Institutions and Organizations
-

This event has been cancelled. We will update our website once the new date has been determined.

Encina Hall, C148
616 Jane Stanford Way
Stanford, CA 94305

0
Olivier Nomellini Senior Fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies
Director of the Ford Dorsey Master's in International Policy
Research Affiliate at The Europe Center
Professor by Courtesy, Department of Political Science
yff-2021-14290_6500x4500_square.jpg

Francis Fukuyama is Olivier Nomellini Senior Fellow at Stanford University's Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies (FSI), and a faculty member of FSI's Center on Democracy, Development, and the Rule of Law (CDDRL). He is also Director of Stanford's Ford Dorsey Master’s in International Policy Program, and a professor (by courtesy) of Political Science.

Dr. Fukuyama has written widely on issues in development and international politics. His 1992 book, The End of History and the Last Man, has appeared in over twenty foreign editions. His most recent book,  Liberalism and Its Discontents, was published in the spring of 2022.

Francis Fukuyama received his B.A. from Cornell University in classics, and his Ph.D. from Harvard in Political Science. He was a member of the Political Science Department of the RAND Corporation and of the Policy Planning Staff of the US Department of State. From 1996-2000 he was Omer L. and Nancy Hirst Professor of Public Policy at the School of Public Policy at George Mason University, and from 2001-2010 he was Bernard L. Schwartz Professor of International Political Economy at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University. He served as a member of the President’s Council on Bioethics from 2001-2004.  

Dr. Fukuyama holds honorary doctorates from Connecticut College, Doane College, Doshisha University (Japan), Kansai University (Japan), Aarhus University (Denmark), and the Pardee Rand Graduate School. He is a non-resident fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. He is a member of the Board of Trustees of the Rand Corporation, the Board of Trustees of Freedom House, and the Board of the Volcker Alliance. He is a fellow of the National Academy for Public Administration, a member of the American Political Science Association, and of the Council on Foreign Relations. He is married to Laura Holmgren and has three children.

(October 2024)

CV
Date Label
Olivier Nomellini Senior Fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies (FSI); Resident in FSI's Center on Democracy, Development, and the Rule of Law; Professor, by courtesy, of Political Science Speaker Stanford University
Seminars
-

Many ethnically divided societies are ridden with inter-ethnic conflicts which inhibit their economic development. Many scholars have advocated the adoption of “consensual” political institutions to facilitate the peaceful resolutions of ethnic conflicts in relatively mature democracies. In this paper, we argue instead that achieving social peace may require, in weakly institutional political environments, the transfer of de facto political power to opposition groups, for example, through their co-optation into the military. If the military is divided (i.e. formed by a plurality of ethnic groups) rather than unified (i.e. comprised by the same ethnic group that controls the government), the state can credibly commit to implement fiscal policies in line with the interests of a broad spectrum of social groups. This is because the groups whose interests are not served, but who have some de facto power generated by being part of the army, can pose a credible coup threat to the government. This credible threat induces the government to implement consensual policies, and therefore allows to smooth the underlying ethnic conflicts, preventing not only ethnic coups but also secessions and civil wars. Nevertheless, the strategy of ethnic balancing of the army is potentially risky, since it may induce the soldiers to attempt a preemptive coup in order to block the reform, as a reorganization of the military will reduce the rents of incumbent soldiers. One important message of our paper is that there may not be silver-bullet solutions to the problems caused by ethnic conflicts in weakly politicized societies, as it may prove difficult to reconcile the goal of preventing civil wars and secessions with the goal of preventing coups.

Image
Andrea Vindigni, Professor of Economics at IMT, Lucca Institute for Advanced Studies
Andrea Vindigni is a Professor of Economics at IMT, Lucca Institute for Advanced Studies. He was previously an Assistant Professor of Economics at the Institute of International Economic (IIES) at Stockholm University and Assistant Professor of Politics at Princeton University. He holds a Ph.D. in Economics from Toulouse School of Economics (TSE), and was a post-doctoral fellow at MIT, where he is a regular visitor.

Professor Vindigni's research interests focus on the political economy of a broad class of institutions. In particular, he has written on the political determinants of job protection legislation, the political economy of democratic constitutional choice, the effects of wars on political institutions and democratic transitions, and more recently on the political and economic origins of state power, military dictatorships and of religious beliefs and ideologies, in both analytic and comparative-historical perspective.

 

This talk is part of the Comparative Politics Workshop series, co-sponsored by The Europe Center.

