Although rape is referred to as genocide in international law (International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, 1998, pp. 176-177) and sexual violence is widespread in genocidal contexts (Mackinnon, 1994), the role in most of the literature dealing with genocide concerned, not acknowledging that heterosexuality plays a role in genocidal violence. While there is an established school of thought that views genocide from a gender perspective, it generally fails to examine how heterosexuality as an epistem affects gender, sexual or racial stereotypes, and genocidal violence based on these stereotypes. To correct this, this article maps the literature on the study of sexuality and genocide and identifies gaps in this area. First, analyzes of genocide that deal with gender-based violence are considered. In addition, a constructivist science is outlined that regards gender as a system of logic and particularly identifies with the work of Joeden-Forgey (2010, 2012), who regards the arming of gender stereotypes as characteristic of genocidal violence. After all, it outlines queer IR and transnational queer studies as scientific institutions that inform studies about genocide and compare them with established studies on sexuality and genocide. The article concludes that on this theoretical basis, the epistemological possibilities of a queer genocide study that goes beyond discrete categories of identity become clear.
Sexuality and Genocide
Gender and Genocide
Before the 1990s, gender was rarely considered relevant to the investigation of genocide due to an international security agenda defined by Cold War bipolarity, nuclear deterrence, and a primary focus on sovereignty over other concerns (Buzan, 1997, p. 6). like human rights. This changed, however, due to the relative success of feminist campaigns targeting gender and sexual violence, as well as the resurgence of gender genocidal violence such as mass rape in Rwanda and the Balkans. In response to the 1994 Rwandan genocide, Catherine Mackinnon pointed out that human rights have traditionally been conceived in terms of the male subject, leading to ignorance of the human rights violations committed against women (1994, pp. 5-6).
When Mackinnon questioned this, he highlighted the systematic use of rape as a weapon of war in genocidal contexts (1994, p. 9) and described rape as genocide (1994, p. 16). The profound effects of this are evidenced by the decision of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda to set a precedent for treating sexual violence as a genocidal crime (1998, pp. 176-177). In addition, Mackinnon’s article generated a tremendous surge in feminist science about women’s experiences of genocide (see, e.g., Rittner and Roth, 1993; Smith, 1994; Allen, 1996; Lentin, 1999; Sharlach, 2000). While most feminist analyzes of genocide consider women as victims, an increasing number of scholars are turning their attention to the role of women as perpetrators of violent acts (e.g. Sharlach, 1999; Sjoberg and Gentry, 2007, 2015; Brown, 2014) .
Referring to gender analysis of the genocide in the early 1990s, Jones noted that it ignored the fact that the majority of people killed in genocidal contexts are men who are “the absent subjects” (1994, p. 120) Body of work. To question this, he used the term “Gendercide” (2002, p. 70) to highlight gender-based violence against men in genocidal contexts, and stated that the mass murders of men of “fighting age” “… a far a common feature of contemporary conflict ”(2000, p.190). Jones therefore draws attention to the existence of men as the main targets for execution and the eventual relevance of gender when analyzing men’s experiences with genocide. While the above scholarship is well suited to looking at lived experiences of sex in relation to genocide, it limits its analysis to discreetly examining the experiences of women and men. As such, it views gender as an empirical category (Peterson, 2005, p.501) and fundamentalizes male and female experiences, reaffirming these identity categories rather than questioning the specific gender roles and stereotypes that make different forms of violence understandable.
Carpenter, who views gender as a broad system of meanings, urges Jones (2002) to state that gender is relevant even when the killing is not gender specific, and provides the example of a disproportionate number of men involved in genocide are killed because they are socially committed roles that are perceived as threatening (ie political and military elites) (2002, p.83). Similarly, von Joeden-Forgey sees the practice of “atrocities of life force” as a hallmark of genocide and describes them as acts committed to “… inflict maximum damage on the spiritual core of the generative and fundamental entities we call families”. (2010, p. 2). Von Joeden-Forgey elaborates and argues that genocidal attacks are often targeted at individuals “… based on their (perceived) symbolic status within the social and biological group reproduction.” Men as husbands / heads of families / political leaders and women as mothers / women / Daughters and so on (2012, p.95).
