Search

Begin New Search Topic Atrocity Prevention Publication Year within 3 Years

1. Beyond the Weapon of War: Rethinking Gendered Narratives of Conflict-Related Sexual Violence

Author:
Sydney Leigh Smith
Publication Date:
04-2025
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Journal of Public and International Affairs (JPIA)
Institution:
School of Public and International Affairs (SPIA), Princeton University
Abstract:
Conflict-related sexual violence (CRSV) has traditionally been understood as an inevitable byproduct of war, with rape framed as a biologically driven act of sexual gratification committed by men against women. This perception shifted following landmark rulings by the International Criminal Tribunals for former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and Rwanda (ICTR), which established sexual violence as a weapon of war. This article critically examines the "weapon of war" framework, which portrays militarized men as strategic perpetrators and women as symbolic victims, arguing that it reproduces harmful gendered identities and oversimplifies the complexities of sexual violence in conflict. The paper first traces the historical evolution of how CRSV has been conceptualized—from a natural consequence of war to a gendered and strategic tool of power—before analyzing the limitations of the weapon of war paradigm. It highlights the framework’s exclusion of male victims, female perpetrators, and diverse motivations for sexual violence—such as opportunism, material gain, and combatant bonding—as well as its failure to account for cases where armed groups refrain from using sexual violence altogether. Drawing on original analysis of over 4,000 redacted ICTR witness testimonies, the article demonstrates how the framework has constrained legal recognition, obscured lived experiences, and reproduced narrow narratives of ethnic hatred and gendered violence. It calls for a reframing of the gendered weapon of war concept to better account for the complexity of CRSV and to promote more inclusive approaches to justice, prevention, and survivor-centered redress.
Topic:
Rape, Sexual Violence, Accountability, Armed Conflict, Gender, and Atrocity Prevention
Political Geography:
Global Focus

2. What the White House and Congress Can Do to Prevent Global Mass Atrocities

Author:
Federica D'Alessandra
Publication Date:
05-2025
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Abstract:
The Unites States has long recognized that preventing and responding to mass atrocities is both a moral responsibility and in its national security interest. Commitment to atrocity prevention and response has long enjoyed broad bipartisan support, and the U.S. government has long been a global leader on the issue. In 2011, the United States was the first country to establish an interagency body dedicated to atrocity prevention. Ever since, each Republican and Democratic administration—with the support of Congress—has taken additional, important steps toward implementing this objective. In 2019, under President Donald Trump, the United States was the first country to enact federal legislation addressing global mass atrocities. The Elie Wiesel Genocide and Atrocities Prevention Act mandates the White House to report annually to Congress on government-led atrocity prevention efforts. Under the act, the second Trump administration will again be required to report to Congress by mid-2025, raising the question: What is in store for the atrocity prevention agenda under Trump 2.0? This paper reviews the atrocity prevention track record of the first Trump administration and other relevant action taken so far in this second term to parse out what efforts to sustain and uphold U.S. atrocity prevention obligations could look like under Trump’s second White House. This paper highlights how a number of steps the administration has already taken, including but not limited to the recently announced reorganization of the U.S. Department of State and the effective dissolution of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), unless promptly addressed, will raise dire challenges for the readiness and capacity of the State Department and other relevant agencies tasked with operationalizing U.S. commitments to this end. Accordingly, this paper advances a number of actionable recommendations that both the White House and the U.S. Congress should urgently consider to ensure the administration stands ready and capable to fulfill its obligations under the Elie Wiesel Act and other relevant legislation.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, National Security, and Atrocity Prevention
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

