available>. 2019-09-16 <http://citation.allacademic.com/meta/p178810_index.html>
Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: Why are civilians intentionally killed in armed conflict even though it is a violation of the civilian immunity norm and international humanitarian law? Many explanations start with an assumption that actors share a common understanding of what is a civilian. This paper asks whether this is in fact true through an exploration of the definition of civilian used by humanitarian practitioners and former combatants.

2009 - The Law and Society Association Words: 104 words || 
Info
3. Grosso, Catherine. and Baldus, David. "Military Murder versus Civilian Murder: The Impact of Civilian Aggravators on Military Death Sentencing, 1984-2005" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the The Law and Society Association, Grand Hyatt, Denver, Colorado, May 25, 2009 <Not Available>. 2019-09-16 <http://citation.allacademic.com/meta/p303789_index.html>
Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: This paper is part of a larger study on the military capital punishment system. The code governing the military death penalty system mirrors the code of a typical civilian death sentencing system. Yet, despite the language of the military death sentencing statute and rules, after 1990 a person accused of a murder that implicates military discipline and control faces significantly more punitive outcomes at each step of charging and sentencing than a similarly situated person accused of committing a conventional civilian murder. The paper explores the equal justice implications of this finding as well as implications for the rule of law.

2013 - ASC Annual Meeting Words: 138 words || 
Info
4. Lentz, Ted. "Trends of Civilians in Police Departments: Factors Promoting Heavier Reliance on Civilians in Police Investigations" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the ASC Annual Meeting, Palmer House Hilton, Chicago, IL, Nov 14, 2013 <Not Available>. 2019-09-16 <http://citation.allacademic.com/meta/p665401_index.html>
Publication Type: Individual Paper
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: The use of civilians working for police departments is a phenomenon that has not always characterized police functions in the past. In the United States prior to the 1960s, sworn officers almost exclusively performed police work. However, current trends promote the use of civilians in supplementing traditional police methods, especially for skilled jobs such as crime analysis, crime mapping, and forensic investigation.
This essay examines this process and investigates a number of elements, which permitted, assisted, and encouraged the use of civilians in police departments. Among these factors include fiscal necessities, advancements in technology (especially the use of computers), the social process of collective behavior, and the evolution of policing since the beginning of the 20th century. The essay also reviews current police administration policies associated with civilianization and briefly evaluates the use of civilians for improving policing.

2008 - ISA's 49th ANNUAL CONVENTION, BRIDGING MULTIPLE DIVIDES Pages: 53 pages || Words: 17585 words || 
Info
5. Downes, Alexander. "Killing (Civilians) to Win? Some Preliminary Evidence on the Military Effectiveness of Civilian Victimization in War" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the ISA's 49th ANNUAL CONVENTION, BRIDGING MULTIPLE DIVIDES, Hilton San Francisco, SAN FRANCISCO, CA, USA, Mar 26, 2008 Online <APPLICATION/PDF>. 2019-09-16 <http://citation.allacademic.com/meta/p253626_index.html>
Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: Is killing civilians an effective strategy for achieving political or military goals? Under what circumstances might it be more or less effective? For the purposes of this investigation, I define effectiveness as achieving a positive outcome in the war or reducing the state’s military casualties relative to those of the adversary. My preliminary findings are surprising. Controlling for other determinants of victory in war, such as initiation, regime type, and relative capabilities, indicators of civilian victimization exert a positive and in some cases significant effect on the probability of winning. Furthermore, although civilian victimization is associated with significant increases in a state’s battle deaths, the number of civilian casualties a state inflicts is negatively correlated with its loss-exchange ratio, the number of battle deaths it suffers relative to its opponent. Does this mean that civilian victimization is an effective means to win wars at a reasonable cost (at least compared to the adversary’s costs)? Not exactly. The problem for inferring the effect of civilian victimization is that it is not randomly applied. Two factors in particular guide the selection of civilian victimization as a strategy. First, states tend to choose it in the most difficult circumstances: costly and protracted wars of attrition. This selection process makes it difficult to determine the effect of civilian victimization because we tend to observe it in the cases in which the target is the most resolved to resist. In roughly half of such instances, a side that victimized noncombatants went on to win the war, and civilian victimization can plausibly help explain victory in at most half of these cases. Yet states that refrained from targeting civilians won only 44 percent of the time, suggesting that civilian victimization in the face of difficult circumstances is not necessarily a bad bet. Second, states victimize noncombatants to achieve territorial objectives, but to use a strategy of civilian victimization in such cases, the state has to be winning the war. The reason civilians are targeted in cases like this is to eliminate them from the territory the attacker intends to take from its adversary. Taking enemy territory, in other words, is a prerequisite for targeting civilians. Military advantage makes civilian victimization possible rather than the other way around. This is true even in cases in which an attacker goes on to lose, such as the German invasion of the Soviet Union or the Greek advance into Anatolia in 1919. These states were winning and conquering enemy territory when they implemented strategies of civilian victimization. In short, most cases of civilian victimization in wars of territorial annexation cannot tell us much about the effect of targeting civilians on winning or losing. One pattern that emerges clearly from the data, however, is that states employing civilian victimization have become less likely to win wars over time. Since World War II, many of the interstate wars in which civilian victimization has occurred—Korea, Vietnam, Iran-Iraq—have ended in draws. The few “successes” have come in wars when one state has captured territory from another and in the process cleansed enemy civilians.

Pages: Previous - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ... 110 - Next  Jump:

©2019 All Academic, Inc.   |   All Academic Privacy Policy