The occurrence of such acts of depravity, argued by Joeden-Forgey, is broadly symptomatic of genocidal violence and shows that gender goes far beyond gender-selective killing, as suggested by Adam Jones (2002, p. 70; 2015, p. 134) argued) to actively shape the overall character of the genocide. While von Joeden-Forgey is good at identifying socially constructed gender stereotypes as influencing all acts of genocide, her analysis does not go far enough. Although she correctly identifies gender stereotypes as indicators of genocidal behavior (2012, p. 95), she does not ask where these stereotypes come from. An explanation for this comes from what Butler calls the “heterosexual matrix” (1990, p.151).
This refers to the system of logic by which sex is created; the discursive construction of men and women as two discrete and oppositional categories, each of which is assumed to have its own gender-specific characteristics (1990, p.151), since gender-specific binary files such as rationality / emotionality appear in public / private. Butler’s work is just one example of a queer science that deconstructs how identities are created through the (often hidden) frames of knowledge in which they resideHowever, there is not enough space for a full explanation. Queer approaches to global politics, however, explain how ideas about the discursive construction of sexuality can influence the study of global politics.
Queering Global Politics
Queer IR and transnational queer scholars provide an indication of the approach that genocide studies would benefit from and demonstrate the constitutive power of (hetero) sexuality in global politics. Queer theorists tie what has traditionally been viewed as the staple food of the positivist IR (e.g. war, sovereignty and terrorism) to the discourses of sexuality and show how important anti-fundamentalist approaches are for the IR as a discipline. This is something genocidal scholars should repeat well to deepen their understanding of genocidal violence.
Melanie Richter-Montpetit explains the advantages of this approach and argues that the rejection of a “clearly bound reference object” by queer theory has led to insights into the role of sexuality and gender in “broader power and normalization relationships”. (2017, p. 224). Jasbir Puar writes in this context and is a key scientist in establishing transnational queer thoughts. He argues that the US war on terror depends on sexualized narratives (2007, p. 2). This argument is based centrally on the concept of “homonationalism”, defined as the “use of” acceptance “and” tolerance “for gay and lesbian subjects as a barometer by which the legitimacy and ability to exercise national sovereignty is assessed.” (2013, p. 24). In connection with this, she stressed that the rise in LGBTQ rights in the West has been accompanied by the curtailment of the rights of Muslims who have suffered from “… the expansion of state powers to monitor, detain and deport”. (2013, p. 25). Puar therefore shows how homonormativity, defined by domesticity, consumption and nationalism (Duggan, 2003, pp. 50-51), has a constitutive influence on what is normally viewed in world politics as “material” events, in this case as Neo-imperialism. She also stresses that sexuality does not exist in isolation from other aspects of identity construction, and draws attention to the discursive construction of Muslims as “other” within the homonationalist project.
Another scholar who has undoubtedly made a contribution to queer analyzes of world politics is Lauren Wilcox, who criticizes the “practical turnaround” in IR only for “competent” services. Based on Butler’s theory of performativity (see Butler, 1993, p. 2), Wilcox states that it is precisely the act of failure that enables change within a discursive regime, and that those body styles that do not meet the established standards of competence of the ‘Practice rounds’ are the most interesting (2017, pp. 792-793). Wilcox further notes that this understanding of competency is dictated by the heterosexual matrix, with bodies inconsistent with the binary understanding of gender “… falling into the realm of obscurity and even inhumanity in their faults”. (2017, p. 794). To demonstrate this, Wilcox draws attention to the experiences of trans-bodies at borders, which are often classified as “risky” or “suspicious” for not practicing gender “competently” (2017, pp. 801-802). Since such cases are ignored by the “exercise turnaround”, she further suggests that the investigation of performance failure is an ontological contribution of queer / feminist theory to IR that has been marginalized (2017, p. 807).
