Podcast appearances and mentions of carrie booth walling

Why does the UN intervene in some cases of mass violence and not others? Why and how have public attitudes toward humanitarian intervention changed over the past decades? And how do the stories we tell each other about cases of violence and civil war impact our decisions about when intervention is appropriate? Carrie Booth Walling's recent book, All Necessary Measures: The United Nations and Humanitarian Intervention (University of Pennsylvania Press, 2013) sets out to answer these questions. She looks at a series of international crises in the 1990s in the 1990s and early 2000s, beginning with Iraq in 1991-2 and concluding with the recent conflict in Syria. In each case, she examines how member-states in the UN characterize the conflict and how that characterization shapes their preferred responses. The conclusion is simple: narratives matter. They determine how people describe the conflict. They determine the kind of responses countries are willing to consider. And they determine, at least in part, whether the UN chooses to intervene in conflicts, and if so, how and to what end. Walling's research is careful and her conclusions measured and well-supported. She joins an increasing emphasis in genocide studies on the importance of narratives of all kind. Readers will come away with an increased understanding of why the international community sometimes seems to care about mass violence and sometimes does not. This podcast is the last in our summer/fall series on research about genocide prevention. If you find this interview interesting, I encourage you to listen to previous interviews in the series as well. The series includes interviews with Scott Straus, Bridget Conley-Zilkic and James Waller. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Why does the UN intervene in some cases of mass violence and not others? Why and how have public attitudes toward humanitarian intervention changed over the past decades? And how do the stories we tell each other about cases of violence and civil war impact our decisions about when intervention is appropriate? Carrie Booth Walling’s recent book, All Necessary Measures: The United Nations and Humanitarian Intervention (University of Pennsylvania Press, 2013) sets out to answer these questions. She looks at a series of international crises in the 1990s in the 1990s and early 2000s, beginning with Iraq in 1991-2 and concluding with the recent conflict in Syria. In each case, she examines how member-states in the UN characterize the conflict and how that characterization shapes their preferred responses. The conclusion is simple: narratives matter. They determine how people describe the conflict. They determine the kind of responses countries are willing to consider. And they determine, at least in part, whether the UN chooses to intervene in conflicts, and if so, how and to what end. Walling’s research is careful and her conclusions measured and well-supported. She joins an increasing emphasis in genocide studies on the importance of narratives of all kind. Readers will come away with an increased understanding of why the international community sometimes seems to care about mass violence and sometimes does not. This podcast is the last in our summer/fall series on research about genocide prevention. If you find this interview interesting, I encourage you to listen to previous interviews in the series as well. The series includes interviews with Scott Straus, Bridget Conley-Zilkic and James Waller. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Why does the UN intervene in some cases of mass violence and not others? Why and how have public attitudes toward humanitarian intervention changed over the past decades? And how do the stories we tell each other about cases of violence and civil war impact our decisions about when intervention is appropriate? Carrie Booth Walling’s recent book, All Necessary Measures: The United Nations and Humanitarian Intervention (University of Pennsylvania Press, 2013) sets out to answer these questions. She looks at a series of international crises in the 1990s in the 1990s and early 2000s, beginning with Iraq in 1991-2 and concluding with the recent conflict in Syria. In each case, she examines how member-states in the UN characterize the conflict and how that characterization shapes their preferred responses. The conclusion is simple: narratives matter. They determine how people describe the conflict. They determine the kind of responses countries are willing to consider. And they determine, at least in part, whether the UN chooses to intervene in conflicts, and if so, how and to what end. Walling’s research is careful and her conclusions measured and well-supported. She joins an increasing emphasis in genocide studies on the importance of narratives of all kind. Readers will come away with an increased understanding of why the international community sometimes seems to care about mass violence and sometimes does not. This podcast is the last in our summer/fall series on research about genocide prevention. If you find this interview interesting, I encourage you to listen to previous interviews in the series as well. The series includes interviews with Scott Straus, Bridget Conley-Zilkic and James Waller. