Regardless of rape being designated an act of genocide in worldwide regulation (Worldwide Prison Tribunal for Rwanda, 1998, pp.176-177) and sexual violence being extremely prevalent throughout genocidal contexts (Mackinnon, 1994), most literature finding out genocide fails to acknowledge the position that heterosexuality performs in genocidal violence. While there may be a longtime faculty of thought which appears to be like at genocide from a gendered perspective, it typically stops in need of exploring how heterosexuality as an episteme informs gender, sexual or racial stereotypes, and genocidal violence on the idea of those stereotypes. So as to appropriate this, this text maps the literature surrounding the research of sexuality and genocide and identifies gaps within the area. It begins by taking a look at analyses of genocide which have a look at sex-specific violence. Past this, it outlines constructivist scholarship which sees gender as a system of logic, figuring out notably 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 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 prospects of a queer genocide research which appears to be like past discrete id classes shall 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 as a result of a global safety agenda that was outlined by Chilly Conflict bipolarity, nuclear deterrence and a major deal with sovereignty over different considerations (Buzan, 1997, p.6), comparable to human rights. This modified, nevertheless, as a result of relative success of feminist campaigns drawing consideration to gender-based and sexual violence, alongside the resurgence of gendered genocidal violence comparable 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 Prison 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 to be like at girls as victims, an rising physique of scholarship attracts consideration to the position 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 didn’t take account of the truth that nearly all of folks killed in genocidal contexts are males, who represent “the absent topics” (1994, p.120) inside this physique of labor. Looking for 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 major targets for execution, and the following relevance of gender within the evaluation of males’s experiences of genocide. Though the above scholarship does nicely 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 id 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, as a result of them occupying social roles perceived as threatening (i.e. political and army elites) (2002, p.83). Equally, von Joeden-Forgey sees the perpetration of “life drive atrocities” as a trademark of genocide, labelling these as acts perpetrated as a way to “…inflict most harm to the religious core of these generative and foundational models we name households.” (2010, p.2). Elaborating on this, von Joeden-Forgey particulars that genocidal assaults usually goal people “…based mostly 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 nicely to determine socially constructed gender stereotypes as impacting upon all genocidal motion, her evaluation doesn’t go far sufficient. Regardless of appropriately figuring out gender stereotypes to be hallmarks of genocidal conduct (2012, p.95), she fails to ask the place these stereotypes come from. One rationalization for this comes from what Butler phrases the “heterosexual matrix” (1990, p.151).
This refers back to the system of logic by 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) as a result of efficiency of gender binaries comparable 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) data frameworks they reside inside,nevertheless there may be inadequate house for a full rationalization right here. Queer approaches to world politics, nevertheless, elucidate how concepts concerning the discursive development of sexuality can inform the research of world 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 nicely to copy as a way to deepen their understandings of genocidal violence.
Explaining the advantages of this method, Melanie Richter-Montpetit argues that queer principle’s refusal of “a clearly sure referent object” has produced insights into the position 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 based mostly 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). Sure 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 facets of id development, drawing consideration to the discursive development of Muslims as ‘different’ throughout the homonationalist venture.
One other scholar who has made an undoubtable contribution to queer analyses of world politics is Lauren Wilcox, criticising ‘the apply flip’ in IR for solely taking a look at ‘competent’ performances. Drawing upon Butler’s principle 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 kinds which fail to fulfill the requirements of competence set by the ‘apply flip’ are essentially the most attention-grabbing (2017, pp.792-793). Wilcox additional notes that these understandings of competence are dictated by the heterosexual matrix, with our bodies which fail to evolve 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’ as a result of them failing to apply gender ‘competently’ (2017, pp.801-802). With such circumstances ignored by ‘the apply flip’, she additional means that the research of efficiency failures is an ontological contribution of queer/feminist principle 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 comparable to ‘the native’ underpins settler colonialism (2010). As a result of native folks being the item of inquiry for native research, Smith argues that this decolonising discourse “usually reinstates quite than challenges colonial formations and ideologies” (2010, p.45), reproducing the facility 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 pictures persisting to the current day with “The “crying Indian”” enabling “…the start of a white enlightened environmental consciousness.” (2010, p.52). As such, Smith argues that each the logics of settler colonialism and decolonisation have to 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 all over the world, Smith demonstrates that discursively constructed id classes can facilitate genocidal violence.
Lastly, arguably essentially the most important 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 comparable 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 latest 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. below 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)skill to comply with the norms of productive heterosexual improvement, often known 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.
