What Enables or Constrains Mass Expulsion? A New Decision-Making Framework

IF 2.2 2区社会学 Q1 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

Security Studies Pub Date : 2023-05-27 DOI:10.1080/09636412.2023.2229238

Meghan Garrity

{"title":"What Enables or Constrains Mass Expulsion? A New Decision-Making Framework","authors":"Meghan Garrity","doi":"10.1080/09636412.2023.2229238","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Given similar probabilities of mass expulsion, why do some governments expel ethnic groups en masse and others refrain? Extending the genocide studies literature on the dynamics of restraint, this theory-building study introduces a new framework to conceptualize the process of governments’ mass expulsion policy decisions. The novel paired-comparison case study of Asian minorities in postcolonial Uganda and Kenya generates new hypotheses about what enables and constrains a specific type of eliminationist policy. Despite analogous contexts, target populations, and motives to expel, in 1972 Uganda systematically expelled up to 80,000 South Asians en masse, whereas in 1967–69 Kenya did not. The negative case of Kenya, a country that seemed likely to expel but refrained, highlights important factors that constrain government expulsion decisions: alliances, target group “homeland” state(s), and international organizations. Evidence was drawn from archival research conducted at the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the International Committee of the Red Cross. The article concludes by outlining a research agenda to test the new analytical framework to contribute to our understanding of demographic engineering policies and restraints on ethnic violence.","PeriodicalId":47478,"journal":{"name":"Security Studies","volume":"32 1","pages":"537 - 567"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Security Studies","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09636412.2023.2229238","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract Given similar probabilities of mass expulsion, why do some governments expel ethnic groups en masse and others refrain? Extending the genocide studies literature on the dynamics of restraint, this theory-building study introduces a new framework to conceptualize the process of governments’ mass expulsion policy decisions. The novel paired-comparison case study of Asian minorities in postcolonial Uganda and Kenya generates new hypotheses about what enables and constrains a specific type of eliminationist policy. Despite analogous contexts, target populations, and motives to expel, in 1972 Uganda systematically expelled up to 80,000 South Asians en masse, whereas in 1967–69 Kenya did not. The negative case of Kenya, a country that seemed likely to expel but refrained, highlights important factors that constrain government expulsion decisions: alliances, target group “homeland” state(s), and international organizations. Evidence was drawn from archival research conducted at the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the International Committee of the Red Cross. The article concludes by outlining a research agenda to test the new analytical framework to contribute to our understanding of demographic engineering policies and restraints on ethnic violence.

查看原文本刊更多论文

是什么促使或限制大规模驱逐？一种新的决策框架

摘要考虑到大规模驱逐的可能性相似，为什么一些政府集体驱逐少数民族，而另一些政府则不这样做？这项理论构建研究扩展了种族灭绝研究中关于克制动态的文献，引入了一个新的框架来概念化政府大规模驱逐政策决策的过程。这项针对后殖民时代乌干达和肯尼亚的亚裔少数民族的新颖配对比较案例研究产生了关于是什么促成和限制了一种特定类型的消灭主义政策的新假设。尽管有类似的背景、目标人群和驱逐动机，1972年，乌干达有计划地驱逐了多达80000名南亚人，而1967年至69年，肯尼亚没有。肯尼亚这个似乎有可能驱逐但克制的国家的负面案例突显了制约政府驱逐决定的重要因素：联盟、目标群体“祖国”国家和国际组织。证据来自联合国难民事务高级专员和红十字国际委员会进行的档案研究。文章最后概述了一项研究议程，以测试新的分析框架，从而有助于我们理解人口工程政策和对种族暴力的限制。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Security Studies INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS-

CiteScore

2.70

自引率

16.70%

发文量

期刊介绍： Security Studies publishes innovative scholarly manuscripts that make a significant contribution – whether theoretical, empirical, or both – to our understanding of international security. Studies that do not emphasize the causes and consequences of war or the sources and conditions of peace fall outside the journal’s domain. Security Studies features articles that develop, test, and debate theories of international security – that is, articles that address an important research question, display innovation in research, contribute in a novel way to a body of knowledge, and (as appropriate) demonstrate theoretical development with state-of-the art use of appropriate methodological tools. While we encourage authors to discuss the policy implications of their work, articles that are primarily policy-oriented do not fit the journal’s mission. The journal publishes articles that challenge the conventional wisdom in the area of international security studies. Security Studies includes a wide range of topics ranging from nuclear proliferation and deterrence, civil-military relations, strategic culture, ethnic conflicts and their resolution, epidemics and national security, democracy and foreign-policy decision making, developments in qualitative and multi-method research, and the future of security studies.