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Why does the UN intervene in some cases of mass violence and not others? Why and how have public attitudes toward humanitarian intervention changed over the past decades? And how do the stories we tell each other about cases of violence and civil war impact our decisions about when intervention is appropriate? Carrie Booth Walling’s recent book, All Necessary Measures: The United Nations and Humanitarian Intervention (University of Pennsylvania Press, 2013) sets out to answer these questions. She looks at a series of international crises in the 1990s in the 1990s and early 2000s, beginning with Iraq in 1991-2 and concluding with the recent conflict in Syria. In each case, she examines how member-states in the UN characterize the conflict and how that characterization shapes their preferred responses. The conclusion is simple: narratives matter. They determine how people describe the conflict. They determine the kind of responses countries are willing to consider. And they determine, at least in part, whether the UN chooses to intervene in conflicts, and if so, how and to what end. Walling’s research is careful and her conclusions measured and well-supported. She joins an increasing emphasis in genocide studies on the importance of narratives of all kind. Readers will come away with an increased understanding of why the international community sometimes seems to care about mass violence and sometimes does not. This podcast is the last in our summer/fall series on research about genocide prevention. If you find this interview interesting, I encourage you to listen to previous interviews in the series as well. The series includes interviews with Scott Straus, Bridget Conley-Zilkic and James Waller. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Why does the UN intervene in some cases of mass violence and not others? Why and how have public attitudes toward humanitarian intervention changed over the past decades? And how do the stories we tell each other about cases of violence and civil war impact our decisions about when intervention is appropriate? Carrie Booth Walling’s recent book, All Necessary Measures: The United Nations and Humanitarian Intervention (University of Pennsylvania Press, 2013) sets out to answer these questions. She looks at a series of international crises in the 1990s in the 1990s and early 2000s, beginning with Iraq in 1991-2 and concluding with the recent conflict in Syria. In each case, she examines how member-states in the UN characterize the conflict and how that characterization shapes their preferred responses. The conclusion is simple: narratives matter. They determine how people describe the conflict. They determine the kind of responses countries are willing to consider. And they determine, at least in part, whether the UN chooses to intervene in conflicts, and if so, how and to what end. Walling’s research is careful and her conclusions measured and well-supported. She joins an increasing emphasis in genocide studies on the importance of narratives of all kind. Readers will come away with an increased understanding of why the international community sometimes seems to care about mass violence and sometimes does not. This podcast is the last in our summer/fall series on research about genocide prevention. If you find this interview interesting, I encourage you to listen to previous interviews in the series as well. The series includes interviews with Scott Straus, Bridget Conley-Zilkic and James Waller. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Today is the third of our occasional series on the question of how to respond to mass atrocities. Earlier this summer I talked with Scott Straus and Bridget Conley-Zilkic. Later in September I'll talk with Carrie Booth Walling. I'm teaching a class on the Historical Method this semester. As part of this we've talked quite a bit about the question of whether historians have ethical imperatives as part of their writing. As you might expect, the students have disagreed, sometimes emotionally, about this issue. Within the field of genocide studies, this question is considerably less contentious. No one expects to be completely neutral in the face of studying mass atrocities. Each of the books in this occasional series on our response to mass atrocities has examined the topic carefully, thoroughly and objectively. Yet, each has an ethical imperative manifested in a tangible urgency that underlays the careful scholarly analysis. James Waller's new book Confronting Evil: Engaging Our Responsibility to Prevent Genocide (Oxford University Press, 2016) shares this passion. Building on his earlier work, Waller is most interested in how we should respond to genocide and similar crimes. His answer is aimed at academics, but especially at non-specialists. The result is a superb survey of the existing literature on prevention understood broadly. Read in conjunction with Straus and Conley-Zilkic, it reminds us of the importance of acting before crises strike and of recognizing both the opportunities and the limitations of intervention. It's a must read for anyone interested in the topic.