Andrea Smith, who takes a strange approach to indigenous studies, claims that the Western construction of identities such as “the native” underpins settler colonialism (2010). Since Native Americans are the subject of research for Native American studies, Smith argues that this decolonizing discourse “often restores rather than challenges colonial formations and ideologies” (2010, p. 45) and reproduces the balance of power he seeks to question. This is because “the native” itself is a racist discourse that frames the topic as a child citizen in contrast to the civilized European (2010, p. 51), whereby such images continue to this day with “The” Crying Indian “” made possible “… the birth of a white enlightened environmental awareness.” (2010, p. 52). As such, Smith argues that both the logic of settler colonialism and decolonization must be challenged “to speak to the genocidal present,” which “… indigenous peoples continue to disappear …” (2010, p. 64). With indigenous land and history still being routinely erased by governments around the world, Smith shows that discursively constructed categories of identity can promote genocidal violence.
Probably the most important scientist in the establishment of queer IR is Cynthia Weber, who criticizes that disciplinary IR does not deal with queer approaches that de-stabilize their ontological, epistemological or methodological foundations (2015). Writing in her famous book Queer International Relations: Sovereignty, sexuality and the will to know (2016) Weber relies on Ashley’s characterization of “Statecraft as Mancraft” (2016, p. 4) and draws attention to the use of sexualized subjectivities such as “homosexual” in building an international anarchy that is contrasted with the “sovereign man”. of the state (2016, p.5).
Weber also highlights the recent use of a discourse that differentiates between the “perverse” homosexual and the “normal” homosexual in IR, the former being called “the” underdeveloped “, the” undeveloped “, the” undesirable immigrant “and the” undeveloped “is referred to as” terrorist “(2016, p.48), while the latter is seen as an entrepreneurial and patriotic” holder of gay rights “, especially in the USA under the Obama administration (2016, p.105). In Weber’s analysis of various figurations of the “homosexual” in the IR it becomes clear that the subject’s (in) ability to follow the norms of productive heterosexual development, also known as chrononormativity (Freeman, 2010, p. 3), is used as a criterion in decision-making about Normality / perversion, security / insecurity and sovereignty / non-sovereignty. Weber questions the norm of seeing global politics in binary terms and suggests Roland Barthes’ and / or to use the approach to the perverse / normal homosexuals as the basis for the conception of IR in order to enable a new “queer logic of statecraft” (2016, p. 22). 6). In this line of argument Weber makes a decisive contribution to queer IR by demonstrating the central importance of non-normative sexual subjectivities for the construction of selfhood and / or otherness in world politics.
Following the approach of scientists like Weber, there are clearly significant advantages of a queer approach to the study of genocide. By tying the occurrence of genocidal violence to the logic of heterosexuality, this approach could show that the essential and binary logic of heterosexuality is closely related to the occurrence of genocidal violence. In contrast to simply viewing genocide as “sexualized” when a group is addressed on the basis of their sexual / gender identity, genocide could then be exposed as productive for and constituted by these categories of identity. An example of this follows this logic; In contrast to the fact that “men” are a homogeneous group of people who are addressed on the basis of gender-specific perceptions of threats, “men” is a discursively constructed category made up of gender-specific perceptions. This is because genocidal violence is an achievement of these stereotypes: it is largely committed by “men” and is primarily aimed at “men” due to social norms for violence and threats.
