scholarly journals Understanding Mass Atrocity Prevention during Periods of Democratic Transition

2015 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 27-41 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen McLoughlin 
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Comparative Analysis ◽  
Democratic Transition ◽  
Analytical Framework ◽  
Violent Conflict ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
Ethnic Cleansing ◽  
Horizontal Inequality ◽  
Mass Atrocity ◽  
Atrocity Crimes

The purpose of this article is to provide a better understanding of why some countries experience mass atrocities during periods of democratic transition, while others do not. Scholars have long regarded democracy as an important source of stability and protection from mass atrocities such as genocide, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing. But democratic transition itself is fraught with the heightened risk of violent conflict and even mass atrocities. Indeed, a number of studies have identified regimes in transition as containing the highest risk of political instability and mass atrocities. What is overlooked is the question of how and why some regimes undergo such transitions without experiencing mass atrocities, despite the presence of a number of salient risk factors, including state-based discrimination, inter-group tension and horizontal inequality. Utilizing a new analytical framework, this article investigates this lacuna by conducting a comparative analysis of two countries—one that experienced atrocities (Burundi) during transition, and one that did not (Guyana). How countries avoid such violence during transition has the potential to yield insights for the mitigation of risk associated with mass atrocity crimes.

Notes for the Next un Secretary-General

2016 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. 331-342
Author(s):  
Simon Adams
Keyword(s):  
Crisis Response ◽  
Secretary General ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
Ethnic Cleansing ◽  
Conflict Prevention ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
Single Issue ◽  
Existential Crisis ◽  
Mass Atrocity ◽  
Atrocity Crimes

The United Nations faces an existential crisis. The norms that bind and ‘safeguard humanity’ are currently under threat. The deliberate bombing of hospitals and the indiscriminate killing of civilians has become almost routine in Syria and several other conflicts. Numerous governments and murderous non-state actors (like isis or Boko Haram) are defying international humanitarian and human rights law. This article argues that the solution to the current global exigency and a central challenge facing the next Secretary-General is to achieve an equilibrium shift away from crisis response and towards conflict prevention. This is especially true with regard to preventing mass atrocity crimes (genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing). Historically, no single issue has done more to tarnish the reputation of the un than the failure to halt atrocities. Under a committed Secretary-General, the un has unique capacity to prevent these crimes.

A Clash of Responsibilities: Engaging with Realist Critiques of the R2P

2012 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 334-357 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adrian M. Gallagher
Keyword(s):  
Real Life ◽  
Policy Option ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
Ethnic Cleansing ◽  
National Interests ◽  
National Responsibility ◽  
Mass Atrocity ◽  
International Responsibility ◽  
Atrocity Crimes ◽  
Life Challenge

In a post-R2P world, policymakers are not only confronted by the real life challenge of mass atrocity crimes but are also faced with a variety of voices offering alternative ways for framing the problems involved. The dominance of realism in 20th century political discourse puts forward the view that states do not have a moral obligation to protect the citizens of other states. As a result, the R2P remains just another policy option, one that should only be opted for when national interests are at stake. From this perspective, the national responsibility that states have to their citizens clashes with the international responsibility to protect populations the world over from genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and ethnic cleansing. Accordingly, this clash of responsibilities exposes a series of complexities regarding morality, power, survival, security, sovereignty, and order to name just a few. With this in mind, this paper engages with realist critiques in order to create a constructive conversation to help show areas of agreement and disagreement which will provide us with a more informed understanding of the challenges that face R2P implementation.

scholarly journals “I Would Prefer to Be Famous”

2018 ◽  
Vol 28 (4) ◽  
pp. 372-390 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susanne Karstedt
Keyword(s):  
World War Ii ◽  
Comparative Analysis ◽  
Transitional Justice ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
Data Sets ◽  
World War ◽  
War Criminals ◽  
Atrocity Crimes ◽  
The Impact

The reentry of sentenced perpetrators of atrocity crimes is part and parcel of the pursuit of international and transitional justice. As men and women sentenced for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and the other tribunals return from prisons into society and communities questions arise as to the impact their reentry has on deeply divided postconflict societies, in particular on victim groups. Contemporary international tribunals and courts mostly do not have penal or correctional policies of their own, and the legacy of early release, commuting of sentences and amnesties that Nuremberg and other post-World War II tribunals have left, is a particularly problematic one. Germany’s historical experience provides an analytic blueprint for understanding in which ways contemporary perpetrators return into changed and still fragile societies. This comparative analysis between Nuremberg and the ICTY is based on two data sets including information on returning war criminals sentenced in both tribunals. The comparative analysis focuses on four themes: politics of reentry, admission of guilt and justification, memoirs, and political activism.

