Queering Genocide: How Can Sexuality Be Integrated Into Analyses Of Genocide?


Regardless of rape being designated an act of genocide in worldwide regulation (Worldwide Felony Tribunal for Rwanda, 1998, pp.176-177) and sexual violence being extremely prevalent throughout genocidal contexts (Mackinnon, 1994), most literature learning genocide fails to acknowledge the function that heterosexuality performs in genocidal violence. While there’s a longtime college of thought which appears at genocide from a gendered perspective, it typically stops wanting exploring how heterosexuality as an episteme informs gender, sexual or racial stereotypes, and genocidal violence on the idea of those stereotypes. With a view to appropriate this, this text maps the literature surrounding the research of sexuality and genocide and identifies gaps within the area. It begins by analyses of genocide which take a look at sex-specific violence. Past this, it outlines constructivist scholarship which sees gender as a system of logic, figuring out significantly with the work of von Joeden-Forgey (2010, 2012), who sees the weaponisation of gender stereotypes to be attribute of genocidal violence. Lastly, it outlines queer[1] IR and transnational queer research as our bodies of scholarship which ought to inform research of genocide and contrasts these with established research of sexuality and genocide. The article concludes that from this theoretical foundation, the epistemological potentialities of a queer genocide research which appears past discrete identification classes might be made clear.

Sexuality and Genocide

Gender and Genocide

Previous to the 1990’s gender was seldom thought-about to be related within the research of genocide on account of a global safety agenda that was outlined by Chilly Conflict bipolarity, nuclear deterrence and a main give attention to sovereignty over different issues (Buzan, 1997, p.6), similar to human rights. This modified, nonetheless, because of the relative success of feminist campaigns drawing consideration to gender-based and sexual violence, alongside the resurgence of gendered genocidal violence similar to mass-rape in Rwanda and The Balkans. In response to the 1994 Rwandan Genocide, Catherine Mackinnon drew consideration to the truth that human rights have historically been conceived on the subject of the male topic, leading to an ignorance of human rights violations dedicated in opposition to girls (1994, pp.5-6).

Difficult this, Mackinnon highlighted the systematic use of rape as a weapon of battle throughout genocidal contexts (1994, p.9), labelling rape an act of genocide (1994, p.16). The profound impression of that is evidenced by the Worldwide Felony Tribunal for Rwanda’s choice to ascertain authorized precedent in treating sexual violence as a criminal offense of genocide (1998, pp.176-177). Moreover, Mackinnon’s paper generated an enormous surge in feminist scholarship on girls’s experiences of genocide (e.g. see: Rittner and Roth, 1993; Smith, 1994; Allen, 1996’ Lentin, 1999; Sharlach, 2000). While most feminist evaluation of genocide appears at girls as victims, an growing physique of scholarship attracts consideration to the function of ladies as holders of violent company (e.g. Sharlach,1999; Sjoberg and Gentry, 2007, 2015; Brown, 2014).

Reflecting on gendered analyses of genocide within the early Nineties, Jones famous that it did not take account of the truth that the vast majority of folks killed in genocidal contexts are males, who represent “the absent topics” (1994, p.120) inside this physique of labor. In search of to problem this, he deployed the time period “gendercide” (2002, p.70) to spotlight sex-selective violence in opposition to males in genocidal contexts, noting that the mass-killing of “battle-age” males “…stays a pervasive characteristic of up to date battle” (2000, p.190). Jones thus attracts consideration to the existence of males as main targets for execution, and the following relevance of gender within the evaluation of males’s experiences of genocide[2]. Though the above scholarship does effectively to take a look at lived experiences of gender in relation to genocide, it restricts its evaluation to the discrete research of ladies’s and males’s experiences. As such, it sees gender as an empirical class (Peterson, 2005, p.501) and essentialises female and male experiences, reifying these identification classes versus interrogating the particular gender roles and stereotypes which make completely different types of violence intelligible.

