A Brutality-Based Approach to Identifying State-Led Atrocities

• Author: David Cingranelli,Skip Mark,James B. Garvey,Jordan Hutt,Yuri Lee
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/00220027221077228
• Published date: 01 October 2022
• Date: 01 October 2022
• Subject Matter: Data Set Features

Data Set Feature

Journal of Conf‌lict Resolution

2022, Vol. 66(9) 1676–1702

© The Author(s) 2022

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/00220027221077228

journals.sagepub.com/home/jcr

A Brutality-Based Approach

to Identifying State-Led

Atrocities

David Cingranelli

1

, Skip Mark

2

, James B. Garvey

3

,

Jordan Hutt

3

, and Yuri Lee

1



Abstract

The comparative study of atrocities and atrocity prevention faces several obstacles

including a lack of consensus on the universe of cases and too few cases to statistically

test alternative theories. The brutality-based (BB) conception is based on the idea that

widespread, state-led violations of physical integrity rights constitute an assault on the

personhood and human dignity of the members of society—a mass atrocity. Applying

this idea to all countries annually systematically identif‌ies a larger number of atrocities

and facilitates categorization into three levels of intensity. The BB methodology for

generating annual atrocity lists is replicable and transparent. The f‌indings show that,

between 1981 and 2019, the frequency of atrocities as def‌ined and identif‌ied by other

projects has been decreasing, but BB atrocities have been increasing. The sequence of

different types of widespread physical integrity violations suggests new avenues for

research on atrocity occurrence, escalation, de-escalation, and cessation.

Keywords

human rights, civilian casualities, atrocity, physical integrity rights, genocide, killing,

measurement, brutality

1

Department of Political Science, Professor of Political Science, Binghamton University, SUNY, Binghamton,

New York, NY, USA

2

Department of Political Science, Assistant Professor of Political Science, University of Rhode Island,

Kingston, Kingston, RI, USA

3

J.D. Candidate, Fordham University School of Law, New York, NY, USA

Corresponding Author:

David Cingranelli, Department of Political Science, Professor of Political Science, Binghamton University,

3149 Briarcliff Avenue, Library Tower, Ground Floor, Binghamton, NY 13902, USA.

Email: davidc@binghamton.edu

The comparative, cross-national, cross-temporal study of atrocity is a rapidly growing

f‌ield where investigators develop and test general theories of atrocity occurrence and

prevention. The f‌ield has already produced several theories of atrocity occurrence

(Finkel and Straus 2012) focusing on a variety of causal mechanisms including in-

tergroup societal conf‌lict (Goldhagen 1996,2009;Hagan and Rymond-Richmond

2008), regime type (Eck and Hultman 2007;Harff 2003;Krain 1997;Ulfelder and

Valentino 2008), and strategic decision making by leaders (Gagnon 2004;Kiernan

2007;Mann 2005;Midlarsky 2005;Semelin 2007;Valentino 2004;Weitz 2003). A

newer branch focuses on explaining atrocity escalation or de-escalation (Straus 2012).

However, the research enterprise suffers from many problems including conceptual

disagreement (limiting consensus on the universe of relevant cases), too much sub-

jectivity in the identif‌ication of cases, too few cases to test alternative theoretical

arguments, and a lack of synergy with related f‌ields including the comparative study of

human rights and political violence. This article suggests a way forward that alleviates

several of these problems. We def‌ine atrocity as an instance of gross, systematic, and

severe state-led violation of human rights including killing. We argue the requirement

of group-selective intent found in other def‌initions of atrocity is unnecessary and is a

source of bias in identifying the universe of cases.

Focusing on a particular atrocity or comparing a small number of cases has been the

dominant method for studying atrocities. While it has proven useful for generating

theoretical arguments and hypotheses, the case study method does not provide con-

vincing tests because the problem of complexity usually overwhelms generalized

explanations. Many possible reasons and explanations may apply to a given case or

small set of cases and disentangling them is diff‌icult. The causal mechanism itself may

vary according to context. A larger universe of cases provides more opportunities to

take different contexts into account (King, Keohane and Verba 1994).

Conceptualizing atrocity as state brutality has some advantages for theory building,

testing, and for public policy making. Comparative studies of human rights violations,

especially the relationship between violations of human rights and internal political

violence may provide new clues for theory building. Moreover, existing data measuring

the scope of violations of various physical integrity rights annually since 1981 can be

used in a systematic and objective way to identify the universe of cases. Human rights

data can classify cases by level of intensity, providing a straightforward way to measure

and study atrocity duration, escalation, and de-escalation. Perhaps most important, the

lists of atrocities identif‌ied and the categorization by intensity are unaffected by

conf‌irmation bias—the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in

a way that conf‌irms or supports one’s prior beliefs or values (Oswald and Grosjean

2004).

The brutality-based (BB) def‌inition of atrocity is rooted in the philosophy of human

rights. It emphasizes that, besides killing, there are other critical ways a state can assault

human dignity. When any human rights to physical integrity are severely compromised

people lose their ability to live lives of dignity. Examination of the use of the word

“dignity”in national constitutions and international human rights documents, and their

Cingranelli et al. 1677