3. Climate Change, Response, and Mass Atrocities

Author:
Tallan Donine, Madeleine Maclean, and Daniel Solomon
Publication Date:
01-2024
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Simon-Skjodt Center for the Prevention of Genocide, United States Holocaust Memorial Museum
Abstract:
This paper aims to stimulate and frame discussion during the Sudikoff Interdisciplinary Seminar on Genocide Prevention about the relationship between climate change, climate response, and mass atrocities. Based on a review of relevant research, the paper surveys current knowledge about how factors related to (1) climate change and (2) climate response measures might contribute to the risk and prevention of mass atrocities. In the coming decade, climate change will pose significant risks for communities around the world (Buhaug et al. 2023). Mitigation and adaptation measures taken in response to these risks will occupy a large amount of international attention and have important consequences for global political events. Effective action to help prevent and respond to mass atrocities will require clear analysis of the risks and opportunities that these trends present.
Topic:
Climate Change, Atrocities, Adaptation, and Atrocity Prevention
Political Geography:
Global Focus

4. "The Dead Became Uncountable": Mass Atrocities in Sudan

Author:
Danica Damplo
Publication Date:
01-2024
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Simon-Skjodt Center for the Prevention of Genocide, United States Holocaust Memorial Museum
Abstract:
On April 15th, 2023, fighting broke out in Sudan between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF), headed by Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, and a powerful paramilitary group known as the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), headed by Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo (Hemedti). The conflict has killed more than 13,000 people and displaced more than 7.3 million people.1 The RSF and its allied militias reignited a campaign of widespread, systematic, and ethnically-motivated violence in the region of Darfur, targeting non-Arab communities. Efforts by the United States (US) and others have failed to secure a durable ceasefire or to protect a new generation in Darfur from the risk of genocide. The conflict that began in April is a continuation of the cycles of violence that have persisted in Sudan for decades, including a period of mass atrocities in 2003-2005 in Darfur, for which former Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir was charged with genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes by the International Criminal Court (ICC).2 The SAF and RSF had previously joined forces in 2019 to oust al-Bashir following widespread protests in which the Sudanese people called for transitional justice and a transition to democracy. However, in 2021, the SAF and RSF overthrew the transitional government that had replaced al-Bashir. In April 2023, disagreements between al-Burhan and Hemedti exploded into open warfare.3 While earlier conflicts had spared Sudan’s capital, since April civilians in Khartoum and nearby Omdurman have endured violent clashes, aerial bombardment, sexual violence, and a humanitarian crisis. The conflict spread, with the RSF seeking to control the Darfur region and branching out from the west, and the SAF based out of the city of Port Sudan in the east. The RSF is supplied by the United Arab Emirates (UAE), while the SAF is supported by Egypt.4 In June 2023, the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum sounded the alarm about the dire risk of genocide in Darfur.5 That risk remains high today. None of the conditions referenced in this warning have improved since June, and the numbers of civilians killed or harmed has risen dramatically. Among the communities at greatest risk today are those who survived genocide twenty years ago and who have continued to suffer since. This brief will detail mass atrocities underway in Sudan, highlight present and future risks not only in Darfur but elsewhere, and offer policy options for an effective response.
Topic:
Civil War, Armed Conflict, Atrocity Prevention, Protection, and Rapid Support Forces (RSF)
Political Geography:
Africa, Sudan, and Darfur