Carpenter, who sees gender as a broad system of which means, challenges Jones (2002) in noting that gender is related even when killing is non-sex particular, offering the instance of disproportionate numbers of males being killed in genocide, on account of them occupying social roles perceived as threatening (i.e. political and navy elites) (2002, p.83). Equally, von Joeden-Forgey sees the perpetration of “life pressure atrocities” as an indicator of genocide, labelling these as acts perpetrated with a view to “…inflict most injury to the non secular core of these generative and foundational items we name households.” (2010, p.2). Elaborating on this, von Joeden-Forgey particulars that genocidal assaults usually goal people “…primarily based on their (perceived) symbolic standing inside social and organic group copy.”, with males focused as husbands/heads of households/political leaders and ladies focused as moms/wives/daughters, and so forth (2012, p.95).

The incidence of such acts of depravity, von Joeden-Forgey argues, is symptomatic of genocidal violence extra broadly and demonstrates that gender goes far past sex-selective killing, as argued by Adam Jones (2002, p.70; 2015, p.134), to actively form all the character of genocide. While von Joeden-Forgey does effectively to determine socially constructed gender stereotypes as impacting upon all genocidal motion, her evaluation doesn’t go far sufficient. Regardless of accurately figuring out gender stereotypes to be hallmarks of genocidal conduct (2012, p.95), she fails to ask the place these stereotypes come from. One clarification for this comes from what Butler phrases the “heterosexual matrix” (1990, p.151).

This refers back to the system of logic by means of which intercourse is produced; the discursive development of women and men as two discrete and oppositional classes, with every assumed to have their very own set of gendered traits (1990, p.151) because of the efficiency of gender binaries similar to rationality/emotionality, public/non-public. Butler’s work is only one instance of queer scholarship, which deconstructs how identities are produced by the (usually hidden) information frameworks they reside inside[3],nonetheless there’s inadequate house for a full clarification right here. Queer approaches to world politics, nonetheless, elucidate how concepts in regards to the discursive development of sexuality can inform the research of worldwide politics.

Queering World Politics

Offering a sign of the method that research of genocide would profit from, queer IR and transnational queer students reveal the constitutive energy of (hetero)sexuality in world politics. Binding what has historically been thought-about to be the staple of positivist IR (e.g. battle, sovereignty and terrorism) to discourses of sexuality, queer theorists reveal the significance of anti-foundationalist approaches to IR as a self-discipline. That is one thing that students of genocide would do effectively to copy with a view to deepen their understandings of genocidal violence.

Explaining the advantages of this method, Melanie Richter-Montpetit argues that queer idea’s refusal of “a clearly sure referent object” has produced insights into the function of sexuality and gender in “wider relations of energy and normalization.” (2017, p.224). Writing inside this body, Jasbir Puar is a key scholar within the institution of transnational queer thought, arguing that the U.S.’ battle on terror relies upon upon sexualised narratives (2007, p.2). This argument is centrally primarily based across the idea of “homonationalism”, outlined as “the usage of ‘acceptance’ and ‘tolerance’ for homosexual and lesbian topics because the barometer by which the legitimacy of, and capability for nationwide sovereignty is evaluated.” (2013, p.24). Certain to this, she highlights that the rise in Western LGBTQ rights has been accompanied with the curbing of rights for Muslims, who’ve suffered “…the enlargement of state energy to interact in surveillance, detention and deportation.” (2013, p.25). Puar due to this fact demonstrates how homonormativity, outlined by domesticity, consumption and nationalism (Duggan, 2003, pp.50-51) has a constitutive impression upon what are usually seen as ‘materials’ occasions, on this occasion neo-imperialism, in world politics. She additionally highlights that sexuality doesn’t exist in isolation from different features of identification development, drawing consideration to the discursive development of Muslims as ‘different’ inside the homonationalist venture.

One other scholar who has made an undoubtable contribution to queer analyses of worldwide politics is Lauren Wilcox, criticising ‘the follow flip’ in IR[4] for solely ‘competent’ performances. Drawing upon Butler’s idea of performativity (see Butler, 1993, p.2), Wilcox notes that it’s exactly the act of failure which permits for change inside a discursive regime, and that these bodily types which fail to satisfy the requirements of competence set by the ‘follow flip’ are probably the most fascinating (2017, pp.792-793). Wilcox additional notes that these understandings of competence are dictated by the heterosexual matrix, with our bodies which fail to adapt with binary understandings of gender “…falling into the realm of unintelligibility and even inhumanity of their failures.” (2017, p.794). Demonstrating this, Wilcox attracts consideration to the expertise of trans our bodies at borders, usually recognized as ‘dangerous’ or ‘suspicious’ on account of them failing to follow gender ‘competently’ (2017, pp.801-802). With such instances ignored by ‘the follow flip’, she additional means that the research of efficiency failures is an ontological contribution of queer/feminist idea to IR which has been marginalised (2017, p.807).

