Citation

Richardot S. Aggress. Violent Behav. 2014; 19(2): 83-90.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2014, Elsevier Publishing)

DOI

10.1016/j.avb.2014.01.001

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

Based on a study of historical and social−psychological literature, this article examines the various strategies to which political, military, and police authorities have recourse to incite subordinates to engage in atrocities. Our hypothesis is that the formulation of orders plays an important role in processes aiming to get individuals to engage in war crimes. We studied three contexts (the Second World War, the Vietnam War, and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan) allowing us to propose a categorization of military orders to massacre or torture into five types: orders that give a choice, or are partial, coded, ambiguous, or fragmented. We add another specific category to the analysis, orders in the act. The analysis shows that in a democratic context, those giving orders tend to privilege vague, ambiguous, or partial orders, preserving appearances by being attentive to what may be verbalized and legality. In dictatorial contexts, order-givers tend instead to privilege explicit orders while trying to soften the psychological impact on subordinates (orders that give a choice, are coded, or are fragmented). We then discuss the consequences in terms of responsibility between the hierarchy and the executants.

Language: en