As such, it contributes to the coherence of this category of identity, with the ability to violence seen as the property of “men” as opposed to “women”. It also explains the existence of male rape as an act of homosexualization / feminization in genocidal contexts (Ferrales et al., 2016). This perpetuates the gender binary number at the heart of heterosexuality and makes genocide an accomplishment of heterosexuality. In contrast to the earlier queer approaches, the existing scholarship, which deals with sexuality and genocide, is ontologically conservative and does not question the relationship between violence and the logic of heterosexuality. Therefore, there is an urgent need to adopt the anti-fundamental and deconstructive approach established in queer IR and transnational queer studies to examine the dynamics of genocide.
Sexuality and the Study of Genocide
Most of the literature that has dealt with the relationship between sexuality and genocide has dealt with combating and exterminating gay men in Nazi Germany (e.g. Crompton, 1978; Rector, 1981). Matthew Waites takes an explicitly queer approach to genocide, noting that the Genocide Convention fails to take into account groups based on culture or gender, resulting in the exclusion of sexuality (2018, p. 50), and tries to correct this. Waites focuses on “homosexuality” as a target for genocidal violence, as this term is used in the laws in Uganda and Gambia, but recognizes that this term is narrow in the population group covered (2018, ibid.). In this way, Waites can use the criteria of the Genocide Convention to judge whether genocide was committed against “homosexuals” in the cases of Nazi Germany, Gambia and Uganda.
When Waites found that in these three cases genocide of “homosexuals” was committed as a group (2018, p. 63), he evaluates the discursive advantages of using “genocide” as a label for queer politics and advocates sharing it afterwards. Debate and challenge of “genocide” as a concept within queer political movements (2018, ibid). Waites’ work is undoubtedly beneficial in that it looks at the relationship between sexuality and genocide from an explicitly strange perspective. Using the Genocide Convention as a set of criteria for determining whether genocide has occurred, Waites places an emphasis on legal frameworks versus lived experience. This is evidenced by the fact that Waites is forced to limit his analysis to [male] “Homosexuals” as strange victims of genocide to meet its revised “group” requirements under the Genocide Convention, although it is recognized that this focus is too narrow in practice (2018, p. 50). In addition, Waites’ limitation of his analysis to targeting queer individuals is problematic, as this implies that queer arguments are only relevant where queer individuals are addressed.
As the previously discussed Queer Scholarship shows, queer ideas are relevant in all global political events, as these events are legitimized, organized, interpreted and (re) presented by binary norms of heterosexuality. Using the example of Queer IR and transnational queer science, genocide studies must include an approach that demonstrates the relevance of discourses on heterosexuality to all cases of genocidal violence. This will both deconstruct the stereotypes that influence genocides, as well as contribute to the Queer Project to expose heteronormativity in previously unrequested spaces.
Conclusion: Queering Genocide
We need to understand more about the sexuality of genocidal violence, and this will only result from an analysis of heterosexuality as a system of logic as opposed to the individual identities that sit in that system. How queer theorists who deal with the organization of global politics establish, enable, inform and shape discourses about heterosexuality norms of violence in the IR. It is high time we applied this deconstructive approach to the study of genocide if we want to go beyond a review of the categories of sexual / gender identity and gain a deeper understanding of the role of violence in the constitution and (re) confirmation of these identities ( Shepherd, 2013, p.6). To do this in a strange way it is necessary to analyze a) the discursive conditions that allow genocidal violence to arise and b) the specific discourses that inform about the acts of violence occurring within a genocide. In relation to the former, special attention needs to be paid to the dehumanization of language in the run-up to genocidal violence, especially with regard to ideas of courtesy / depravity / development, which are central to an established (heterosexual) understanding of chronological / productive temporality, which is also is known as chrononormativity (Freeman, 2010). Once the form of this logic has been identified, it is possible to look at the specific types of violence that occur in a genocidal context and examine them in terms of ethical, gender, racial and sexualized meanings related to heterosexuality. For example, the use of public rape in genocidal contexts speaks for meanings about the sanctity of family ties and community reproduction, with genocidal rape often used to pollute the bloodline of another ethnic group (Banwell, 2015), to address local gender stereotypes arming to cause maximum trauma (from Joeden-Forgey, 2012) and as a symbolic act of feminization and disempowerment (Ferrales et al., 2016). All genocidal violence makes sense and only if we analyze this violence in relation to the binary stereotypes of the heterosexual matrix (Butler, 1990, p.151) can we understand how heterosexuality (re) creates genocidal violence and vice versa.