Deploying a queer method to native research, Andrea Smith contends that the Western development of identities similar to ‘the native’ underpins settler colonialism (2010). On account of native folks being the item of inquiry for native research, Smith argues that this decolonising discourse “usually reinstates fairly than challenges colonial formations and ideologies” (2010, p.45), reproducing the ability relations it seeks to problem. It is because ‘the native’ is itself a racist discourse which frames the topic as an childish citizen, standing in distinction to the civilised European (2010, p.51), with such photos persisting to the current day with “The “crying Indian”” enabling “…the beginning of a white enlightened environmental consciousness.” (2010, p.52). As such, Smith argues that each the logics of settler colonialism and decolonisation should be queered “…to talk to the genocidal current” which “…continues to vanish indigenous peoples…” (2010, p.64). With indigenous land and historical past nonetheless routinely erased by governments around the globe, Smith demonstrates that discursively constructed identification classes can facilitate genocidal violence.

Lastly, arguably probably the most vital scholar within the institution of queer IR is Cynthia Weber, who criticises disciplinary IR’s non-engagement with queer approaches that de-stabilise its ontological, epistemological or methodological foundations (2015). Writing in her much-celebrated e book Queer Worldwide Relations: Sovereignty, Sexuality and the Will to Data (2016), Weber attracts upon Ashley’s characterisation of “statecraft as mancraft” (2016, p.4) and calls consideration to make use of of sexualised subjectivities similar to “the gay” within the development of worldwide anarchy, juxtaposed in opposition to the “sovereign man” of the state (2016, p.5).

Weber additional highlights the current deployment of a discourse that distinguishes between the ‘perverse’ gay and the ‘regular’ gay in IR, with the previous figuring as “the ‘underdeveloped’, the ‘undevelopable’, the ‘undesirable immigrant’, and the ‘terrorist’” (2016, p.48), while the latter figures because the entrepreneurial and patriotic “gay-rights holder”, particularly within the U.S. beneath the Obama Administration (2016, p.105). Clear in Weber’s evaluation of various figurations of ‘the gay’ in IR is use of the topic’s (in)capacity to observe the norms of productive heterosexual growth, also referred to as chrononormativity (Freeman, 2010, p.3), as a standards in deciding normality/perversion, safety/insecurity and sovereign/non-sovereign. Difficult the norm of seeing world politics in binary phrases, Weber suggests the usage of Roland Barthes’ and/or method to the perverse/regular gay as a foundation for conceptualising IR, enabling a brand new “queer logics of statecraft” (2016, p.6). In arguing this case, Weber makes an important contribution to queer IR by demonstrating the centrality of non-normative sexual subjectivities to the development of selfhood and/or otherness in world politics.[5]

Drawing upon the method of students similar to Weber, there are clearly vital advantages of adopting a queer method to the research of genocide. By binding the incidence of genocidal violence to logics of heterosexuality, this method may reveal that the essentialising and binary logics of heterosexuality are intimately related to the incidence of genocidal violence. Versus merely seeing genocide as ‘sexualised’ when focusing on a gaggle primarily based upon their sexual/gender identification, genocide may then be uncovered as productive of and constituted by these identification classes. An instance of this follows this logic; versus ‘males’ being a homogenous group of people who find themselves focused on account of gendered perceptions of risk, ‘males’ is a discursively constructed class constituted by gendered perceptions. It is because genocidal violence constitutes a efficiency of those stereotypes: it’s dedicated largely by ‘males’ and primarily targets ‘males’ on account of social norms of violence and risk.

As such, it contributes in the direction of the cohrence of this identification class, with capability for violence being seen as a property of ‘males’ versus ‘girls’. It additionally explains the existence of male rape as an act of homosexualisation/feminisation in genocidal contexts (Ferrales et. al, 2016). This perpetuates the gender binary on the coronary heart of heterosexuality and renders genocide a efficiency of heterosexuality. In contrast to the previous queer approaches, the present scholarship which research sexuality and genocide is ontologically conservative and fails to interrogate the connection between violence and logics of heterosexuality.  As such, there’s an imminent want for the adoption of the anti-foundational and deconstructive method established in queer IR and transnational queer research to discover the dynamics of genocide.

