Search

Begin New Search Topic Risk Assessment Political Geography Global Focus

1. Countries at Risk for Intrastate Mass Killing 2024–25: Early Warning Project Statistical Risk Assessment Results

Author:
Simon-Skjodt Center for the Prevention of Genocide
Publication Date:
12-2024
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Simon-Skjodt Center for the Prevention of Genocide, United States Holocaust Memorial Museum
Abstract:
Policy makers face the challenge of simultaneously responding to ongoing mass atrocities and trying to prevent entirely new mass atrocity situations. A critical first step toward prevention is accurate and reliable assessment of countries at risk for future violence. The Early Warning Project’s Statistical Risk Assessment uses publicly available data and statistical modeling to produce a list of countries ranked by their estimated risk of experiencing a new episode, or onset, of intrastate mass killing. This report aims to help identify countries where preventive actions may be needed. Earlier identification of risk broadens the scope of possible preventive actions. In essence, our statistical model identifies patterns in historical data to answer the following question: Which countries today look most similar to countries that experienced mass killings in the past, in the year or two before those mass killings began? The historical data include basic country characteristics, as well as data on governance, war and conflict, human rights and civil liberties, and socioeconomic factors. This report highlights findings from our Statistical Risk Assessment for 2024–25, focusing on: Countries with the highest estimated risk of a new mass killing in 2024 or 2025 Countries where estimated risk has been consistently high over multiple years Countries where estimated risk has increased or decreased significantly from our last assessment Countries with unexpected results We emphasize that this assessment is just one tool. It is meant to be a starting point for discussion and further research, not a definitive conclusion. We aim to help governments, international organizations, and nongovernmental organizations determine where to devote resources for additional analysis, policy attention, and, ultimately, preventive action. We hope that this report and our Early Warning Project as a whole inspire governments and other organizations to invest in their own early warning capabilities.
Topic:
Genocide, Atrocity Prevention, Early Warning, and Risk Assessment
Political Geography:
Global Focus

2. Social Media Platforms, the Risks of Mass Atrocities, and Opportunities for Atrocity Prevention: 2023 Sudikoff Interdisciplinary Seminar on Genocide Prevention

Author:
Tallan Donine
Publication Date:
04-2023
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Simon-Skjodt Center for the Prevention of Genocide, United States Holocaust Memorial Museum
Abstract:
On January 19 and 24, the Simon-Skjodt Center for the Prevention of Genocide at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum brought together a diverse group of scholars, representatives of social media companies, practitioners, and policy makers for two 90-minute virtual convenings to discuss social media platforms, the risks of mass atrocities, and opportunities for atrocity prevention. Motivations for this seminar included (1) taking stock of knowledge about the relationship between social media, mass atrocities, and atrocity prevention; (2) generating new ideas for future research or practice on this topic; and (3) exploring how the Simon-Skjodt Center can play a constructive role in this area. This rapporteur’s report summarizes key observations raised during both discussions under the Chatham House rule of non-attribution and does not necessarily represent the views of all participants. The first session focused on exploring the interaction between social media platforms and risks of mass atrocities. Guiding questions included: • How might social media platforms contribute to risk factors associated with mass atrocities? • How might perpetrators use social media platforms to enact mass atrocities? • How might the relationship between social media platforms and mass atrocities change in the future? The second session focused on social media platforms and the prevention of mass atrocities. Guiding questions included: • How do technology firms and others understand the risks that social media platforms may inadvertently contribute to the commission of mass atrocities? • What steps have firms taken to date to address these risks? • What new or different actions can social media companies take to design and manage their platforms in ways that would help reduce risks of mass atrocities? • What type of regulation of social media platforms would most effectively balance interests in civil liberties and violence prevention?
Topic:
Genocide, Social Media, Atrocity Prevention, and Risk Assessment
Political Geography:
Global Focus

3. Social Media, Mass Atrocities, and Atrocity Prevention: 2023 Sudikoff Interdisciplinary Seminar on Genocide Prevention

