In the inchoate field of comparative genocide studies, religion and sexual violence remain largely understudied. Using typologies as an investigative tool, this study examines the 1995 Bosnian and 1994 Rwandan genocides as case studies. It will be argued that religion--in its expression and institutionalized form--potentiates genocidal violence in significant ways, and that the mutually reinforcing concepts of "othering," justification, and authorization are ideal types for teasing out the nexuses of the culture-specific logic of religion and the phenomenon of genocide. Moreover, rape and other forms of sexual violence were recently construed as "weapons of war," and four proposed genocidal rape types that align with the 1948 Genocide Convention demonstrate how this weapon furthers genocidal aims. Ultimately, it will be concluded that the comparative study of the religious and sexual facets of genocide--including the religious inflections of sexual violence--deepen our understanding of the dynamics of genocide, open up new lines of inquiry into genocide studies, and contribute to genocide prevention and prosecution efforts. / A Dissertation submitted to the Department of Religion in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. / Summer Semester 2015. / June 9, 2015. / Bosnia, genocide, religion, Rwanda, sexual violence / Includes bibliographical references. / Sumner B. Twiss, Professor Directing Dissertation; Dan Maier-Katkin, University Representative; Aline H. Kalbian, Committee Member; Martin Kavka, Committee Member; John Kelsay, Committee Member.

Under international law when governments come to power through extra-legal means the governments of other states must decide whether to recognize the new government as a legitimate agent of the state, and we observe considerable variation over who recognizes the new governments, the circumstances under which recognition occurs, and even how long it takes to recognize new governments. This project studies the processes that drive recognition decisions. Despite attempts, mainly by legal scholars, to limit the discretion that third-party governments have in this regard, the institution of recognition has persisted over time. I argue that states use recognition as a political tool to weaken hostile governments and support amicable ones. In addition to these direct self-interested motivations I also posit that the nature of recognition, itself, shapes recognition decisions and encourages coordination among potential recognizers with regard to new governments. To support these suppositions I develop a theory that uses both international legal (IL) arguments regarding recognition and international relations (IR) concepts and speaks to both literatures. IR scholars, with few exceptions, have yet to study recognition in any detail, and to date there are no empirical studies of the recognition of governments. This project represents the first step in that regard, and I use an event history approach to empirically test how and when countries strategically recognize new governments. Consistent with my theoretical expectations countries do appear to use recognition to weaken their enemies, but do not seem to use recognition to bolster their friends. I also find support that countries coordinate their recognition decisions. Finally, I also conduct a case study of American foreign policy towards a series of coups in Haiti from 1986-1994. That case study provides further support for my theoretical expectations and provides a much fuller examination of the recognition process. / A Dissertation submitted to the Department of Political Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. / Summer Semester 2016. / July 13, 2016. / Includes bibliographical references. / Will H. Moore, Professor Co-Directing Dissertation; Sean Ehrlich, Professor Co-Directing Dissertation; Michael Creswell, University Representative; Mark Souva, Committee Member; Dale Smith, Committee Member; Megan Shannon, Committee Member.