Sexuality and the Research of Genocide

Most literature which has addressed the connection between sexuality and genocide has seemed on the focusing on and extermination of homosexual males in Nazi Germany (e.g. Crompton, 1978; Rector, 1981). Uniquely adopting an explicitly queer method to genocide, Matthew Waites notes the failure of the Genocide Conference to think about teams on the idea of tradition or gender, ensuing within the exclusion of sexuality (2018, p.50), and seeks to redress this. In doing so, Waites focuses on “homosexuality” as a goal for genocidal violence, on account of this being the time period utilized in legal guidelines in Uganda and The Gambia, however recognises that this time period is slim within the demographic it captures (2018, ibid). This in flip permits Waites to guage whether or not genocide has been perpetrated in opposition to ‘homosexuals’ within the instances of Nazi Germany, The Gambia and Uganda, utilizing the standards of the Genocide Conference.

Discovering that genocide has been perpetrated in opposition to ‘homosexuals’ as a gaggle in these three cases (2018, p.63), Waites units about evaluating the discursive advantages of utilizing ‘genocide’ as a label for queer politics, arguing for the following sharing, debating and contestation of ‘genocide’ as an idea inside queer political actions (2018, ibid). Waites’ work is undoubtedly useful in that it uniquely considers the connection between sexuality and genocide from an explicitly queer perspective. Nevertheless, through the use of the Genocide Conference as a set of standards to determine whether or not genocide has occurred, Waites locations a main emphasis on authorized frameworks versus lived expertise. That is evidenced by Waites being compelled to limit his evaluation to [male] ‘homosexuals’ as queer victims of genocide with a view to match his re-worked ‘group’ necessities beneath the Genocide Conference, regardless of the acknowledgement that this focus is overly slim in follow (2018, p.50). Moreover, Waites’ restriction of his evaluation to the focusing on of queer people is problematic, as this means that queer arguments are solely related the place queer people are focused.

As demonstrated by the beforehand mentioned queer scholarship , queer concepts are related in all world political occasions, on account of these occasions being legitimised, organised, interpreted and (re)introduced by binary norms of heterosexuality. By using the instance set by queer IR and transnational queer scholarship, research of genocide should incorporate an method which demonstrates the relevance of discourses of heterosexuality to all cases of genocidal violence.This may each deconstruct the stereotypes which which inform genocides and can contribute in the direction of the queer venture of exposing heteronormativity in beforehand uninterrogated areas.

Conclusion: Queering Genocide

We have to perceive extra in regards to the sexuality of genocidal violence and this can solely come from an evaluation of heterosexuality as a system of logic, versus the person identities that sit inside this method.  As queer theorists wanting on the organisation of worldwide politics notice, discourses of heterosexuality allow, inform and body norms of violence in IR. It’s excessive time for this deconstructive method to be utilized to the research of genocide, if we search to maneuver past a box-checking of sexual/gender identification classes and in the direction of a deeper understanding of the function violence performs in constituting and (re)affirming these identities (Shepherd, 2013, p.6). To take action in a queer method requires an evaluation of a) the discursive situations which allow the emergence of genocidal violence and b) the particular discourses which inform the violences that happen inside a genocide. On the subject of the previous, particular consideration should be paid to dehumanising language within the lead as much as genocidal violence, particularly on the subject of concepts of civility/depravity/growth that are central to established (heterosexual) understandings of chronological/productive temporality, also referred to as chrononormativity (Freeman, 2010).  As soon as the type of these logics have been recognized, it’s then attainable to take a look at the particular kinds of violence which happen in a genocidal context, exploring these in relation to moral, gendered, racialised and sexualised meanings related to heterosexuality. For instance, the usage of public rape in genocidal contexts speaks to meanings in regards to the sanctity of household bonds and group copy, with genocidal rape ceaselessly used to pollute one other ethnic group’s blood line (Banwell, 2015), to weaponise native gender stereotypes to inflict most trauma (von Joeden-Forgey, 2012), and as a symbolic act of feminisation and disempowerment (Ferrales et. al, 2016). All genocidal violence is significant and it’s only by analysing this violence in relation to the binary stereotypes of the heterosexual matrix (Butler, 1990, p.151) that we will perceive how heterosexuality (re)produces genocidal violence and vice versa.