Drawing upon the method of students comparable to Weber, there are clearly important advantages of adopting a queer method to the research of genocide. By binding the incidence of genocidal violence to logics of heterosexuality, this method might reveal that the essentialising and binary logics of heterosexuality are intimately linked to the incidence of genocidal violence. Versus merely seeing genocide as ‘sexualised’ when concentrating on a bunch based mostly upon their sexual/gender id, genocide might then be uncovered as productive of and constituted by these id classes. An instance of this follows this logic; versus ‘males’ being a homogenous group of people who find themselves focused as a result of gendered perceptions of menace, ‘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’ as a result of social norms of violence and menace.
As such, it contributes in direction of the cohrence of this id 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. Not like 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 may be 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 concentrating 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, as a result of this being the time period utilized in legal guidelines in Uganda and The Gambia, however recognises that this time period is slender within the demographic it captures (2018, ibid). This in flip permits Waites to judge whether or not genocide has been perpetrated in opposition to ‘homosexuals’ within the circumstances 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 bunch 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 helpful in that it uniquely considers the connection between sexuality and genocide from an explicitly queer perspective. Nonetheless, through the use of the Genocide Conference as a set of standards to establish whether or not genocide has occurred, Waites locations a major emphasis on authorized frameworks versus lived expertise. That is evidenced by Waites being pressured to limit his evaluation to [male] ‘homosexuals’ as queer victims of genocide as a way to match his re-worked ‘group’ necessities below the Genocide Conference, regardless of the acknowledgement that this focus is overly slender in apply (2018, p.50). Moreover, Waites’ restriction of his evaluation to the concentrating 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, as a result 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.It will each deconstruct the stereotypes which which inform genocides and can contribute in direction of the queer venture of exposing heteronormativity in beforehand uninterrogated areas.
Conclusion: Queering Genocide
We have to perceive extra concerning the sexuality of genocidal violence and it will solely come from an evaluation of heterosexuality as a system of logic, versus the person identities that sit inside this method. As queer theorists trying on the organisation of world 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 id classes and in direction of a deeper understanding of the position 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 circumstances which allow the emergence of genocidal violence and b) the particular discourses which inform the violences that happen inside a genocide. As regards to the previous, particular consideration have to be paid to dehumanising language within the lead as much as genocidal violence, particularly on the subject of concepts of civility/depravity/improvement that are central to established (heterosexual) understandings of chronological/productive temporality, often known as chrononormativity (Freeman, 2010). As soon as the type of these logics have been recognized, it’s then doable to take a look at the particular forms 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 concerning the sanctity of household bonds and neighborhood copy, with genocidal rape regularly 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 is just by analysing this violence in relation to the binary stereotypes of the heterosexual matrix (Butler, 1990, p.151) that we are able to 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, Challenge 3, 44-469, accessed at https://doi.org/10.1080/14616742.2013.788806
Butler J. (1990) Gender Hassle and the Subversion of Id, 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. Out there 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 based mostly violence in opposition to males and boys in Darfur’ – The Gender-Genocide Nexus’, Gender & Society, Vol. 30, Challenge 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. Out there at: https://doi.org/10.1080/14747731.2010.493013.
Foucault M. (1976 ) The Historical past of Sexuality Vol. 1 [translated by Hurley R.], New York: Pantheon Books
Frowd P.M. (2014) ‘State Personhood, Abjection and america’ 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 Prison 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 Okay., 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 – Challenge 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, Challenge 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: Ladies 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 Ladies’s Human Rights’, Harvard Ladies’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 Follow 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 That 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, Challenge 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, Challenge 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) ‘The whole lot You All the time Wished to Learn about Intercourse (in IR) However had 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.Okay. (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 Standard 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: Ladies’s Violence in World Politics, London and New York: Zed Books
Sjoberg L. and Gentry C.E. (2015) Past Moms, Monsters, Whores: Serious about Ladies’s Violence in World Politics, London and New York: Zed Books
Smith A. (2010) ‘Queer principle 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) ‘Ladies 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, Challenge 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 Sequence, 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: Growing Queer Worldwide Relations Theoretical and Methodological Frameworks’,Worldwide Research Quarterly, Quantity 60, Challenge 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 principle, 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
 Sedgwick describes queer as “the open mesh of prospects, 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 indicate 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.
 For additional scholarship on male experiences of genocide see: Sivakumaran, 2007; Johnson et. al, 2010; Lewis, 2010.
 E.g. see: Foucault, 1976; Anzaldua, 1987; Butler, 1990, 1993; Wittig, 1992; Sedgwick, 1993
 The ‘apply flip’ in IR refers to an try to maneuver away from linguistic approaches and in direction of a deal with how political motion is definitely effected (Neumann, 2002, p.627).
 For additional wonderful queer scholarship, which pulls consideration to discourses of sexuality within the organisation of world 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