Today is the third of our occasional series on the question of how to respond to mass atrocities. Earlier this summer I talked with Scott Straus and Bridget Conley-Zilkic. Later in September I’ll talk with Carrie Booth Walling. I’m teaching a class on the Historical Method this semester. As part of this we’ve talked quite a bit about the question of whether historians have ethical imperatives as part of their writing. As you might expect, the students have disagreed, sometimes emotionally, about this issue. Within the field of genocide studies, this question is considerably less contentious. No one expects to be completely neutral in the face of studying mass atrocities. Each of the books in this occasional series on our response to mass atrocities has examined the topic carefully, thoroughly and objectively. Yet, each has an ethical imperative manifested in a tangible urgency that underlays the careful scholarly analysis. James Waller’s new book Confronting Evil: Engaging Our Responsibility to Prevent Genocide (Oxford University Press, 2016) shares this passion. Building on his earlier work, Waller is most interested in how we should respond to genocide and similar crimes. His answer is aimed at academics, but especially at non-specialists. The result is a superb survey of the existing literature on prevention understood broadly. Read in conjunction with Straus and Conley-Zilkic, it reminds us of the importance of acting before crises strike and of recognizing both the opportunities and the limitations of intervention. It’s a must read for anyone interested in the topic. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Today is the third of our occasional series on the question of how to respond to mass atrocities. Earlier this summer I talked with Scott Straus and Bridget Conley-Zilkic. Later in September I’ll talk with Carrie Booth Walling. I’m teaching a class on the Historical Method this semester. As part of this we’ve talked quite a bit about the question of whether historians have ethical imperatives as part of their writing. As you might expect, the students have disagreed, sometimes emotionally, about this issue. Within the field of genocide studies, this question is considerably less contentious. No one expects to be completely neutral in the face of studying mass atrocities. Each of the books in this occasional series on our response to mass atrocities has examined the topic carefully, thoroughly and objectively. Yet, each has an ethical imperative manifested in a tangible urgency that underlays the careful scholarly analysis. James Waller’s new book Confronting Evil: Engaging Our Responsibility to Prevent Genocide (Oxford University Press, 2016) shares this passion. Building on his earlier work, Waller is most interested in how we should respond to genocide and similar crimes. His answer is aimed at academics, but especially at non-specialists. The result is a superb survey of the existing literature on prevention understood broadly. Read in conjunction with Straus and Conley-Zilkic, it reminds us of the importance of acting before crises strike and of recognizing both the opportunities and the limitations of intervention. It’s a must read for anyone interested in the topic. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Today is the third of our occasional series on the question of how to respond to mass atrocities. Earlier this summer I talked with Scott Straus and Bridget Conley-Zilkic. Later in September I’ll talk with Carrie Booth Walling. I’m teaching a class on the Historical Method this semester. As part of this we’ve talked quite a bit about the question of whether historians have ethical imperatives as part of their writing. As you might expect, the students have disagreed, sometimes emotionally, about this issue. Within the field of genocide studies, this question is considerably less contentious. No one expects to be completely neutral in the face of studying mass atrocities. Each of the books in this occasional series on our response to mass atrocities has examined the topic carefully, thoroughly and objectively. Yet, each has an ethical imperative manifested in a tangible urgency that underlays the careful scholarly analysis. James Waller’s new book Confronting Evil: Engaging Our Responsibility to Prevent Genocide (Oxford University Press, 2016) shares this passion. Building on his earlier work, Waller is most interested in how we should respond to genocide and similar crimes. His answer is aimed at academics, but especially at non-specialists. The result is a superb survey of the existing literature on prevention understood broadly. Read in conjunction with Straus and Conley-Zilkic, it reminds us of the importance of acting before crises strike and of recognizing both the opportunities and the limitations of intervention. It’s a must read for anyone interested in the topic. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Today is the third of our occasional series on the question of how to respond to mass atrocities. Earlier this summer I talked with Scott Straus and Bridget Conley-Zilkic. Later in September I’ll talk with Carrie Booth Walling. I’m teaching a class on the Historical Method this semester. As part of this we’ve talked quite a bit about the question of whether historians have ethical imperatives as part of their writing. As you might expect, the students have disagreed, sometimes emotionally, about this issue. Within the field of genocide studies, this question is considerably less contentious. No one expects to be completely neutral in the face of studying mass atrocities. Each of the books in this occasional series on our response to mass atrocities has examined the topic carefully, thoroughly and objectively. Yet, each has an ethical imperative manifested in a tangible urgency that underlays the careful scholarly analysis. James Waller’s new book Confronting Evil: Engaging Our Responsibility to Prevent Genocide (Oxford University Press, 2016) shares this passion. Building on his earlier work, Waller is most interested in how we should respond to genocide and similar crimes. His answer is aimed at academics, but especially at non-specialists. The result is a superb survey of the existing literature on prevention understood broadly. Read in conjunction with Straus and Conley-Zilkic, it reminds us of the importance of acting before crises strike and of recognizing both the opportunities and the limitations of intervention. It’s a must read for anyone interested in the topic. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Today is the third of our occasional series on the question of how to respond to mass atrocities. Earlier this summer I talked with Scott Straus and Bridget Conley-Zilkic. Later in September I’ll talk with Carrie Booth Walling. I’m teaching a class on the Historical Method this semester. As part of this we’ve talked quite a bit about the question of whether historians have ethical imperatives as part of their writing. As you might expect, the students have disagreed, sometimes emotionally, about this issue. Within the field of genocide studies, this question is considerably less contentious. No one expects to be completely neutral in the face of studying mass atrocities. Each of the books in this occasional series on our response to mass atrocities has examined the topic carefully, thoroughly and objectively. Yet, each has an ethical imperative manifested in a tangible urgency that underlays the careful scholarly analysis. James Waller’s new book Confronting Evil: Engaging Our Responsibility to Prevent Genocide (Oxford University Press, 2016) shares this passion. Building on his earlier work, Waller is most interested in how we should respond to genocide and similar crimes. His answer is aimed at academics, but especially at non-specialists. The result is a superb survey of the existing literature on prevention understood broadly. Read in conjunction with Straus and Conley-Zilkic, it reminds us of the importance of acting before crises strike and of recognizing both the opportunities and the limitations of intervention. It’s a must read for anyone interested in the topic. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

If you want to know how to bring future mass atrocities to an end, the best place to start is to examine how past mass atrocities have ended. This simple piece of logic is at the heart of Bridget Conley-Zilkic’s new edited collection titled How Mass Atrocities End: Studies from Guatemala, Burundi, Indonesia, the Sudans, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Iraq (Cambridge University Press, 2016). As Conley points out in her introduction, leaders choose to engage in mass atrocities because the rewards for doing so seem greater than the cost. They end either because they have achieved their goal or because the balance of rewards and costs has changed. So, for people interested in preventing or stopping mass atrocities, the challenge lies in changing that balance. This book, then, examines a variety of different case studies to understand how the changing calculus of rewards and cots has occurred historically. The case studies are superb, the range of cases broad and the analysis perceptive. It is a sobering book to read, one that avoids easy answers or platitudes. But behind it lies a determination to make a difference. This is one of an occasional series of podcasts that address the question of preventing or responding to mass atrocities. Earlier this summer I interviewed Scott Straus about his book Fundamentals of Genocide and Mass Atrocity Prevention. In the next couple months I’ll also speak with Jim Waller and Carrie Booth Walling. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

If you want to know how to bring future mass atrocities to an end, the best place to start is to examine how past mass atrocities have ended. This simple piece of logic is at the heart of Bridget Conley-Zilkic’s new edited collection titled How Mass Atrocities End: Studies from Guatemala, Burundi, Indonesia, the Sudans, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Iraq (Cambridge University Press, 2016). As Conley points out in her introduction, leaders choose to engage in mass atrocities because the rewards for doing so seem greater than the cost. They end either because they have achieved their goal or because the balance of rewards and costs has changed. So, for people interested in preventing or stopping mass atrocities, the challenge lies in changing that balance. This book, then, examines a variety of different case studies to understand how the changing calculus of rewards and cots has occurred historically. The case studies are superb, the range of cases broad and the analysis perceptive. It is a sobering book to read, one that avoids easy answers or platitudes. But behind it lies a determination to make a difference. This is one of an occasional series of podcasts that address the question of preventing or responding to mass atrocities. Earlier this summer I interviewed Scott Straus about his book Fundamentals of Genocide and Mass Atrocity Prevention. In the next couple months I’ll also speak with Jim Waller and Carrie Booth Walling. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