Amar P. (2013) The Safety Archipelago: Human Safety States, Sexuality Politics and the Finish of Neoliberalism, Durham, North Carolina; Duke College Press

Anzaldua G. (1987) Borderlands/La Frontera: The New Mestiza, San Francisco: Aunt Lute

Anzaldua G. (1991) in Warland B. (Ed.) ‘To(o) Queer the Author—Loca, escritora y chicana’ Variations: Writing by Dykes, Queers & Lesbians, Vancouver: Press Gang, pp.249-250

Brown S.E. (2014) ‘Feminine Perpetrators of the Rwandan Genocide’, Worldwide Feminist Journal of Politics, Vol 16, Difficulty 3, 44-469, accessed at https://doi.org/10.1080/14616742.2013.788806

Butler J. (1990) Gender Bother and the Subversion of Identification, London and New York: Routledge, p.151

Butler J. (1993) ‘Imitation and Gender Subordination’ in Abelove H., Barale M.A. and Halperin D. M.  (eds.) The Lesbian And Homosexual Research Reader, London and New York: Routledge, 307-320, p.2

Buzan, B. (1997) “Rethinking Safety after the Chilly Conflict,” Cooperation and Battle, 32(1), pp. 5–28. Obtainable at: https://www.jstor.org/steady/45084375‌

Carpenter R. C. (2002) Past ‘Gendercide’: Incorporating Gender into Comparative Genocide Research, The Worldwide Journal of Human Rights, 6:4, 77-101, p.83, accessed at https://doi.org/10.1080/714003779

Crompton L. (1978) Homosexual Genocide: from Leviticus to Hitler, California: ETC Publications

Duggan L. (2003) The Twilight of Equality? Neoliberalism, Cultural Politics, and the Assault on Democracy, Boston: Beacon Press, pp.50-51

Ferrales G., Nyseth Brehm H. and Mcelrath S. (2016) ‘Gender primarily based violence in opposition to males and boys in Darfur’ – The Gender-Genocide Nexus’, Gender & Society, Vol. 30, Difficulty 4, accessed at https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243216636331

Foster, E.A. (2011). Sustainable Growth: Problematising Normative Constructions of Gender inside World Environmental Governmentality. Globalizations, [online] 8(2), pp.135–149. Obtainable at: https://doi.org/10.1080/14747731.2010.493013.‌

Foucault M. (1976 [1990]) The Historical past of Sexuality Vol. 1 [translated by Hurley R.], New York: Pantheon Books

Frowd P.M. (2014) ‘State Personhood, Abjection and the USA’ HIV Journey Ban’, Millenium: Journal of Worldwide Research, 42(3), 860–878, accessed at https://doi.org/10.1177/0305829814541321

Hagen J.J. (2016) ‘Queering girls, peace and safety’,Worldwide Affairs, 92:2, 313-332, accessed athttps://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2346.12551

Worldwide Felony Tribunal for Rwanda (1998) The Prosecutor versus Jean Paul Akayesku – Judgement, United Nations, Case No. ICTR-96-4-T,pp.1-191, pp.176-177 (paragraphs 731 and 732), accessed at https://www.un.org/en/preventgenocide/rwanda/pdf/AKAYESU%20-%20JUDGEMENT.pdf

Johnson Ok., Scott J., Rughita B., Kisielewski M., Asher J., Ong R. and Lawry L. (2010) ‘Affiliation of Sexual Violence and Human Rights Violations With Bodily and Psychological Well being in Territories of the Jap Democratic Republic of the Congo’, JAMA Community, 2010;304(5):553-562, accessed https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/186342

Jones A. (1994) ‘Gender and ethnic battle in ex‐Yugoslavia’, Ethnic and Racial Research, Vol. 19, 1994 – Difficulty 1, pp.115-134, p.120 accessed at https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870.1994.9993815

Jones A (2000) ‘Gendercide and genocide’, Journal of Genocide Analysis, 2:2, 185-211, p.190, p.193, accessed at https://doi.org/10.1080/713677599

