Although international human right norms have increasingly gained importance and legitimacy on a global level, there are still various cases where even the most fundamental human right to life is systematically violated by domestic state authorities. One such example concerns the violent handling of the Naxalite / Maoist conflict in the state of Chhattisgarh (2009-2012), India (= first case study). State violence does, however, not happen in a vacuum, nor do fundamental human rights violations. Sometimes also, and notably in spite of the presence of a significant internal security threat, state authorities do make a conscious effort to respect the lives of their citizens – even if they happen to be rebels – and do give priority to peaceful ways of conflict resolution (peace negotiations with the Maoists in Andhra Pradesh, India, 2004/05 = second case study). Applying a comparative case study design, the goal of this study was to examine how political discourses impact on the state's respect for the fundamental human right to life of its citizens. To this aim, an interpretative discourse analysis based on grounded theory was carried out. As the findings of this study revealed, discursive conditions / categories that matter most for determining whether fundamental human rights norms are violated or adhered to by state authorities, include how the identity of the object of state actions is constructed in the discourse, what emotions the involved key decision makers experience and transmit to others, plus what values are perceived to be at stake. In order to address and prevent violations of fundamental human rights norms more effectively, national and international policy makers need to take this discursive context into account. The paper concludes by proposing a new analytical 'tool-kit' for the examination of political key decision makers discourses. This discursive 'tool-box' can be used both as a new model to better understand the conflict from 'inside' – a precondition for any diplomatic means to be effective – as well as to predict severe forms of state violence and human rights violations.