If you want to know how to bring future mass atrocities to an end, the best place to start is to examine how past mass atrocities have ended. This simple piece of logic is at the heart of Bridget Conley-Zilkic’s new edited collection titled How Mass Atrocities End: Studies from Guatemala, Burundi, Indonesia, the Sudans, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Iraq (Cambridge University Press, 2016). As Conley points out in her introduction, leaders choose to engage in mass atrocities because the rewards for doing so seem greater than the cost. They end either because they have achieved their goal or because the balance of rewards and costs has changed. So, for people interested in preventing or stopping mass atrocities, the challenge lies in changing that balance. This book, then, examines a variety of different case studies to understand how the changing calculus of rewards and cots has occurred historically. The case studies are superb, the range of cases broad and the analysis perceptive. It is a sobering book to read, one that avoids easy answers or platitudes. But behind it lies a determination to make a difference. This is one of an occasional series of podcasts that address the question of preventing or responding to mass atrocities. Earlier this summer I interviewed Scott Straus about his book Fundamentals of Genocide and Mass Atrocity Prevention. In the next couple months I’ll also speak with Jim Waller and Carrie Booth Walling. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

If you want to know how to bring future mass atrocities to an end, the best place to start is to examine how past mass atrocities have ended. This simple piece of logic is at the heart of Bridget Conley-Zilkic’s new edited collection titled How Mass Atrocities End: Studies from Guatemala, Burundi, Indonesia, the Sudans, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Iraq (Cambridge University Press, 2016). As Conley points out in her introduction, leaders choose to engage in mass atrocities because the rewards for doing so seem greater than the cost. They end either because they have achieved their goal or because the balance of rewards and costs has changed. So, for people interested in preventing or stopping mass atrocities, the challenge lies in changing that balance. This book, then, examines a variety of different case studies to understand how the changing calculus of rewards and cots has occurred historically. The case studies are superb, the range of cases broad and the analysis perceptive. It is a sobering book to read, one that avoids easy answers or platitudes. But behind it lies a determination to make a difference. This is one of an occasional series of podcasts that address the question of preventing or responding to mass atrocities. Earlier this summer I interviewed Scott Straus about his book Fundamentals of Genocide and Mass Atrocity Prevention. In the next couple months I’ll also speak with Jim Waller and Carrie Booth Walling. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

If you want to know how to bring future mass atrocities to an end, the best place to start is to examine how past mass atrocities have ended. This simple piece of logic is at the heart of Bridget Conley-Zilkic's new edited collection titled How Mass Atrocities End: Studies from Guatemala, Burundi, Indonesia, the Sudans, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Iraq (Cambridge University Press, 2016). As Conley points out in her introduction, leaders choose to engage in mass atrocities because the rewards for doing so seem greater than the cost. They end either because they have achieved their goal or because the balance of rewards and costs has changed. So, for people interested in preventing or stopping mass atrocities, the challenge lies in changing that balance. This book, then, examines a variety of different case studies to understand how the changing calculus of rewards and cots has occurred historically. The case studies are superb, the range of cases broad and the analysis perceptive. It is a sobering book to read, one that avoids easy answers or platitudes. But behind it lies a determination to make a difference. This is one of an occasional series of podcasts that address the question of preventing or responding to mass atrocities. Earlier this summer I interviewed Scott Straus about his book Fundamentals of Genocide and Mass Atrocity Prevention. In the next couple months I'll also speak with Jim Waller and Carrie Booth Walling.