Encina Hall West, Room 400 (Graham Stuart Lounge)

Andrea Vindigni Professor of Economics Speaker IMT, Lucca Institute for Advanced Studies
Workshops
-

Is Europe "elderly and haggard", and could France become "the crucible of  Europe" (Jan. 10, 2015 NYTimes op-ed)?

On the one hand, Europe is warned by the US about an Asian "pivot", and is perceived here as less relevant and effective. Significantly, certainly as a wake up call, Pope Francis recently compared Europe to  a "grandmother, no longer fertile and vibrant, increasingly a bystander in a world that has apparently become less and less Eurocentric”. France had been previously presented here as an eminent representative of an "Old Europe".

On the other hand,  the US has been constantly, during the last decade, advocating for a stronger Europe  and stressing a special French role in this endeavour. A few days ago, after the terrorist attacks in Paris, President Obama publicly stated that "France was the US oldest Ally". 

At a time when we have to face common challenges in the Middle East and in Africa, to adapt to new emerged actors and a more assertive Russia, to deal with direct threats including in the field of proliferation and the cyber space, to define a multipolar world and organize our economic relation (TTIP), what can be the EU contribution? What can also be a special intellectual and diplomatic French input to this global realignment?

Co-sponsored by The Europe Center, the Center for International Security and Cooperation and the France-Stanford Center.

Image
Ambassador Eric Lebédel of France

 

Ambassador Eric Lebédel is a French diplomat, former ambassador to the OSCE and to Finland, with a deep experience in Transatlantic relationship (twice as Minister's advisor;  in the French embassy in Washington DC) and in European affairs. He is also involved in crisis management (PMs office), international security (embassy in Moscow, consul general in Istanbul) and multilateral diplomacy ( NATO's Director for crisis management, OSCE). Presently working on Strategic Partnerships for the French MFA and interested in e.diplomacy, he also regularly lectures  at Sciences-po and ENA (Ecole Nationale d'Administration) on crisis management and Europe.

 

 

 

 

Ambassador Eric Lebédel French Diplomat Speaker
Seminars
News Type
Q&As
Date
Paragraphs

For 14 years, Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar has been a tireless Stanford professor who has strengthened the fabric of university’s interdisciplinary nature. Joining the faculty at Stanford Law School in 2001, Cuéllar soon found a second home for himself at the Freeman Spogli for International Studies. He held various leadership roles throughout the institute for several years – including serving as co-director of the Center for International Security and Cooperation. He took the helm of FSI as the institute’s director in 2013, and oversaw a tremendous expansion of faculty, research activity and student engagement. 

An expert in administrative law, criminal law, international law, and executive power and legislation, Cuéllar is now taking on a new role. He leaves Stanford this month to serve as justice of the California Supreme Court and will be succeeded at FSI by Michael McFaul on Jan. 5.

 As the academic quarter comes to a close, Cuéllar took some time to discuss his achievements at FSI and the institute’s role on campus. And his 2014 Annual Letter and Report can be read here.

You’ve had an active 20 months as FSI’s director. But what do you feel are your major accomplishments? 

We started with a superb faculty and made it even stronger. We hired six new faculty members in areas ranging from health and drug policy to nuclear security to governance. We also strengthened our capacity to generate rigorous research on key global issues, including nuclear security, global poverty, cybersecurity, and health policy. Second, we developed our focus on teaching and education. Our new International Policy Implementation Lab brings faculty and students together to work on applied projects, like reducing air pollution in Bangladesh, and improving opportunities for rural schoolchildren in China.  We renewed FSI's focus on the Ford Dorsey Program in International Policy Studies, adding faculty and fellowships, and launched a new Stanford Global Student Fellows program to give Stanford students global experiences through research opportunities.   Third, we bolstered FSI's core infrastructure to support research and education, by improving the Institute's financial position and moving forward with plans to enhance the Encina complex that houses FSI.

Finally, we forged strong partnerships with critical allies across campus. The Graduate School of Business is our partner on a campus-wide Global Development and Poverty Initiative supporting new research to mitigate global poverty.  We've also worked with the Law School and the School of Engineering to help launch the new Stanford Cyber Initiative with $15 million in funding from the Hewlett Foundation. We are engaging more faculty with new health policy working groups launched with the School of Medicine and an international and comparative education venture with the Graduate School of Education. 

Those partnerships speak very strongly to the interdisciplinary nature of Stanford and FSI. How do these relationships reflect FSI's goals?