The Myanmar-Rohingya Crisis, Civilian Protection, and the Dilemma of the Responsibility to Protect Norm Institutionalization

2021 ◽  
Vol 44 (1) ◽  
pp. 50-74
Author(s):  
Nicholas Idris Erameh ◽  
Victor Ojakorotu
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
Ethnic Cleansing ◽  
Civilian Protection ◽  
Mass Atrocity ◽  
To Come

Existing studies on the Myanmar-Rohingyan crisis have explored the contending issues from a narrow perspective. This underscores the need for broader engagement by interrogating the veracity of the claims of mass atrocities against the Rohingyans, nonauthorization of the Responsibility to Protect (RtoP), and implications for consolidating and internalizing the RtoP norm. This study argues that, while the acts of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and ethnic cleansing against the Rohingyans satisfies four of the crimes upon which RtoP can be authorized, its nonauthorization suggests that in spite of its commitment to “Never Again,” the international community is yet to come to terms with issues bordering on mass atrocity and civilian protection. This inaction amidst widespread atrocities against the Rohingyans explains why the RtoP is not only contested, but also risks the chances of further nonutilization and institutionalization. Thus, the possibility that the RtoP would remain valuable depends on how the international criminal court and the global community prosecute those culpable of atrocities against the Rohingyans, adopt a clear rule of establishing when mass atrocity has been perpetuated and demand RtoP intervention, and ensure that these interventions are guided by the principle of Jus in Bellum and Jus ad Bello.

The “Responsibility to Prevent”: An International Crimes Approach to the Prevention of Mass Atrocities

2014 ◽  
Vol 28 (4) ◽  
pp. 451-476 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ruben Reike
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
Ethnic Cleansing ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
Criminological Perspective ◽  
Atrocity Crimes

On September 9, 2013, diplomats and civil society activists gathered in a ballroom in New York to welcome Jennifer Welsh as the UN Secretary-General's new Special Adviser on the Responsibility to Protect (RtoP). In her first public appearance in that role, Special Adviser Welsh explained that one of her top priorities would be “to take prevention seriously and to make it meaningful in practice.” “In the context of RtoP,” Welsh added during the discussion, “we are talking about crimes, and crimes have implications in terms of how we deal with them. You'll hear me say that a lot.” Welsh's approach of treating RtoP as a principle that is primarily concerned with prevention and is firmly linked to international crimes neatly captures the evolution of RtoP since its formal acceptance by states at the 2005 UN World Summit. Paragraphs 138 to 140 of the World Summit's Outcome Document not only elevated the element of prevention to a prominent place within the principle of RtoP but also restricted the scope of RtoP to four specific crimes under international law: genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity. The crime and prevention–focused version of RtoP has subsequently been defended and promoted by Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and by UN member states. This article seeks to systematically explore some of the implications of linking RtoP to the concept of international crimes, with a particular focus on the preventive dimension of RtoP, the so-called responsibility to prevent. What, then, are the consequences of approaching the responsibility to prevent as the prevention of international crimes?In order to systematically examine this question, this article turns to literature from criminology. While the criminological perspective has so far been neglected in debates on RtoP, the prominent criminologists John Hagan and Wenona Rymond-Richmond argue vehemently that “criminology is crucially positioned to contribute understanding and direction to what the United Nations has mandated as the ‘Responsibility to Protect’ groups that are threatened with mass atrocities.” For the purpose of this article, the label “criminology” comprises domestic criminology, supranational criminology, and international criminal law. While insights from supranational criminology and international criminal law are directly applicable to international crimes, translating knowledge generated in relation to crimes at the domestic level to atrocity crimes at the international level is, of course, not without challenges. Reasoning by analogy is an important method in this regard, though given the anarchical nature of international society some analogies will inevitably be imperfect. The benefits of such an approach, if carefully employed, however, outweigh the risks.

The African Union

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kwesi Aning ◽  
Frank Okyere
Keyword(s):  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
African Union ◽  
Limited Capacity ◽  
Effective Implementation ◽  
Concrete Action ◽  
Mass Atrocity ◽  
Atrocity Crimes ◽  
Made In ◽  
Hybrid Forms

The African Union has been acclaimed for its effort in adopting policies that seek to protect civilian populations from mass atrocity crimes. It has transited from the principle of non-interference to non-indifference through the adoption of Article 4(h) of the Constitutive Act of 2000, which enjoins it to intervene in respect of war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity. Article 4(h) and the responsibility to protect share striking commonalities—both are rooted in the notion of sovereignty as responsibility. However, limited progress has been made in translating these normative principles into concrete action. This chapter notes the lingering issues of sovereignty and limited capacity for enforcement, as well as the state-centric approach to prevention without regard for local sources of resilience. Effective implementation of R2P should address the challenges of cooperation between the AU and other organs, and consider hybrid forms of prevention which exist in many African states.