Author:
Daniel Solomon and Tallan Donine
Publication Date:
04-2023
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Simon-Skjodt Center for the Prevention of Genocide, United States Holocaust Memorial Museum
Abstract:
In 2018, anti-Muslim extremists in Sri Lanka organized a series of attacks against Muslim civilians throughout the country (Taub and Fisher 2018). Extremist leaders used a misleading viral video to stoke fears that the country’s Muslim minority was organizing a campaign to sterilize the majority Sinhalese population en masse. The video circulated widely on Facebook, and participants in the violence also set up private WhatsApp groups to coordinate the violence. This is just one example of a disturbing pattern that is increasingly under the spotlight: social media seeming to fuel violence, including large-scale and deliberate attacks on civilians based on their identity. These examples have become widespread in recent years, with attacks on the Rohingya community in Burma, the Muslim community in India, and multiple marginalized groups in Ethiopia and elsewhere following a similar trajectory. Influential users appeared to use social media in these cases to dehumanize their targets, recruit participants, and coordinate violence. Amid public outcry social media firms have begun to develop or revise some policies to limit the spread of harmful content. In the Sri Lanka case, Meta—which operates both Facebook and WhatsApp— acknowledged and apologized for the platforms’ role in the violence (Facebook 2020), issued a series of human rights impact assessments of its role, and stated it would implement policies to address associated human rights concerns from its products, with applications to other high-risk contexts (Sissons 2020). Across social media companies, responses to concerns about “offline harm” have largely focused on content moderation, modifying algorithms that promote different kinds of content, and restricting access to certain users. Many advocates argue that actions to date have not gone far enough, asserting that stronger action—including government regulation—is necessary to prevent social media from contributing to violence, including mass atrocities. Social media use will only continue to rise, especially in countries at high risk of new mass atrocities. Beyond select cases, however, there is insufficient research about the specific relationship between social media platforms and the onset and escalation of mass atrocities—or how social media companies and government actors might limit these platforms’ potential negative effects. The goal of this paper is to stimulate and frame discussion during the Sudikoff Interdisciplinary Seminar on Genocide Prevention about the relationship between social media technologies and the risk and prevention of mass atrocities. Based on a review of relevant research, policy documents, and public statements by social media companies, the paper surveys current knowledge and identifies important gaps in understanding about (1) how social media platforms have contributed to the risk and occurrence of mass atrocities in the past and how they might do so in the future;1 and (2) strategies to help prevent social media from fueling mass atrocities.
Topic:
Social Media, Facebook, Atrocity Prevention, and Risk Assessment
Political Geography:
India, Sri Lanka, and Global Focus

4. A Framework for Action for the Responsibility to Protect: A Resource for States

Author:
Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect
Publication Date:
07-2023
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
The Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect
Abstract:
The Responsibility to Protect populations from genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing has emerged as an important global principle since the adoption of the UN World Summit Outcome Document in 2005. Since the conception of R2P, individual states and regional organizations, the UN, civil society, and experts around the world have worked to establish what implementation of R2P and the prevention of mass atrocity crimes means in practice. The Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect and the Asia-Pacific Centre for the Responsibility to Protect have developed a guide for states on steps to take to protect populations from atrocity crimes, at home and abroad. “A Framework for Action for the Responsibility to Protect: A Resource for States” consolidates and builds upon existing expertise from published works and best practice from states, regional organizations and the UN on how to prevent and respond to atrocity crimes. We encourage all states to utilize this framework to assess gaps and identify opportunities to address atrocity risks in their own countries, as well as to understand options available for responding to risks in their region and around the world.
Topic:
International Law, Responsibility to Protect (R2P), Atrocity Prevention, and Risk Assessment
Political Geography:
Global Focus

5. How Outrage Can be Quantified in Risk Assessment

Author:
Jerzy Wolanin, Paweł Kępka, and Oksana Telak
Publication Date:
03-2023
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Nowa Polityka Wschodnia
Institution:
Faculty of Political Science and International Studies, Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń
Abstract:
In the article the problem how an emotional state influences quantitative risk profile is discussed. Risk as a concept enhances two equivalent dimensions. The first dimension relates to experts’ risk assessment. The second one is related to public risk perception, named outrage. One can understand outrage as the emotional state concerning risk. Five different degrees of hazardous situations are described and public emotional attitude towards them is analyzed by structured interview. A correlation between the emotional attitude and readiness to act is calculated to describe amplification of risk by the emotional state. Then a risk profile is constructed.
Topic:
Public Opinion, Perception, Risk Assessment, and Outrage
Political Geography:
Global Focus