The genius of Stanford has been its investment in interdisciplinary institutions. FSI is one of the largest. We should be judged not only by what we do within our four walls, but by what activity we catalyze and support across campus. With the business school, we've launched the initiative to support research on global poverty across the university. This is a part of the SEED initiative of the business school and it is very complementary to our priorities on researching and understanding global poverty and how to alleviate. It's brought together researchers from the business school, from FSI, from the medical school, and from the economics department.  

Another example would be our health policy working groups with the School of Medicine. Here, we're leveraging FSI’s Center for Health Policy, which is a great joint venture and allows us to convene people who are interested in the implementation of healthcare reforms and compare the perspective and on why lifesaving interventions are not implemented in developing countries and how we can better manage biosecurity risks. These working groups are a forum for people to understand each other's research agendas, to collaborate on seeking funding and to engage students. 

I could tell a similar story about our Mexico Initiative.  We organize these groups so that they cut across generations of scholars so that they engage people who are experienced researchers but also new fellows, who are developing their own agenda for their careers. Sometimes it takes resources, sometimes it takes the engagement of people, but often what we've found at FSI is that by working together with some of our partners across the university, we have a more lasting impact.

Looking at a growing spectrum of global challenges, where would you like to see FSI increase its attention? 

FSI's faculty, students, staff, and space represent a unique resource to engage Stanford in taking on challenges like global hunger, infectious disease, forced migration, and weak institutions.  The  key breakthrough for FSI has been growing from its roots in international relations, geopolitics, and security to focusing on shared global challenges, of which four are at the core of our work: security, governance, international development, and  health. 

These issues cross borders. They are not the concern of any one country. 

Geopolitics remain important to the institute, and some critical and important work is going on at the Center for International Security and Cooperation to help us manage the threat of nuclear proliferation, for example. But even nuclear proliferation is an example of how the transnational issues cut across the international divide. Norms about law, the capacity of transnational criminal networks, smuggling rings, the use of information technology, cybersecurity threats – all of these factors can affect even a traditional geopolitical issue like nuclear proliferation. 

So I can see a research and education agenda focused on evolving transnational pressures that will affect humanity in years to come. How a child fares when she is growing up in Africa will depend at least as much on these shared global challenges involving hunger and poverty, health, security, the role of information technology and humanity as they will on traditional relations between governments, for instance. 

What are some concrete achievements that demonstrate how FSI has helped create an environment for policy decisions to be better understood and implemented?

We forged a productive collaboration with the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees through a project on refugee settlements that convened architects, Stanford researchers, students and experienced humanitarian responders to improve the design of settlements that house refugees and are supposed to meet their human needs. That is now an ongoing effort at the UN Refugee Agency, which has also benefited from collaboration with us on data visualization and internship for Stanford students. 

Our faculty and fellows continue the Institute's longstanding research to improve security and educate policymakers. We sometimes play a role in Track II diplomacy on sensitive issues involving global security – including in South Asia and Northeast Asia.  Together with Hoover, We convened a first-ever cyber bootcamp to help legislative staff understand the Internet and its vulnerabilities. We have researchers who are in regular contact with policymakers working on understanding how governance failures can affect the world's ability to meet pressing health challenges, including infectious diseases, such as Ebola.

On issues of economic policy and development, our faculty convened a summit of Japanese prefectural officials work with the private sector to understand strategies to develop the Japanese economy.  

And we continued educating the next generation of leaders on global issues through the Draper Hills summer fellows program and our honors programs in security and in democracy and the rule of law. 

How do you see FSI’s role as one of Stanford’s independent laboratories?

It's important to recognize that FSI's growth comes at particularly interesting time in the history of higher education – where universities are under pressure, where the question of how best to advance human knowledge is a very hotly debated question, where universities are diverging from each other in some ways and where we all have to ask ourselves how best to be faithful to our mission but to innovate. And in that respect, FSI is a laboratory. It is an experimental venture that can help us to understand how a university like Stanford can organize itself to advance the mission of many units, that's the partnership point, but to do so in a somewhat different way with a deep engagement to practicality and to the current challenges facing the world without abandoning a similarly deep commitment to theory, empirical investigation, and rigorous scholarship.

What have you learned from your time at Stanford and as director of FSI that will inform and influence how you approach your role on the state’s highest court?