Amar P. (2013) The security archipelago: states of human security, sexual politics and the end of neoliberalism, Durham, North Carolina; Duke University Press
Anzaldua G. (1987) Borderlands / La Frontera: The new Mestiza, San Francisco: Auntie Lute
Anzaldua G. (1991) in Warland B. (Ed.) “To (o) Queer the Writer – Loca, escritora y chicana” Versions: Writing by Dykes, Queers & Lesbians, Vancouver: Press Gang, pp. 249-250
Brown S.E. (2014) “Women perpetrators of the genocide in Rwanda”, International Feminist Political Journal, Volume 16, Edition 3, 44-469, retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1080/14616742.2013.788806
Butler J. (1990) Gender issues and the subversion of identity, 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 Gay Study Reader, London and New York: Routledge, 307-320, p. 2
Buzan, B. (1997) “Rethinking Security After the Cold War” Cooperation and conflict32 (1), pp. 5-28. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/45084375
Carpenter R. C. (2002) Beyond “Gendercide”: Inclusion of Gender in Comparative Genocide Studies, The International 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 attack on democracy, Boston: Beacon Press, pp. 50-51
Ferrales G., Nyseth Brehm H. and Mcelrath S. (2016) “Gender-based violence against men and boys in Darfur” – The Gender-Genocide Nexus “, Gender & Society, Vol. 30, Issue 4, accessed at https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243216636331
Foster, E.A. (2011). Sustainable development: Problematisation of normative gender constructions within the global environmental government. Globalizations, [online] 8 (2), pp. 135-149. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/14747731.2010.493013.
Foucault M. (1976) ) The History of Sexuality Vol. 1 [translated by Hurley R.], New York: Pantheon Books
Frowd P.M. (2014) “Government Personality, Denial, and the United States’ HIV Travel Ban”, Millenium: Journal of International Studies, 42 (3), 860–878, accessed from https://doi.org/10.1177/0305829814541321
Hagen J.J. (2016) “Queering Women, Peace and Security”,International affairs, 92: 2, 313-332, accessed from http://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2346.12551
International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (1998) The prosecutor against Jean Paul Akayesku – judgment, 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 K., Scott J., Rughita B., Kisielewski M., Asher J., Ong R. and Lawry L. (2010) ‘Association of Sexual Violence and Human Rights Violations with Physical and Mental Health in Areas of Eastern Democracy, Republic of the Congo’, JAMA Network, 2010; 304 (5): 553-562, accessed at https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/186342
Jones A. (1994) “Gender and Ethnic Conflicts in Ex-Yugoslavia”, Ethnic and racist studies, Vol. 19, 1994 – Edition 1, pp. 115-134, p. 120, accessed from https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870.1994.9993815
Jones A (2000) “Gendercide and Genocide”, Journal of Genocide Research, 2: 2, 185-211, S.190, S.193, accessed at https://doi.org/10.1080/713677599
Jones A. (2002) “Gender and Genocide in Rwanda”, Journal of Genocide ResearchVol. 4, issue 1, 65-94, p. 70, accessed from https://doi.org/10.1080/14623520120113900
Jones A. (2015) “Genocide and Mass Violence” in Shepherd L. J. (Ed.) Gender Matters in Global Politics: A Feminist Introduction to International Relations (2nd Ed), London: Routledge, 141-158, 134, 147, 157,