5. Risk of Mass Atrocities in India

Author:
Simon-Skjodt Center for the Prevention of Genocide
Publication Date:
02-2024
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Simon-Skjodt Center for the Prevention of Genocide, United States Holocaust Memorial Museum
Abstract:
Rising levels of discrimination and dehumanization of minority communities in India is putting millions at an increased risk of mass atrocities. India has ranked in the top 15 countries at risk of mass killing since the Early Warning Project’s 2017–18 assessment, including its highest rank of second in the world last year.1 Since coming to power in 2014, Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) have promoted a Hindu nationalist ideology that characterizes India’s Muslim minority population of approximately 200 million people, 14% of the population, as a threat to the security and success of India.2 This identity-based ideology also threatens the safety of other minorities and excluded groups, such as Christian communities and Dalits.3 India’s constitution enshrines egalitarian principles, including nondiscrimination on the basis of religious identity.4 In 2021, a study conducted by the Pew Research Center found that more than 3 out of 4 Indians of all faiths believed that religious tolerance is an important part of being “truly Indian.”5 However, proponents of a decades old Hindu nationalist ideology, Hindutva, believe instead that “Hinduism—not the precarious balancing of all ethnic and religious communities residing in India—is the ultimate source of the country’s identity,” and it is this ideology that is embraced by the BJP and Prime Minister Modi.6 Scott Straus, a leading scholar on mass atrocities, has summarized research about risk factors for anticipating whether mass atrocities are likely to occur in a particular country, and these include: the presence of instability or armed conflict; adherence by political elites to an exclusionary ideology; and a history of discrimination (with impunity) against a particular group.7 Today instability in India is arguably geographically limited, as with the outbreak of conflict in May 2023 in Manipur. India has experienced more widespread inter-communal violence and mass atrocities in the past, with an uneven record of accountability or redress. The BJP today promotes an exclusionary nationalist ideology which privileges the rights of Hindus and presents religious minorities, particularly Muslims, as social and cultural outsiders, and as political and physical threats. This is demonstrated through discriminatory legislation, and a barrage of hate speech, including by political and religious leaders, that has tipped into outright incitement to violence. If nothing is done to address these risks, India may continue to experience a rise in the number of violent (and fatal) attacks against religious minorities, an escalation in the scale of the violence, and an increased level of state involvement in atrocities. Many countries, including the United States, view India as an important strategic partner on multiple fronts, including economically and politically as a counter to China's influence in the region. This can make discussions of mass atrocity risk more sensitive, but it should also demonstrate the ways in which mass atrocities in India could reverberate. For example, violence in states along India’s borders with Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Burma could exacerbate insecurity in India’s neighbors. Discrimination and mass violence in India could also undermine the assumptions of stability and shared values on which global initiatives are being built.8
Topic:
Minorities, Discrimination, Narendra Modi, Atrocity Prevention, Protection, and Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)
Political Geography:
South Asia and India

6. R2P Monitor, Issue 68, 1 March 2024

Author:
Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect
Publication Date:
03-2024
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
The Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect
Abstract:
R2P Monitor is a quarterly publication applying the atrocity prevention lens to populations at risk of mass atrocities around the world. Issue 68 looks at developments in Afghanistan, Central Sahel (Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger), China, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ethiopia, Haiti, Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Myanmar (Burma), Nicaragua, Nigeria, Sudan, Syria, Ukraine, Venezuela, Cameroon, Central African Republic, South Sudan and Yemen.
Topic:
Human Rights, International Law, Responsibility to Protect (R2P), and Atrocity Prevention
Political Geography:
Afghanistan, China, Sudan, Ukraine, Israel, North Korea, Yemen, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Palestine, Nicaragua, Haiti, Syria, Venezuela, Ethiopia, Nigeria, Myanmar, South Sudan, Cameroon, Sahel, Central African Republic, and Global Focus

7. The Responsibility to Protect in the Americas: Exploring Sources of Mass Atrocity Risk and Best Practices for Response