Universities play an essential role in human wellbeing because they help us advance knowledge and prepare leaders for a difficult world. To do this, universities need to be islands of integrity, they need to be engaged enough with the outside world to understand it but removed enough from it to keep to the special rules that are necessary to advance the university's mission. 

Some of these challenges are also reflected in the role of courts. They also need to be islands of integrity in a tumultuous world, and they require fidelity to high standards to protect the rights of the public and to implement laws fairly and equally.  

This takes constant vigilance, commitment to principle, and a practical understanding of how the world works. It takes a combination of humility and determination. It requires listening carefully, it requires being decisive and it requires understanding that when it's part of a journey that allows for discovery but also requires deep understanding of the past.

Hero Image
All News button
1
Paragraphs

This book combines organization theory oriented institutionalism with Eisenstadt's work on comparative liminality, to develop a unique analytical framework and explore the dynamic of stability and change in institutionalized orders. It then applies this framework to analyze ways how three fringe players of the modern diplomatic order - the Holy See (HS), the Sovereign Military Order of Malta (SMOM), and the European Union (EU) – have been accommodated within that order.
 
Batora and Hynek reveal that the modern diplomatic order is less state-centric than conventionally assumed and is instead better conceived of as a heteronomy - an order characterized by co-existence of units with different age, and structurally and ontologically different principles of growth and operation. They argue that this heteronomous character of the modern diplomatic order renders it more robust and far less susceptible to change than much of the proliferating literature on the changing nature of diplomacy has presented it.

All Publications button
1
Publication Type
Books
Publication Date
Authors
Jozef Bátora
Nik Hynek
News Type
News
Date
Paragraphs

Scottish voters go to the polls this Thursday to determine whether to remain part of the United Kingdom, or to become an independent Scotland.  The latest polls show a neck and neck race, a development that would not have been believable just months ago when the "No" campaign held a dominant lead.

Christophe Crombez, Belgian-American economist and consulting professor at Stanford's Europe Center in the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies and Stanford Global Studies Division, discussed the pros and cons of Scottish independence on KQED Radio's "Forum with Michael Krasney" (Mon, Sep 15, 2014).  Joining him were Adam Ramsay, a senior campaigner for "Yes Scotland", co-editor of Open Democracy and author of 42 Reasons to Support Scottish Independence, and Geoff Dyer, Financial Times' US diplomatic correspondent.

Visit KQED Radio's Forum web article "Will Scotland Vote for Independence?" to download a recording of this interview.

All News button
1
-

 

Please click on the image below to view the video recording of this event.

 

 

Co-sponsored by The Europe Center and the Center for Russian, East European and Eurasian Studies.

 

Barnes/McDowell/Cranston Room
Fisher Conference Center at the Arrillaga Alumni Center

Miroslav Lajcak Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Speaker Slovak Republic

Encina Hall
616 Jane Stanford Way
Stanford, CA 94305-6055

0
Director, Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies
Ken Olivier and Angela Nomellini Professor of International Studies, Department of Political Science
Peter and Helen Bing Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution
2022-mcfaul-headshot.jpg
PhD

Michael McFaul is Director at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies, the Ken Olivier and Angela Nomellini Professor of International Studies in the Department of Political Science, and the Peter and Helen Bing Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution. He joined the Stanford faculty in 1995. Dr. McFaul also is as an International Affairs Analyst for NBC News and a columnist for The Washington Post. He served for five years in the Obama administration, first as Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Russian and Eurasian Affairs at the National Security Council at the White House (2009-2012), and then as U.S. Ambassador to the Russian Federation (2012-2014).

He has authored several books, most recently the New York Times bestseller From Cold War to Hot Peace: An American Ambassador in Putin’s Russia. Earlier books include Advancing Democracy Abroad: Why We Should, How We Can; Transitions To Democracy: A Comparative Perspective (eds. with Kathryn Stoner); Power and Purpose: American Policy toward Russia after the Cold War (with James Goldgeier); and Russia’s Unfinished Revolution: Political Change from Gorbachev to Putin. He is currently writing a book called Autocrats versus Democrats: Lessons from the Cold War for Competing with China and Russia Today.

He teaches courses on great power relations, democratization, comparative foreign policy decision-making, and revolutions.

Dr. McFaul was born and raised in Montana. He received his B.A. in International Relations and Slavic Languages and his M.A. in Soviet and East European Studies from Stanford University in 1986. As a Rhodes Scholar, he completed his D. Phil. In International Relations at Oxford University in 1991. His DPhil thesis was Southern African Liberation and Great Power Intervention: Towards a Theory of Revolution in an International Context.