Introduction

2019 ◽  
pp. 1-8
Author(s):  
Barbora Holá
Keyword(s):  
War Crimes ◽  
Broad Sense ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
Disciplinary Field ◽  
Mass Atrocity ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Atrocity Crimes

This chapter introduces the field of perpetrator studies, the topic of perpetrators of mass atrocity crimes, and provides short summaries of all the remaining chapters. It first describes perpetrator studies as a newly emerging, inter-, and multi-disciplinary field of scholarly interest focusing on perpetrators of mass atrocities, in which we include genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and terrorism. Secondly, it demarcates the scope of the book and discusses the subject of perpetrator studies—the perpetrator. Perpetrators of mass atrocity crimes as a category is contested and complex. We deliberately use it in a broad sense to include all individuals that are involved in one way or another in the perpetration of mass atrocities. Lastly, it explains the focus on theories, methods, and evidence, and briefly introduces all the book’s chapters.

scholarly journals Is a European Practice of Mass Atrocity Prevention Emerging? The European Union, Responsibility to Protect and the 2011 Libya Crisis

2015 ◽  
Vol 3 (4) ◽  
pp. 44-55 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chiara De Franco ◽  
Annemarie Peen Rodt
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Task Force ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
Ethnic Cleansing ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Mass Atrocity ◽  
The Eu

Observers have classified the European Union (EU) as reluctant in its implementation of the “Responsibility to Protect” (R2P) (Task Force on the EU Prevention of Mass Atrocities, 2013). This contribution revisits that argument by employing a more nuanced interpretation of norm implementation than the binary conceptualisation typically applied. By appraising EU reactions to the 2011 Libyan crisis, we investigate whether a “European practice of mass atrocity prevention” is emerging and if so how this relates—or not—to R2P. We do this by investigating EU practices seeking to protect people from genocide, ethnic cleansing, war crimes and crimes against humanity—paying particular attention to the three pillars and four policy areas included in the R2P framework (ICISS, 2001). Our review of EU responses to Libya seeks to unveil whether and if so how EU practice related to mass atrocity prevention in that country rejected, adopted or indeed adapted R2P. The enquiry appraises both how R2P mattered to the EU response and how the Libya crisis affected the Union’s approach to mass atrocity prevention and within it R2P. In this way, the study asks how norms can change practice, but also how practice can change norms. As such, our focus is on the inter-relationship between principles and practices of protection.

scholarly journals Lessons in Atrocity Prevention: A Closer Look at Guinea

2021 ◽  
Vol 24 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 367-401
Author(s):  
Cristina G. Stefan
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
Global Dynamics ◽  
Political Strategy ◽  
Conflict Prevention ◽  
Security Forces ◽  
Perceived Success ◽  
Atrocity Crimes ◽  
Internal Stakeholders

Abstract This article identifies the most significant atrocity risk factors and their indicators in accordance with the UN Framework of Analysis for Atrocity Crimes and provides a taxonomy of measures, taken by a variety of external and internal stakeholders, in different combinations, which reduced the risk of atrocity crimes reoccurring after the 2009 stadium massacre in Conakry, Guinea. On the 28th of September 2009, 157 protesters were killed, at least 1200 were injured, and over 100 women were raped by security forces in a stadium in Conakry. The UN’s Commission of Inquiry (coi) concluded that these crimes committed by the security forces amounted to crimes against humanity. The efforts to halt further violence and prevent the commission of crimes post-2009 stadium massacre were varied and encompassed regional and international preventive diplomacy. The coordination of a coherent political strategy among international, regional and sub-regional actors in the Guinean context contributed towards the perceived success in preventing further atrocities in Guinea, post-2009 massacre. Importantly, Guinea is not a typical example in terms of atrocity and conflict prevention, due to a unique regional and global dynamics that allowed for a rapid and rather coherent response to the September 2009 stadium massacre.

scholarly journals The Justice and Security Dialogue Project: Building the Resilience of Non-State Actors to Atrocity Crimes

AJIL Unbound ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 113 ◽  
pp. 273-278
Author(s):  
Colette Rausch
Keyword(s):  
Collective Action ◽  
Security Council ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
International Community ◽  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
Ethnic Cleansing ◽  
Un Security Council ◽  
Atrocity Crimes ◽  
Protection Pillar

The doctrine of “responsibility to protect” obliges all states to protect populations from “atrocity crimes”—namely, genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and ethnic cleansing—under three “pillars” of protection. Pillar One requires a state to protect its own population from atrocity crimes. Pillar Two obliges the international community to help states to exercise this responsibility through diplomatic, humanitarian, and other peaceful means. When both of these approaches fail, states must pursue a “Pillar Three” strategy: the UN Security Council must “take collective action, in a timely and decisive manner.”

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document