Jones A. (2002) ‘Gender and genocide in Rwanda’, Journal of Genocide Analysis, Vol. 4, Difficulty 1, 65-94, p.70, accessed at https://doi.org/10.1080/14623520120113900

Jones A. (2015) ‘Genocide and Mass Violence’ in Shepherd L.J. (ed.) Gender Issues in World Politics: A Feminist Introduction to Worldwide Relations (2nd Ed), London: Routledge, 141-158, p.134, p.147, p.157,

Krain M. (1997) ‘State-Sponsored Mass Homicide: The Onset and Severity of Genocides and Politicides, Journal of Battle Decision, Vol. 41, No. 3, June 1997, 331-360, accessed at  http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0022002797041003001

Krain M. (2005) ‘Worldwide intervention and the severity of genocides and politicides’, Worldwide Research Quarterly, 49(3): 363–387, accessed at https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002797041003001

Lemkin R. (1946) ‘Genocide’, The American Scholar, Vol. 15, No. 2 (Spring 1946), pp. 227-230, accessed at https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/41204789.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3A222154ab4aa970b51a1d2192af7d80a3

Lentin R. (1999) ‘The Rape of the Nation: Girls Narrativising Genocide’, Sociological Analysis On-line, vol. 4, no. 2, accessed at https://doi.org/10.5153/sro.254

Mackinnon C.A. (1994) ‘Rape, Genocide, and Girls’s Human Rights’, Harvard Girls’s Regulation Journal, 17Women’s Regulation Journal, 5-16, pp.5-6, p.9, p.16, accessed  at https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?public=true&handle=hein.journals/hwlj17&div=7&start_page=5&collection=journals&set_as_cursor=2&men_tab=srchresults

Neumann I.B. (2002) ‘Returning Apply to the Linguistic Flip: The Case of Diplomacy, Millenium: Journal of Worldwide Research, Vol.31, No.3, pp.627-651, p.627, accessed at https://doi.org/10.1177/03058298020310031201

Peterson V. S. (2005) ‘How (the Which means of) Gender Issues in Political Financial system’, New Political Financial system, Vol. 10, No. 4, December 2005, 499-521, p.501, accessed at http://www.u.arizona.edu/~spikep/Publications/VSP%20GenderMatters%20NPE%202005.pdf

Peterson V.S. (2014) ‘Household Issues: How Queering the Intimate Queers the Worldwide’, Worldwide Research Assessment, Quantity 16, Difficulty 4, December 2014, 604–608, accessed at https://doi.org/10.1111/misr.12185

Puar J.(2007) Terrorist Assemblages: Homonationalism in Queer Occasions, London and Durham, NC: Duke College Press, p.2, p.37

Puar J. (2013) ‘Homonationalism As Assemblage: Viral Travels, Affective Sexualities’, Jindal World Regulation Assessment, Quantity 4, Difficulty 2, 23-43, p.24, p.25, accessed at http://www.thing.net/~rdom/ucsd/3somesPlus/Puar.pdf

Rao R. (2010) Third World Protest: Between House and the World, Oxford: Oxford College Press

Rector F. (1981) The Nazi Extermination of Homosexuals, New York: Stein and Day Publishers

Richter-Montpetit M. (2017) ‘All the things You At all times Wished to Learn about Intercourse (in IR) However have been Afraid to Ask: The ‘Queer Flip’ in Worldwide Relations’, Millennium: Journal of Worldwide Research 2018, Vol. 46(2) 220–240, p.224, accessed at https://doi.org/10.1177/0305829817733131

Sedgwick E.Ok. (1993) Tendencies, Durham, NC: Duke College Press, p.8

Sharlach L. (1999) ‘Gender and genocide in Rwanda: girls as brokers and objects of genocide, Journal of Genocide Analysis (1999), 1(3), 387-399, accessed on 23rd March 2020 at https://doi.org/10.1080/14623529908413968

Sharlach L. (2000) ‘Rape as Genocide: Bangladesh, the Former Yugoslavia, and Rwanda’, New Political Science, 22:1, 89-102, accessed at https://doi.org/10.1080/713687893

Shepherd L.J. (2013) Gender, Violence and Fashionable Tradition: Telling Tales, London and New York: Routledge, p.6

Sivakumaran S. (2007) ‘Sexual Violence In opposition to Males in Armed Battle’, The European Journal of Worldwide Regulation Vol. 18 no. 2, 253-276, accessed at https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/chm013

