Explaining Death and Atrocity in Darfur

目的声明研究计划的重要性我们建议编码和分析1，136个调查访谈与来自达尔富尔的难民进行了800，000美元的暴行文件调查（ADS）由国际正义联盟为美国进行国务院在10个营地和9个定居点在乍得。 这些采访将证人的叙述与犯罪受害者调查混合在一起，只有部分被编码用于国务院的初步报告。 这次调查的数据是关于达尔富尔暴力的最全面资料，包括死亡、强奸、绑架、失踪人员和财产盗窃和破坏的详细事件历史。 仅死亡率数据就包括360名核心家庭成员、2 703名大家庭成员和9 300名村民。 该系统的数据中有关于具体事件发生地点和时间的丰富信息：暴力和财产受害情况的日期和地点都有追溯性，因此可以详细绘制2003年2月至2004年7月达尔富尔死亡和暴行的时间和空间图。 我们利用这些数据来记录达尔富尔战争罪行的程度和这些事件的模式，例如，评估这些事件在多大程度上符合复杂人道主义危机的典型阶段，从开始到死亡率达到高峰和援助到达，再到稳定。ADS提供的数据还与关于反叛活动、可耕地和水资源的外部信息来源相结合。 数据按三个层次排列：按个体受访者、事件和发生地点（即，村庄），并采用事件历史分析，线性层次模型和定性比较分析。 对达尔富尔暴力事件的解释在分配给州政府官员的责任上有所不同。 世袭统治理论（PDT）将苏丹统治精英视为统治和征服的犯罪来源，而反叛乱理论（CIT）将其行为解释为自卫。 我们使用暴行文献调查（ADS）来评估这些理论的假设。PDT的一个关键假设是，苏丹统治精英通过与阿拉伯金戈威德民兵联合攻击非洲村民并控制可耕地来强加其权力。 保护少数小组进一步假设，在袭击村庄期间以种族绰号表达的种族意识形态是达尔富尔暴力如何以及何时发生的一个关键的动机和调解机制。 达尔富尔民主党的潜台词是，对村庄的袭击是以在整个达尔富尔的种族清洗过程中系统地散布恐怖的方式组织的。 对民主和发展党的挑战是，不仅要追踪杀戮，而且还要追踪强奸和农业财产破坏形式的种族意识形态的联合运动，包括粮食生产和防止饥荒的能力，这与杀戮本身一样是对一个民族的统治和毁灭的一部分。 我们表明，强奸是扩散在一个系统的模式与种族驱动的杀戮和财产破坏。这清楚地表明，强奸被用作一种重要的战争犯罪手段。 与此同时，苏丹政府和CIT坚持认为，其在达尔富尔的军事努力只是自卫努力。 为使这一说法可信，调查组必须有证据证明反叛团体的活动与袭击目标之间存在联系。 或者，如果攻击与反叛活动无关，调查委员会必须反驳政府军与民兵之间协调的证据，以维持其论点，即在这种情况下，阿拉伯民兵的行动超出了调查委员会的控制。 也许这一建议的最终论点是，《反恐怖主义法》中作为自卫主张提出的反叛挑衅，既不是达尔富尔战争罪的必要解释，也不是充分解释，而《和平与发展法》中强调的因素，如可耕地和种族主义意识形态，即使不足以解释达尔富尔的暴力和暴行，也是必要的。

Statement of Purpose & Importance of Research PlanWe propose to code and analyze 1,136 survey interviews with refugees from Darfur conducted in an $800,000 Atrocities Documentation Survey (ADS) undertaken by the Coalition for International Justice for the U.S. State Department in 10 camps and 9 settlements in Chad. The interviews mix witness narratives with a crime victim survey and have only partially been coded for a preliminary State Department report. The data from this survey constitute the most comprehensive information about violence in Darfur, including detailed event histories of deaths, rapes, abductions, missing persons and property theft and destruction. The mortality data alone include 360 nuclear family members, 2,703 extended family members and 9,300 villagers. The ADS data are rich in information about the location and timing of specific events: violence and property victimization are retrospectively dated and located, allowing a detailed temporal and spatial mapping of death and atrocity in Darfur from February 2003 to July 2004. We use these data to document the extent of war crimes in Darfur and the pattern of these events, for example, assessing the extent to which they conform to the classic stages of complex humanitarian crises, from onset through peak mortality and arrival of assistance to stabilization. The data from the ADS are further combined with external sources of information on rebel activity, arable land and water resources. The data arrayed at three levels: by individual respondents, incidents, and places of occurrence (i.e., villages) and are analyzed using event history analysis, linear hierarchical modeling and qualitative comparative analysis. Explanations of the violence in Darfur differ in the responsibility they assign to state officials. A patrimonial domination theory (PDT) regards the Sudanese governing elite as a criminal source of domination and subjugation, while a counter insurgency theory (CIT) explains their actions as self-defense. We use the Atrocities Documentation Survey (ADS) to assess hypotheses derived from these theories.A key hypothesis of PDT is that the Sudanese ruling elite imposed its power by joining its government troops with Arab Janjaweed militias to attack African villagers and to bring arable land holdings under its control. PDT further hypothesizes that racial ideology expressed in racial epithets during attacks on villages was a key motivating and mediating mechanism in how and when the violence in Darfur occurred. Implicit in PDT is the idea that attacks on villages were organized in a way that systematically diffused terror in a process of ethnic cleansing across Darfur. The challenge for PDT is to trace the joint movement of expressed racial ideology alongside not only the killing, but also in the forms of rape and agricultural property destruction, including the capacity for food production and the prevention of famine, which is as much a part of the domination and destruction of a people as killing itself. We show that rape is diffused in a systematic pattern alongside the racially driven killings and property destruction. This suggests clearly that rape is used as an important war crime tactic. Meanwhile, the Sudanese government and CIT insist that its military efforts in Darfur are simply self-defense efforts. To credibly make this case, CIT must be supported by evidence of linkage between the activities of rebel groups and targets of attacks. Alternatively, when attacks are not tied to rebel activity, CIT must counter evidence of coordination between government troops and militias in order to maintain its contention that in such circumstances the Arab militias act beyond its control. Perhaps the ultimate thesis of this proposal is that the rebel provocation offered as a self-defense claim in CIT is neither a necessary nor sufficient explanation of war crimes in Darfur, while factors emphasized in PDT, such as arable land and racist ideology, are necessary if not sufficient to explain the violence and atrocities in Darfur.