6. The Role and Importance of Disaster Risk Communication in Disaster Risk Reduction

Author:
Emin Yahya Menteşe
Publication Date:
06-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Turkish Economic and Social Studies Foundation (TESEV)
Abstract:
The communication model defined as disaster risk communication is one of the main components of disaster risk reduction and is often described along the lines of sharing critical information with the public and relevant parties during and after a disaster. However, the meaning of disaster risk communication goes beyond that single feature. This communication model aims to explain and create an accurate understanding of risk reduction activities, encourage people to integrate the concept of risk into their lives, and make the risk reduction approach a priority policy by turning it into a societal norm.
Topic:
Communications, Governance, Public Policy, Disaster Management, and Risk Assessment
Political Geography:
Global Focus

7. Fragile States Index 2021 – Annual Report

Author:
Natalie Fiertz, Nate Haken, Patricia Taft, Emily Sample, and Wendy Wilson
Publication Date:
05-2021
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
The Fund for Peace
Abstract:
The Fragile States Index, produced by The Fund for Peace, is a critical tool in highlighting not only the normal pressures that all states experience, but also in identifying when those pressures are pushing a state towards the brink of failure. By highlighting pertinent issues in weak and failing states, The Fragile States Index—and the social science framework and software application upon which it is built—makes political risk assessment and early warning of conflict accessible to policy-makers and the public at large.
Topic:
Climate Change, Authoritarianism, Employment, Fragile States, Economy, Political stability, Conflict, Crisis Management, Peace, Resilience, COVID-19, Health Crisis, Early Warning, and Risk Assessment
Political Geography:
Africa, Europe, Middle East, Tajikistan, Germany, Armenia, Central America, Spain, Lebanon, Timor-Leste, North America, Ethiopia, Southeast Asia, El Salvador, Global Focus, and United States of America

8. Fragile States Index 2019

Author:
Fund for Peace
Publication Date:
04-2019
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
The Fund for Peace
Abstract:
The Fragile States Index, produced by The Fund for Peace, is a critical tool in highlighting not only the normal pressures that all states experience, but also in identifying when those pressures are pushing a state towards the brink of failure. By highlighting pertinent issues in weak and failing states, The Fragile States Index — and the social science framework and software application upon which it is built — makes political risk assessment and early warning of conflict accessible to policy-makers and the public at large.
Topic:
Authoritarianism, Democracy, Fragile States, Political stability, Arab Spring, Peace, and Risk Assessment
Political Geography:
Africa, Caucasus, Middle East, Brazil, Yemen, South America, Central America, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Ethiopia, Somalia, Mauritius, and Global Focus

9. The Role of Justice in Preventing Mass Atrocities: 2019 Sudikof Interdisciplinary Seminar on Genocide Prevention

Author:
Amanda McCaffrey and Andrew Moore
Publication Date:
06-2019
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Simon-Skjodt Center for the Prevention of Genocide, United States Holocaust Memorial Museum
Abstract:
While justice may advance many goals in the context of mass atrocities, the focus of this seminar was its role in prevention and non-recurrence. The seminar took an expansive definition of justice tools, moving beyond the “transitional” justice framework to explore the potential utility of justice initiatives at all stages of atrocities. Justice interventions are not limited to efforts to prosecute perpetrators after atrocities have occurred, but can also be incorporated early on in at-risk situations and, in some cases, used to stem escalating tensions or violence. With limited scholarly or practical consensus on the role of justice in prevention and non-recurrence, domestic and international actors need to better understand which justice tools are best suited to various stages of conflict and how to design such tools to more effectively prevent and mitigate risks of atrocities. Breaking down silos between communities working on these issues—academics, international justice experts, policymakers, rule of law practitioners, atrocity prevention experts, local experts, victims, historians—is a first step to addressing this need. Participants agreed, however, that more work needs to be done to more precisely answer these questions and to cross-pollinate what research shows and translate it into practical policies, programs, and learnings that practitioners can use. The organizers framed the discussion around three distinct approaches to prevention: 1. Structural Prevention: Efforts to address underlying risk factors and root causes of atrocities in context. 2. Operational Prevention: Efforts to change the decision making processes of individual actors. 3. Systemic Prevention: Efforts to address global or transnational risks that fuel atrocities.
Topic:
Transitional Justice, Training, Justice, Atrocity Prevention, and Risk Assessment
Political Geography:
Global Focus