Sjoberg L. and Gentry C.E. (2007) Moms, Monsters, Whores: Girls’s Violence in World Politics, London and New York: Zed Books

Sjoberg L. and Gentry C.E. (2015) Past Moms, Monsters, Whores: Interested by Girls’s Violence in World Politics, London and New York: Zed Books

Smith A. (2010) ‘Queer idea and native research: the heteronormativity of settler colonialism’, GLQ: A Journal of Homosexual and Lesbian Research, pp.41-68,16:1-2, p.45, p.51, p.52, p.64, accessed at https://doi.org/10.1215/10642684-2009-012

Smith, N. (2020). Capitalism’s Sexual Historical past. New York: Oxford College Press.

Smith R.W. (1994) ‘Girls and Genocide: Notes on an Unwritten Historical past’, Holocaust and Genocide Research, V8 NC, Winter 1994, pp.315-334, accessed at https://doi.org/10.1093/hgs/8.3.315

von Joeden-Forgey E. (2010) ‘The Satan within the Particulars: “Life Pressure Atrocities” and the Assault on the Household in Occasions of Battle’, Genocide Research and Prevention: An Worldwide Journal, Vol. 5: Iss. 1: Article 2, 1-19,p.2 accessed on 14th January 2020 at http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/gsp/vol5/iss1/2

von Joeden-Forgey E. (2012) ‘Gender and the Way forward for Genocide Research and Prevention’, Genocide Research and Prevention: An Worldwide Journal, Vol. 7, Difficulty 1, Article 10, 89-107, p.95, accessed at https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/gsp/vol7/iss1/10/

U.N. Basic Meeting (1948) Conference on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, 9 December 1948, Treaty Collection, vol. 78, Article 2, p. 280, accessed at http://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b3ac0.html

Waites M. (2018) Genocide and World Queer Politics, Journal of Genocide Analysis, 20:1, 44-67, p.50, p.52, p.63, p.65, p.66, accessed at https://doi.org/10.1080/14623528.2017.1358920

Weber C. (2015) ‘Queer Mental Curiosity as Worldwide Relations Technique: Creating Queer Worldwide Relations Theoretical and Methodological Frameworks’,Worldwide Research Quarterly, Quantity 60, Difficulty 1, March 2016, 11-23, accessed at https://doi.org/10.1111/isqu.12212

Weber C. (2016) Queer Worldwide Relations, College Press Scholarship On-line: Oxford, pp.1-26, p.4, p.5, p.6, p.48, p.105, accessed at https://global.oup.com/academic/product/queer-international-relations-9780199795864?cc=gb&lang=en&

Wilcox L. (2017) Practising gender, queering idea, Assessment of Worldwide Research, Vol. 43, half 5, 789–808, accessed at  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0260210517000183 Wittig M. (1992) ‘The Straight Thoughts’ in Ferguson R, Gever M, Minh-ha T.T. et al (Eds.) Out There: Marginalisation and Modern Cultures, London: The MIT Press


[1] Sedgwick describes queer as “the open mesh of potentialities, gaps, overlaps, dissonances and resonances, lapses and excesses of which means when the constituent parts of anybody’s gender, of anybody’s sexuality aren’t made (or can’t be made) to suggest monolithically” (1993, p.8). It’s this definition which guides my understanding of queerness, referring to an ontological and epistemological rejection of all processes of categorisation.

[2] For additional scholarship on male experiences of genocide see: Sivakumaran, 2007; Johnson et. al, 2010; Lewis, 2010.

[3] E.g. see: Foucault, 1976; Anzaldua, 1987; Butler, 1990, 1993; Wittig, 1992; Sedgwick, 1993

[4] The ‘follow flip’ in IR refers to an try to maneuver away from linguistic approaches and in the direction of a give attention to how political motion is definitely effected (Neumann, 2002, p.627).

[5] For additional glorious queer scholarship, which attracts consideration to discourses of sexuality within the organisation of worldwide politics, see additionally; Rao, 2010; Foster, 2011; Amar, 2013; Peterson, 2014; Frowd, 2014; Hagen, 2016; Wilcox, 2017; Smith, 2020.

Additional Studying on E-Worldwide Relations