CV
Professor of Political Science, and Senior Fellow, the Freeman Spogli Institute and the Hoover Institution Speaker Stanford University

CISAC
Stanford University
Encina Hall, C235
Stanford, CA 94305-6165

(650) 723-6927 (650) 725-0597
0
Senior Fellow, by courtesy, at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies
Robert & Florence McDonnell Professor of East European Studies
Professor of History
Professor, by courtesy, of German Studies
Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution
Naimark,_Norman.jpg
MS, PhD

Norman M. Naimark is the Robert and Florence McDonnell Professor of East European Studies, a Professor of History and (by courtesy) of German Studies, and Senior Fellow of the Hoover Institution and (by courtesy) of the Freeman-Spogli Institute for International Studies. Norman formerly served as the Sakurako and William Fisher Family Director of the Stanford Global Studies Division, the Burke Family Director of the Bing Overseas Studies Program, the Convener of the European Forum (predecessor to The Europe Center), Chair of the History Department, and the Director of Stanford’s Center for Russian, East European, and Eurasian Studies.

Norman earned his Ph.D. in History from Stanford University in 1972 and before returning to join the faculty in 1988, he was a professor of history at Boston University and a fellow of the Russian Research Center at Harvard. He also held the visiting Catherine Wasserman Davis Chair of Slavic Studies at Wellesley College. He has been awarded the Officer's Cross of the Order of Merit of the Federal Republic of Germany (1996), the Richard W. Lyman Award for outstanding faculty volunteer service (1995), and the Dean's Teaching Award from Stanford University for 1991-92 and 2002-3.

Norman is interested in modern Eastern European and Russian history and his research focuses on Soviet policies and actions in Europe after World War II and on genocide and ethnic cleansing in the twentieth century. His published monographs on these topics include The History of the "Proletariat": The Emergence of Marxism in the Kingdom of Poland, 1870–1887 (1979, Columbia University Press), Terrorists and Social Democrats: The Russian Revolutionary Movement under Alexander III (1983, Harvard University Press), The Russians in Germany: The History of The Soviet Zone of Occupation, 1945–1949 (1995, Harvard University Press), The Establishment of Communist Regimes in Eastern Europe (1998, Westview Press), Fires of Hatred: Ethnic Cleansing In 20th Century Europe (2001, Harvard University Press), Stalin's Genocides (2010, Princeton University Press), and Genocide: A World History (2016, Oxford University Press). Naimark’s latest book, Stalin and the Fate of Europe: The Postwar Struggle for Sovereignty (Harvard 2019), explores seven case studies that illuminate Soviet policy in Europe and European attempts to build new, independent countries after World War II.

 

Affiliated faculty at The Europe Center
Affiliated faculty at the Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law
The Sakurako and William Fisher Family Director of the Stanford Global Studies Division and Robert and Florence McDonnell Professor in East European Studies Speaker Stanford University
Kathryn Stoner Faculty Director, Susan Ford Dorsey Program in International Policy Studies and Senior Fellow, Freeman Spogli Institute Speaker Stanford University
-

Conference Agenda for Day 3, October 10, 2014:

 

9:00 – 10:15 AM Chair: Katherine Jolluck, Stanford University

  • Aigi Rahi-Tamm, Tartu University. Doubly Marginalized People: the Hidden Stories of Breaking Trust between People in Estonian Society (1940–1960)
  • Daina Bleiere, Rīga Stradiņš University. Women in the Soviet Latvian Nomenclature (1940–1987)

10:30 AM – 12:15 PM Chair: Darius Staliunas, Lithuanian Institute of History

  • Saulius Grybkauskas, Lithuanian Institute of History. The Second Secretaries of Communist Parties in the Soviet Baltic Republics during 1944–1990
  • David Beecher, University of California, Berkeley. A Tale of Two Scholars:  Paul Ariste and Yuri Lotman
  • Gail Lapidus, Stanford University. The Baltic National Movements and the End of the USSR

12:15 – 2:00 PM Break

2:00 – 3:15 PM Chair: Paul Roderick Gregory, Hoover Institution

  • Elga Zalīte, Green Library. The Rev. Richards Zariņš Collection in Stanford University Libraries as a Source for the Study of the Post-World War II Latvian Emigration in the United States
  • David Jacobs, Hoover Institution Archives. Stateless Representatives: Baltic Diplomats during the Cold War