Krain M. (1997) “State-sponsored mass murder: Beginning and severity of genocides and politicides, Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 3, June 1997, 331-360, accessed from http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0022002797041003001
Krain M. (2005) “International Intervention and the Severity of Genocides and Politicides”, International Studies Quarterly, 49 (3): 363–387, accessed from https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002797041003001
Lemkin R. (1946) “Genocide”, The American scholarVol. 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: Women Tell Genocide”, Sociological research onlinevol. 4, no. 2, accessed from https://doi.org/10.5153/sro.254
Mackinnon C.A. (1994) “Rape, Genocide and Women’s Rights”, Harvard Women’s Law Journal, 17Women’s Law 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) “Return of Practice to Linguistic Turnaround: The Case of Diplomacy, Millenium: Journal of International Studies, Volume 31, No. 3, pp. 627-651, p. 627, accessed from https://doi.org/10.1177/03058298020310031201
Peterson V. S. (2005) “How (the meaning of) gender issues in political economy”, New political economy, Vol. 4, December 2005, 499-521, p. 501, accessed from http://www.u.arizona.edu/~spikep/Publications/VSP%20GenderMatters%20NPE%202005.pdf
Peterson V.S. (2014) “Family Matters: How Queering the Intimate Queers the International”, International Studies Review, Volume 16, Issue 4, December 2014, 604–608, accessed at https://doi.org/10.1111/misr.12185
Puar J. (2007) Terrorist gatherings: homonationalism in queer times, London and Durham, NC: Duke University Press, pp. 2, p. 37
Puar J. (2013) “Homonationalism as Assemblage: Viral Travel, Affective Sexualities”, Jindal Global Law Review, Volume 4, Edition 2, 23-43, p. 24, p. 25, accessed from http://www.thing.net/~rdom/ucsd/3somesPlus/Puar.pdf
Rao R. (2010) Third World Protest: Between Home and World, Oxford: Oxford University Press
Rector F. (1981) The extermination of homosexuals by the Nazis New York: Stein and Day Publishers
Richter-Montpetit M. (2017) “Everything you always wanted to know about sex (in IR), but were afraid to ask: The” Queer Turn “in international relations”, Millennium: Journal of International Studies 2018Vol. 46 (2) 220-240, p. 224, accessed from https://doi.org/10.1177/0305829817733131
Sedgwick E.K. (1993) Tendencies Durham, NC: Duke University Press, p. 8
Sharlach L. (1999) “Gender and Genocide in Rwanda: Women as Agents and Objects of Genocide, Journal of Genocide Research (1999), 1 (3), 387-399, accessed on 23approx 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 from https://doi.org/10.1080/713687893
Shepherd L. J. (2013) Gender, violence and popular culture: telling stories, London and New York: Routledge, 6
Sivakumaran S. (2007) “Sexual violence against men in armed conflict”, The European Journal of International Law Vol. 18 no. 2, 253-276, retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/chm013
Sjoberg L. and Gentry C. E. (2007) Mothers, monsters, whores: violence by women in global politics, London and New York: Zed Books
Sjoberg L. and Gentry C. E. (2015) Jenseits von Müttern, Monstern, Huren: Nachdenken über die Gewalt von Frauen in der globalen Politik, London und New York: Zed Books
Smith A. (2010) „Queer-Theorie und native Studien: Die Heteronormativität des Siedlerkolonialismus“, GLQ: Ein Journal of Gay and Lesbian Studies, S. 41-68,16: 1-2, S. 45, S. 51, S. 52, S. 64, abgerufen unter https://doi.org/10.1215/10642684-2009-012
Smith, N. (2020). Sexualgeschichte des Kapitalismus. New York: Oxford University Press.
