Search

Begin New Search Topic Atrocity Prevention Author Daniel Solomon

1. 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

2. Using Targeted Sanctions to Help Prevent Mass Atrocities: Results from Interviews with Experienced Practitioners

Author:
Tallan Donine, Kyra Fox, Daniel Solomon, Alex Vandermaas-Peeler, and Lawerence Woocher
Publication Date:
01-2023
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Simon-Skjodt Center for the Prevention of Genocide, United States Holocaust Memorial Museum
Abstract:
The Simon-Skjodt Center’s “lessons learned” project aims to understand better how policy makers, across all levels of government, can take effective action to prevent mass atrocity crimes and protect civilian populations in situations where they face serious threats of group-targeted, systematic violence. We have sought to identify, distill, and organize insights on a range of policy tools—ranging from “naming and shaming” to sanctions to prosecutions—which are sometimes used to help prevent or respond to mass atrocities. To complement our review of the empirical research literature on the use of targeted sanctions, we conducted interviews with people who had substantial policy or operational experience working in the US government on targeted sanctions prior to 2021. The premise for the interviews is that experienced practitioners have important insights about when and how targeted sanctions can be most effective in helping prevent mass atrocities.3 While one can find many ideas about how to use targeted sanctions most effectively, none that we are aware of are: (1) focused specifically on the use of targeted sanctions for mass atrocity prevention and (2) based on the collective perspectives of a set of experienced practitioners. This report summarizes the results of the interviews with experienced targeted sanctions practitioners. Details on the methods employed and the interview respondents are presented in appendices.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Economics, Sanctions, and Atrocity Prevention
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. The Role of Civilians and Civil Society in Preventing Mass Atrocities

Author:
Zachariah Mampilly, Daniel Solomon, Anushani Alagarajah, Dharsha Jegatheeswaran, Nyathon H. Mai, and Congo Research Group
Publication Date:
07-2020
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Simon-Skjodt Center for the Prevention of Genocide, United States Holocaust Memorial Museum
Abstract:
This paper synthesizes the results of a one-year, multicountry exploration of the role that civilians play in preventing and mitigating the trajectory of mass atrocity episodes. It is the culmination of a unique collaboration between the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum’s Simon-Skjodt Center for the Prevention of Genocide and three partner organizations: Congo Research Group, the Adayaalam Centre for Policy Research, and the Sudd Institute. In consultation with the Simon-Skjodt Center, each country team conducted a subnational comparative study of civilian involvement in mass atrocity episodes. This paper brings together the findings from each country study to offer a general framework for understanding civilian agency and assesses how well existing theories of civilian action can account for the outcomes across cases. In addition, it addresses the conceptual and methodological challenges of studying civilian agency and the role of civil society cross-nationally. The study calls for a reconceptualization of civil society that moves away from traditional concepts in favor of foregrounding the political and economic contexts that civilians navigate during a conflict and its aftermath.
Topic:
Civil Society, Conflict, Civilians, Atrocities, and Atrocity Prevention
Political Geography:
Global Focus

5. Advancing knowledge on the role of civilians in preventing and mitigating mass atrocities: Rapporteur’s report

Author:
Daniel Solomon and Mollie Zapata
Publication Date:
03-2018
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Simon-Skjodt Center for the Prevention of Genocide, United States Holocaust Memorial Museum
Abstract:
Research on mass atrocities and their prevention has overwhelmingly focused on the actions of states as the most common perpetrators of atrocities and most visible actors in attempts to prevent or respond to them. High-profile atrocities committed by non-state actors have recently spurred greater attention on non-state groups as potential perpetrators. Much less focused research has explored the roles of civilians—working through civil society organizations and/or less formal, local community mechanisms—in helping prevent mass atrocities and mitigate imminent threats. As a result, civilians are too often presumed to be passive victims or bystanders. Recent studies suggest that civilians in fact use a range of active strategies, yet many questions remain about these strategies, the conditions for their success, and external actors’ roles in relation to them. The Simon-Skjodt Center’s new research project aims to address gaps in knowledge about the role of civilians in preventing and mitigating atrocities. Participants in this research workshop evaluated the conceptual and definitional issues involved in the study of civil society and civilian self-protection, the current state of knowledge about the role of civilians in atrocity prevention, policy efforts to work with these organizations and individuals, and opportunities for additional research on the topic.
Topic:
Civil Society, Civilians, and Atrocity Prevention
Political Geography:
Global Focus

6. Evaluating Counterfactual US Policy Action in Syria, 2011-16: A Review of Empirical Evidence from Related Cases

Author:
Daniel Solomon
Publication Date:
08-2017
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Simon-Skjodt Center for the Prevention of Genocide, United States Holocaust Memorial Museum
Abstract:
In public and policy debates about the US response to the conflict in Syria, comparisons to past responses to international cases of mass atrocity have become a fixture. In these debates, analysts use lessons from those past responses to forecast the likely consequences of US policy action in Syria or to speculate about the counterfactual consequences of actions not taken at various junctures. Comparisons to historical cases of international response provide important mental models for policy makers seeking to use specific tools and strategies to respond to the risk or occurrence of mass atrocities.2 For example, Barack Obama has said that his unwillingness to pursue military action against the government of Bashar al-Assad in response to its use of chemical weapons in August 2013 resulted in part from his dismay at the instability that followed the military operation that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) led against Muammar Gaddafi’s forces in Libya in 2011.3 For Obama, the risk that even limited military action in Syria could become “another Libya” was enough to remove a range of possible military options from consideration. Which counterfactual US actions, if any, might have prevented or mitigated violence against civilians in Syria? This paper uses a systematic review of empirical studies of international responses to mass atrocities and related phenomena to evaluate these contemporary debates about US policy action in Syria.4 The purpose of this review is to evaluate plausible alternative avenues the US may have taken to prevent or mitigate mass atrocities against civilians in Syria. This analysis centers on “minimal rewrite” counterfactuals, in which a different policy action at a specific, time-bounded juncture in the US policy process on Syria might have led to a different outcome in violence against civilians. “Minimal rewrite” counterfactuals are opposed to socalled miracle world counterfactuals, which would require significant changes to the structural or contextual conditions that shape US policy.5 The paper centers on three policy actions that the US government debated—and in some cases implemented, to a limited degree—at various junctures since the conflict began in March 2011: (a) lethal support to the armed Syrian opposition, (b) limited strikes against Syrian government targets, and (c) no-fly zones. Although those US officials sometimes debated these options during overlapping junctures, the paper addresses opposition support and the direct military options as separate phenomena. The paper uses a review of historical, qualitative and quantitative studies of related cases and policy actions to assess the extent to which these actions may have affected the scope and severity of subsequent atrocities in Syria.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Syrian War, Atrocities, Counterfactuals, and Atrocity Prevention
Political Geography:
Middle East, Syria, North America, and United States of America