Search

Begin New Search Topic Atrocity Prevention Publication Year within 10 Years

11. 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

12. Leveraging Social Media for Genocide and Mass Atrocity Prevention: Understanding the Digital Toolbox

Author:
Shannon Raj Singh
Publication Date:
11-2024
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Simon-Skjodt Center for the Prevention of Genocide, United States Holocaust Memorial Museum
Abstract:
Much of the existing literature discussing social media focuses on how it might fuel or incite mass atrocities, drawing from experiences in contexts such as Sri Lanka and Burma. But there is significantly less awareness of how tools deployed or developed by social media companies might reduce the risk of mass violence and contribute constructively to atrocity prevention efforts. This report aims to address this gap by focusing on how social media tools can support two core atrocity prevention strategies: (1) protecting vulnerable civilian populations at risk of mass atrocities, and (2) degrading potential perpetrators’ capacity to commit mass atrocities. It provides a landscape assessment of the suite of social media product, policy, and operational interventions that may offer potential to support these strategies and articulates some of the associated limitations, risks, and important considerations when these tools are deployed. This report is primarily aimed at those inside social media companies with authority to develop or deploy tools in moments of heightened atrocity risk (which may include trust and safety professionals, human rights or crisis response teams, and senior leadership), as well as atrocity prevention experts and policy makers who may be able to encourage or incentivize the use of digital tools to support atrocity prevention. Select tools may also be of interest or use for humanitarian and civil society advocacy organizations that operate in atrocity risk settings. The objective of this report is to fill a gap by expanding the understanding of both policy makers and social media platform representatives about the available tools in the digital realm to support atrocity prevention efforts, to stimulate future research in this space, and to broaden our collective imaginations in designing modern atrocity prevention policy strategies that leverage digital tools and opportunities. This report is based on a series of semi-structured expert consultations, held under the Chatham House Rule of non-attribution, with more than 30 current and former representatives of social media companies, academics and practitioners specialized in technology and atrocity prevention, and members of at-risk communities who lent their experiences and insights to support this project. The report concludes that expanding the atrocity prevention toolbox to include digital tools and interventions offers an opportunity to develop more modern atrocity prevention strategies to meet the challenges of the moment.
Topic:
Social Media, Atrocities, Digital Policy, and Atrocity Prevention
Political Geography:
South Asia, Sri Lanka, and Burma

13. An Uncertain Future: Preventing Mass Atrocities in Uganda

Author:
Ashleigh Landau and Ashleigh Landau
Publication Date:
10-2024
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Simon-Skjodt Center for the Prevention of Genocide, United States Holocaust Memorial Museum
Abstract:
An Uncertain Future: Preventing Mass Atrocities in Uganda explains the factors behind three high-risk scenarios, identifies potential triggering events that could lead to violence against civilians, and proposes recommendations for how to mitigate the risk. In studying genocide and mass atrocities, we have learned that they are never spontaneous. They are always preceded by a range of early warning signs. If these signs are detected, their causes can be addressed, preventing the potential for catastrophic progression. This report is one of the components of the Early Warning Project, which includes both quantitative and qualitative assessments of atrocity risk. It is the sixth in a series of deep-dive qualitative assessments designed to assist policymakers, NGOs, and members of civil society in understanding the atrocity dynamics particular to the country in question and recommending preventative actions.
Topic:
Genocide, Atrocity Prevention, Early Warning, and Political Transition
Political Geography:
Uganda and Africa

14. Increasing the Policy-Relevance of Research on Atrocity Prevention Strategies and Tools: Toward a 10-year collaborative research program

Author:
Simon-Skjodt Center for the Prevention of Genocide
Publication Date:
06-2024
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Simon-Skjodt Center for the Prevention of Genocide, United States Holocaust Memorial Museum
Abstract:
On June 7, 2024, the Simon-Skjodt Center for the Prevention of Genocide convened leading social scientists, policy makers, and funders of policy-relevant research for a one-day workshop to explore how the Center should contribute its staff resources and research budget to improving policy-relevant research about atrocity prevention strategies and tools. Participants discussed the following topics: • Positive examples of research informing policy on atrocity prevention and general lessons to be drawn from these cases; • Key obstacles to policy-relevant atrocity prevention research, including gaps in the topics covered by the literature, obstacles to inference about the effects of atrocity prevention policy actions, and obstacles to synthesizing findings from a large body of studies; and • Strategies to increase the volume, relevance, quality, and impact on policy of atrocity prevention research. This rapporteur's report summarizes the workshop’s key themes in accordance with the Chatham House rule of non-attribution.
Topic:
Genocide, Research, and Atrocity Prevention
Political Geography:
Global Focus

15. Looking Backward into The Future: Why the United Nations Has Failed to Prevent Genocide

Author:
Gregory H. Stanton
Publication Date:
10-2024
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Cairo Review of Global Affairs
Institution:
School of Global Affairs and Public Policy, American University in Cairo
Abstract:
At its root, genocide is committed through a lack of empathy, and it has failed to be prevented by a lack of political will. It is time to reverse those failings by rethinking our systems and challenging our assumptions.
Topic:
Genocide, United Nations, Atrocity Prevention, and 2023 Gaza War
Political Geography:
Middle East, Israel, and Palestine

16. 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

17. 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

18. 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

19. R2P Monitor, Issue 67, 1 December 2023

Author:
Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect
Publication Date:
12-2023
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 67 looks at developments in Afghanistan, Cameroon, Central Sahel (Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger), China, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ethiopia, Haiti, Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Myanmar (Burma), Nicaragua, Nigeria, Sudan, Syria, Ukraine, Venezuela, 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, Yemen, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Palestine, Nicaragua, Haiti, Syria, Venezuela, Ethiopia, Mali, Myanmar, South Sudan, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Niger, and Burkina Faso

20. R2P Monitor, Issue 66, 1 September 2023

Author:
Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect
Publication Date:
09-2023
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 66 looks at developments in Afghanistan, Cameroon, Central Sahel (Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger), China, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Myanmar (Burma), Nicaragua, Nigeria, Sudan, Syria, Ukraine, Venezuela, Central African Republic, Ethiopia, Haiti, South Sudan and Yemen.
Topic:
Human Rights, International Law, Responsibility to Protect (R2P), and Atrocity Prevention
Political Geography:
Afghanistan, China, Sudan, Ukraine, Israel, Yemen, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Palestine, Nicaragua, Haiti, Syria, Venezuela, Ethiopia, Nigeria, Mali, Myanmar, South Sudan, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Niger, and Burkina Faso