Atrocity. Genocide. War crime. Crime Against Humanity. Such atrocity labels have been popularized among international lawmakers but with little insight offered into how and when these terms are applied and to what effect. What constitutes an event to be termed a genocide or war crime and what role does this play in the application of legal proceedings? Markus P. Beham, through an interdisciplinary and comparative approach, unpicks these terms to uncover their historical genesis and their implications for international criminal law initiatives concerned with atrocity. The book uniquely compares four specific case studies: Belgian colonial exploitation of the Congo, atrocities committed against the Herero and Nama in German South-West Africa, the Armenian genocide and the man-made Ukrainian famine of the 1930s. Encompassing international law, legal history, and discourse analysis, the concept of 'atrocity labelling' is used to capture the meaning underlying the work of international lawyers and prosecutors, historians and sociologists, agenda setters and policy makers.

Winner of the 2019 CEU Award for Outstanding Research The book explores the making of Romanian nation-state citizenship (1750-1918) as a series of acts of emancipation of subordinated groups (Greeks, Gypsies/Roma, Armenians, Jews, Muslims, peasants, women, and Dobrudjans). Its innovative interdisciplinary approach to citizenship in the Ottoman and post-Ottoman Balkans appeals to a diverse readership.

After 1898 the United States not only solidified its position as an economic colossus, but by annexing Puerto Rico and the Philippines it had also added for the first time semi-permanent, heavily populated colonies unlikely ever to attain statehood. In short order followed a formal protectorate over Cuba, the "taking" of Panama to build a canal, and the announcement of a new Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine, proclaiming an American duty to "police" the hemisphere. Empire had been an American practice since the nation's founding, but the new policies were understood as departures from traditional methods of territorial expansion. How to match these actions with traditional non-entanglement constituted the central preoccupation of U.S. foreign relations in the early twentieth century. International lawyers proposed instead that the United States become an impartial judge. By becoming a force for law in the world, America could reconcile its republican ideological tradition with a desire to rank with the Great Powers. Lawyers' message scaled new heights of popularity in the first decade and a half of the twentieth century as a true profession of international law emerged. The American Society of International Law (ASIL) and other groups, backed by the wealth of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, held annual meetings and published journals. They called for the creation of an international court, the holding of regular conferences to codify the rules of law, and the education of public opinion as to the proper rights and duties of states. To an extent unmatched before or since, the U.S. government-the executive branch if not always the U.S. Senate-embraced this project. Washington called for peace conferences and pushed for the creation of a "true " international court. It proposed legal institutions to preserve order in its hemisphere. Meanwhile lawyers advised presidents and made policy. The ASIL counted among its first members every living secretary of state (but one) who held office between 1892 and 1920. Growing numbers of international lawyers populated the State Department and represented U.S. corporations with business overseas. International lawyers were not isolated idealists operating from the sidelines. Well-connected, well-respected, and well-compensated, they formed an integral part of the foreign policy establishment that built and policed an expanding empire.