Abstract
Criminologists, political scientists, historians, and sociologists have long complained about the dearth of research into state crime, so this new volume represents a welcome addition. Both editors are young emerging scholars who have already garnered awards for their research in this area. It is interesting to note that most of the contributors to this collection of essays come from a critical criminology or critical theory perspective—which may say something about the topic and its application to theory. Mainstream criminologists tend not to work in this area, preferring positivist applications, the analysis of individual pathologies, and large statistical data sets.
The general design of this collection is to be welcomed. Many of the contributors are well known in the field, having previously published on the subject of state crime. Rothe and Mullins asked these contributors if they might update and comment on their previous work. Hence, State Crime: Current Perspectives is extremely current.
Normally, a review like this would proceed in an orderly fashion, briefly commenting on each chapter. Permit me to take an altogether different approach, by addressing several important themes or issues raised in this collection.
One issue which has become central to the entire field of criminology is the definition of state crime. Addressed in both the preface and initial chapters of this monograph, one confronts the classic debate between a legalistic or social harm-based definition of state crime. This debate is relevant not only to the scope of state crime, including genocide and crimes against humanity, but also to holding state actors accountable for their conduct. In an interesting footnote by long-time legal scholar M. Cherif Bassiouni, he writes: The data reveal that between 1948 and 2008, 210 conflicts have taken place, killing 92 million to 101 million people. Prosecutions occurred for no more than 1 percent of the perpetrators (p. 21).
Obviously, this debate has stark implications for accountability, even if one wishes to use various international covenants as a legal standard. On the other hand, the social harm definition allows readers to evaluate a whole range of state and corporate behavior which is not criminal, but clearly has “criminal” impacts on the civilian population. Now often called zemiology, this approach opens the discussion to alternative theoretical explanations (other than evil dictators) as well as solutions: amnesty in exchange for a cessation of violence, truth and reconciliation commissions, social media campaigns, and economic embargoes to name a few. There is a reason why state crime “still remains marginal to the study of criminology as a whole,” to quote contributor Gregg Barak (p. 37). Here, one might suggest that limiting theory to street criminality among the dangerous classes is designed to protect both mainstream explanation and intervention from critique. To quote another well-regarded contributor, David O. Friedrichs (p. 58):
Criminologists in the course of their graduate training and professional socialization are not typically taught to regard the Holocaust as a criminological phenomenon.
Yet another contribution from this collection is the question of what might become the “crime of the 21st century.” Several of the authors suggest it might be a nuclear holocaust. Ronald Kramer and David Kauzlarich argue that both the threat and use of nuclear armaments have now become “normalized” by the American security state. Albeit the use of nuclear weapons is clearly illegal under international law, so says the International Court of Justice, both authors refer to this as the “routinization of mass killing or state terrorism” (p. 89). This naturally leads to a discussion of the Iraq invasion by the Bush Administration.
Here, Ronald Kramer and Ray Michalowski make a valid claim that the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction, and everything to do with how the United States and its allies (p. 106) could control Iraqi oil, reconstruct Iraq’s economy to create a model free-market economic system, establish permanent military bases in the heart of the Middle East, consolidate American power in the region, and communicate a message about the futility of opposing the world’s “lone superpower” in the post-cold war, “unipolar” world.
This is not an approach one usually sees in undergraduate criminology classes, and would certainly open the eyes of any student who is more comfortable with notions of manifest destiny.
In the latter half of the monograph, the collection explores a number of case studies, including that of Burundi, the Pinochet regime in Chile, and the genocide in Rwanda. This leads to an animated discussion of attempts to control state crime. For instance, it is not at all clear that reliance on traditional prosecution is even effective, as both editors note unintended and even negative consequences. One well-cited example is the bombing campaign by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) during the Serb-Kosovo conflict in the former Yugoslavia, which led to even more casualties. One chapter is even devoted to the crazy notion that it might be advisable to allow, under international law, the assassination of regime elites—in order to forestall further acts of state murder against civilian populations. Of course, this option can be debated ad infinitum. A real example just occurred, when U.S. Navy seals shot and executed Osama bin Laden without trial and buried his body at sea. Finally, we have a discussion of the International Criminal Court created in 1998. As of now, no state actor has been found guilty by the Court, and there are more fugitives than accused held in custody (p. 292).
As for theory, the editors as well as some of the authors prefer to use the term “realpolitik” in place of political economy—which is the older term most often associated with Marxist approaches to understanding state and capital formation. Bassiouni, a lawyer by training, refers to this as “the despotism of domestic power holders over the vast majority of the populations they control and the exercise of power and hegemony, be it military or economic, by stronger states over weaker ones” (p. 17). What is strangely missing in this debate is the literal absence of Marxist theory of political economy. Indeed, there is no citation to Marx or Engels in the references. One reason to raise this critique is that Marxist theory does provide an explanation for state crimes over capital ownership, as well as the influence of multinational corporations especially in the developing world.
I recommend State Crime: Current Perspectives as a lively read, and one which addresses some very topical and controversial issues. It should be mandatory reading for any advanced course on the crimes of the powerful.