Smith R.W. (1994) “Frauen und Völkermord: Notizen zu einer ungeschriebenen Geschichte”, Holocaust- und Genozidstudien, V8 NC, Winter 1994, S. 315-334, abgerufen unter https://doi.org/10.1093/hgs/8.3.315
von Joeden-Forgey E. (2010) „Der Teufel im Detail:„ Gräueltaten der Lebenskraft “und der Angriff auf die Familie in KonfliktzeitenGenozidstudien und Prävention: Eine internationale Zeitschrift, Vol. 5: Iss. 1: Artikel 2, 1-19, S.2 einam 14th Januar 2020 unter http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/gsp/vol5/iss1/2
von Joeden-Forgey E. (2012) „Geschlecht und die Zukunft von Völkermordstudien und Prävention“, Völkermordstudien und Prävention: Eine internationale Zeitschrift, Vol. 7, Ausgabe 1, Artikel 10, 89-107, S. 95, abgerufen unter https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/gsp/vol7/iss1/10/
Generalversammlung der Vereinigten Staaten (1948) Übereinkommen zur Verhütung und Bestrafung des Völkermordverbrechens, 9. Dezember 1948, Treaty Series, vol. 78, Artikel 2, p. 280, abgerufen unter http://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b3ac0.html
Waites M. (2018) Völkermord und globale Queer-Politik, Journal of Genocide Research, 20: 1, 44-67, S. 50, S. 52, S. 63, S. 65, S. 66, abgerufen unter https://doi.org/10.1080/14623528.2017.1358920
Weber C. (2015) „Queer Intellectual Curiosity als Methode für internationale Beziehungen: Entwicklung von theoretischen und methodischen Rahmenbedingungen für Queer International Relations“,International Studies Quarterly, Band 60, Ausgabe 1, März 2016, 11-23, abgerufen unter https://doi.org/10.1111/isqu.12212
Weber C. (2016) Queer International Relations, Online-Stipendium für Universitätspresse: Oxford, S. 1-26, S.4, S.5, S.6, S.48, S.105, abgerufen unter https://global.oup.com/academic/product/queer -internationale-Beziehungen-9780199795864? cc = gb & lang = en &
Wilcox L. (2017) Gender üben, Queering-Theorie, Review of International Studies, Vol. 43, Teil 5, 789–808, abgerufen unter https://doi.org/10.1017/S0260210517000183 Wittig M. (1992) „The Straight Mind“ in Ferguson R., Gever M., Minh-ha T. T. et al. (Hrsg.) Da draußen: Marginalisierung und zeitgenössische Kulturen, London: Die MIT-Presse
 Sedgwick beschreibt Queer als “das offene Netz von Möglichkeiten, Lücken, Überschneidungen, Dissonanzen und Resonanzen, Lücken und Exzessen der Bedeutung, wenn die Bestandteile des Geschlechts eines Menschen, der Sexualität eines Menschen nicht hergestellt werden (oder) kann nicht sein gemacht) monolithisch zu bedeuten “(1993, S. 8). Es ist diese Definition, die mein Verständnis von Seltsamkeit leitet und sich auf eine ontologische und erkenntnistheoretische Ablehnung aller Kategorisierungsprozesse bezieht.
 Für weitere Stipendien zu männlichen Erfahrungen mit Völkermord siehe: Sivakumaran, 2007; Johnson et. al, 2010; Lewis, 2010.
 Z.B. siehe: Foucault, 1976; Anzaldua, 1987; Butler, 1990, 1993; Wittig, 1992; Sedgwick, 1993
 Die „Übungswende“ im IR bezieht sich auf einen Versuch, sich von sprachlichen Ansätzen zu entfernen und sich darauf zu konzentrieren, wie politisches Handeln tatsächlich erfolgt (Neumann, 2002, S.627).
 Für eine weitere hervorragende Queer-Wissenschaft, die die Aufmerksamkeit auf Diskurse der Sexualität in der Organisation der Weltpolitik lenkt, siehe auch; Rao, 2010; Foster, 2011; Amar, 2013; Peterson, 2014; Menge, 2014; Hagen, 2016; Wilcox, 2017; Smith, 2020.
Weiterführende Literatur zu E-International Relations