This podcast is the first of a new occasional series of interviews addressing the question of responding to mass atrocities and genocide. Later in the summer I’ll interview Bridget Conley-Zilkic, James Waller and Carrie Booth Walling. First up, however, is today’s interview with Scott Straus. Whenever I teach classes on genocide or on the Holocaust, students most want to know the answer to a simple question: How can we make sure this doesn’t happen again? Straus’ new book, Fundamentals of Genocide and Mass Atrocity Prevention (United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, 2016), surveys the recent research to try and answer this question. In part, it’s a resource for practitioners, summarizing the consensus on best practices. But it’s much more than that. It’s a succinct but subtle conversation with the research–pointing out complexities, interrogating common assumptions and pointing to places where more research is needed. The result is a book that professionals, academics and interested citizens should read. It’s a book that has interesting resonances with the other books of this series as well. I hope you’ll listen to the entire series and read the books. I know that doing so has made me think hard about how I teach the subject in my classes.   Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This podcast is the first of a new occasional series of interviews addressing the question of responding to mass atrocities and genocide. Later in the summer I’ll interview Bridget Conley-Zilkic, James Waller and Carrie Booth Walling. First up, however, is today’s interview with Scott Straus. Whenever I teach classes on genocide or on the Holocaust, students most want to know the answer to a simple question: How can we make sure this doesn’t happen again? Straus’ new book, Fundamentals of Genocide and Mass Atrocity Prevention (United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, 2016), surveys the recent research to try and answer this question. In part, it’s a resource for practitioners, summarizing the consensus on best practices. But it’s much more than that. It’s a succinct but subtle conversation with the research–pointing out complexities, interrogating common assumptions and pointing to places where more research is needed. The result is a book that professionals, academics and interested citizens should read. It’s a book that has interesting resonances with the other books of this series as well. I hope you’ll listen to the entire series and read the books. I know that doing so has made me think hard about how I teach the subject in my classes.   Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This podcast is the first of a new occasional series of interviews addressing the question of responding to mass atrocities and genocide. Later in the summer I’ll interview Bridget Conley-Zilkic, James Waller and Carrie Booth Walling. First up, however, is today’s interview with Scott Straus. Whenever I teach classes on genocide or on the Holocaust, students most want to know the answer to a simple question: How can we make sure this doesn’t happen again? Straus’ new book, Fundamentals of Genocide and Mass Atrocity Prevention (United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, 2016), surveys the recent research to try and answer this question. In part, it’s a resource for practitioners, summarizing the consensus on best practices. But it’s much more than that. It’s a succinct but subtle conversation with the research–pointing out complexities, interrogating common assumptions and pointing to places where more research is needed. The result is a book that professionals, academics and interested citizens should read. It’s a book that has interesting resonances with the other books of this series as well. I hope you’ll listen to the entire series and read the books. I know that doing so has made me think hard about how I teach the subject in my classes.   Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This podcast is the first of a new occasional series of interviews addressing the question of responding to mass atrocities and genocide. Later in the summer I’ll interview Bridget Conley-Zilkic, James Waller and Carrie Booth Walling. First up, however, is today’s interview with Scott Straus. Whenever I teach classes on genocide or on the Holocaust, students most want to know the answer to a simple question: How can we make sure this doesn’t happen again? Straus’ new book, Fundamentals of Genocide and Mass Atrocity Prevention (United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, 2016), surveys the recent research to try and answer this question. In part, it’s a resource for practitioners, summarizing the consensus on best practices. But it’s much more than that. It’s a succinct but subtle conversation with the research–pointing out complexities, interrogating common assumptions and pointing to places where more research is needed. The result is a book that professionals, academics and interested citizens should read. It’s a book that has interesting resonances with the other books of this series as well. I hope you’ll listen to the entire series and read the books. I know that doing so has made me think hard about how I teach the subject in my classes.   Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices