Mobilizing criminology: The boundaries of criminological science and the politics of genocide

development of institutions of international criminal law as a process, driven by humanitarian advocacy movements and the strategic use of agency by Tribunal prosecutors (Hagan, 2003). In Darfur and the Crime of Genocide, Hagan and Wenona Rymond-Richmond have made a role for criminology in this process, writing a work that can be distinguished from many other social scientific works on mass atrocity in two ways. First, there is the work’s intended use and its relationship to law. It attempts not only to provide a deeper understanding of the contexts and dynamics of genocidal violence, but to build a solid case to support human rights intervention in Sudan. It does this by developing mortality statistics inclusive of genocidal victimization that challenge the public health measures used to support political non-intervention, and new theoretical under-standings of genocide that help prove intentionality by Sudanese state leaders and support their prosecution by the International Criminal Court (ICC). The authors characterize this line of inquiry as criminology, approaching conflict through the lens of crime and supporting the expansion of international criminal law. Second, there is the study’s intended audience of criminologists and its aim of expanding the boundaries of criminology to encompass genocide. In this sense, the work is by criminologists—showing how traditional criminological theories can be developed to make sense of genocide—and the work is for criminologists—arguing that criminologists have a moral responsibility to respond to genocide, reinterpreting the history of criminology to show that genocide has, in fact, been a potential concern all along. Overall, the work achieves its ambitious goals, impressively advancing the cause of international human rights intervention, forging new directions for criminology, and serving as a powerful reminder of criminology’s normative authority, moral responsibilities