Author:
Elisabeth Pramendorfer
Publication Date:
03-2024
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
The Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect
Abstract:
Over the past four decades, countries throughout Latin America and the Caribbean have made important strides – transitioning from dictatorship to democracy, exploring avenues for transitional justice, reconciliation and memorialization of past atrocities, and becoming champions of the human rights norms and multilateral institutions that safeguard humanity. Despite this progress, today the region has once again become one of the most violent in the world and governments around the region are systematically curtailing human rights. Independent UN investigations have documented possible crimes against humanity in Venezuela and Nicaragua. Similar patterns of systematic violations are unfolding in El Salvador. Escalating urban and gang-related violence in Brazil and Haiti resemble conflict zones and have resulted in unprecedented casualties. Meanwhile, the structural marginalization of Indigenous Peoples across the region, the militarization of security strategies and attacks against judicial independence are emblematic features of many countries in the Americas. Despite documentation of how phenomena like gang violence and structural marginalization of Indigenous Peoples may facilitate an environment conducive to the commission of atrocity crimes, atrocity prevention frameworks have not sufficiently considered the unique risks associated with these threats. While varying in scope and severity, democratic backsliding has further exacerbated the risks associated with these patterns in recent years. Instead of addressing such institutional risk factors, governments have gradually eroded the rule of law and have resorted to violating human rights, curtailing, and, in some cases, repressing and criminalizing civic space. Disproportionate and violent responses to street protests in Chile, Colombia and the United States further demonstrate that atrocity prevention should become both a domestic and foreign policy imperative. This Occasional Paper assesses recent protracted and emerging atrocity crises by examining various institutional and hybrid risk factors present in Venezuela, Nicaragua and El Salvador. This paper also provides recommendations for governments to identify gaps and opportunities to address atrocity risks in their own country, as well as how to strengthen the region’s atrocity prevention capacities by presenting options available on the regional and multilateral level to ensure robust and time-sensitive response. It is not too late to ensure effective, holistic and coordinated response to emerging situations in the Latin America and Caribbean region. Doing so will require the requisite political will, a steadfast commitment and the courage to prioritize human rights by countries in the region and beyond.
Topic:
Human Rights, International Law, Responsibility to Protect (R2P), Atrocity Prevention, and Democratic Backsliding
Political Geography:
South America, Latin America, and Caribbean

8. R2P Monitor, Issue 69, 1 June 2024

Author:
Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect
Publication Date:
05-2024
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
The Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect
Abstract:
R2P Monitor is a quarterly publication applying the atrocity prevention lens to populations at risk of mass atrocities around the world. Issue 69 looks at developments in Afghanistan, Central Sahel (Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger), Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ethiopia, Haiti, Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Myanmar (Burma), Nicaragua, Nigeria, Sudan, Syria, Ukraine, Venezuela, Central African Republic and South Sudan. Updates for Cameroon, China and Yemen are available on our Populations at Risk page.
Topic:
Human Rights, International Law, Responsibility to Protect (R2P), and Atrocity Prevention
Political Geography:
Afghanistan, Sudan, Ukraine, Israel, North Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Palestine, Nicaragua, Haiti, Syria, Venezuela, Ethiopia, Nigeria, Myanmar, Sahel, and Central African Republic

9. R2P Monitor, Issue 70, 1 September 2024

Author:
Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect
Publication Date:
09-2024
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
The Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect
Abstract:
R2P Monitor is a quarterly publication applying the atrocity prevention lens to populations at risk of mass atrocities around the world. Issue 70 looks at developments in Afghanistan, Central Sahel (Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger), Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ethiopia, Haiti, Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Myanmar (Burma), Nicaragua, Nigeria, Sudan, Syria, Ukraine, Venezuela, Central African Republic and South Sudan. Updates for Cameroon, China and Yemen are available on our Populations at Risk page.
Topic:
Human Rights, International Law, Responsibility to Protect (R2P), and Atrocity Prevention
Political Geography:
Afghanistan, Sudan, Ukraine, Israel, North Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Palestine, Nicaragua, Haiti, Syria, Venezuela, Ethiopia, Nigeria, Myanmar, South Sudan, Sahel, and Central African Republic

10. R2P Monitor, Issue 71, 1 December 2024

Author:
Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect
Publication Date:
12-2024
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
The Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect
Abstract:
R2P Monitor is a quarterly publication applying the atrocity prevention lens to populations at risk of mass atrocities around the world. Issue 71 looks at developments in Afghanistan, the Central Sahel (Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger), Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ethiopia, Haiti, Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Myanmar (Burma), Nicaragua, Nigeria, Sudan, Syria, Ukraine, Venezuela, Central African Republic and South Sudan. Updates for Cameroon, China and Yemen are also available on our Populations at Risk page.
Topic:
Human Rights, International Law, Responsibility to Protect (R2P), and Atrocity Prevention
Political Geography:
Afghanistan, Sudan, Ukraine, Israel, North Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Palestine, Nicaragua, Haiti, Syria, Venezuela, Ethiopia, Nigeria, Myanmar, South Sudan, Sahel, and Central African Republic