3:30 – 4:15 PM Chair: Saulius Sužiedėlis, Millersville University, Pennsylvania

  • Maciej Siekierski, Hoover Institution Archives. Baltic Collections and Scholarship at the Hoover Institution
  • Liisi Esse, Green Library. The Baltic Studies Program of Stanford University Libraries

 

6:00 – 8:00 PM, Cubberley Auditorium, Education Building, 485 Lasuen Mall

Latvian film director Pēteris Krilovs will present his documentary Obliging Collaborators (2014)

 

Conference organizers:  Professors Lazar Fleishman (Slavic Department) and Amir Weiner (History Department)

Sponsored by: Hoover Institution Library and Archives, Office of the Provost, Stanford School of Humanities and Sciences, Stanford Global Studies Division, The Europe Center, Stanford University Libraries, Division of Literatures, Cultures, & Languages, Department of Slavic Languages and Literatures, Department of History, Center for Russian, East European and Eurasian Studies, and the Stanford Humanities Center.

 

Stauffer Auditorium, Hoover Institution (9:00am - 4:15pm)
Cubberley Auditorium (for film screening, 6:00pm - 8:00pm)
 

Conferences
-

Conference Agenda for Day 2, October 9, 2014:


9:00-10:45 AM Chair: Magnus Ilmjärv, Тallinn University

  • Ineta Lipša, Institute of History of Latvia. Interwar History of Latvia: the Gender Aspects
  • Aivars Stranga, University of Latvia. Kārlis Ulmanis' Regime: Politics, Economics, Culture
  • Andres Kasekamp, Tartu University. The Estonian Radical Right in the 1930s: The Collapse of Democracy and the Rise of Authoritarianism. 

11:00 AM – 12:15 PM Chair: David Holloway, Stanford University

  • Arturas Svarauskas, Lithuanian Institute of History. Regime, Society, and Political Tensions in Lithuania, 1938–1940.
  • Magnus Ilmjärv, Тallinn University. Munich Pact and the Baltic States, 1938 – The Fateful Year for the Baltic States.

12:15 – 2:00 PM Break

2:00 – 3:15 PM Chair: Norman Naimark, Stanford University

  • Saulius Sužiedėlis, Millersville University, Pennsylvania. The Nazi Occupation and the Holocaust in Reichskommissariat Ostland: Conflicting Narratives and Memories
  • Uldis Neiburgs, Museum of the Occupation of Latvia. Latvia, Nazi German Occupation, and the Western Allies, 1941–1945

3:30 – 4:45 PM Chair: Gabriella Safran, Stanford

  • Ene Kõresaar, Tartu University. World War II in Estonian Memory and Commemoration
  • Kristina Burinskaitė, The Genocide and Resistance Research Centre of Lithuania. The KGB Search of War Criminals in the West and the Attempts to Discredit Lithuanian Emigration

 

Conference organizers:  Professors Lazar Fleishman (Slavic Department) and Amir Weiner (History Department)

Sponsored by: Hoover Institution Library and Archives, Office of the Provost, Stanford School of Humanities and Sciences, Stanford Global Studies Division, The Europe Center, Stanford University Libraries, Division of Literatures, Cultures, & Languages, Department of Slavic Languages and Literatures, Department of History, Center for Russian, East European and Eurasian Studies, and the Stanford Humanities Center.

 

 

Stauffer Auditorium, Hoover Institution

Conferences
Paragraphs

The crime of rape has been prevalent in all contexts, whether committed during armed conflict or in peacetime, and has largely been characterised by a culture of impunity. International law, through its branches of international human rights law, international humanitarian law and international criminal law, has increasingly condemned such violence and is progressively obliging states to prevent rape, whether committed by a state agent or a private actor. Whereas the prohibition of rape has been consistently recognised in these areas of law, the definition of the offence has been a later concern to international law. Attempts to define the crime have, however, been made by the ad hoc tribunals (International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia), regional human rights courts and UN treaty bodies. Increasing duties are thus placed on states, not only to prevent rape through the enactment of criminal laws, but to adopt specific elements of the crime in domestic legislation. This study systematises and analyses such emerging obligations in international law. This leads to overarching questions on the fragmentation and harmonisation of norms between various regimes in international law.

All Publications button
1
Publication Type
Books
Authors
Maria Sjöholm
Number
9789004202634
Subscribe to Institutions and Organizations