Search

Begin New Search Topic Atrocity Prevention Publication Year within 25 Years

41. Building Relationships, Building Peace: The Role of Civilians and Civil Society in Preventing Mass Atrocities in the Democratic Republic of the Congo

Author:
Simon-Skjodt Center for the Prevention of Genocide 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:
Cycles of conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) have led to fluctuating levels of largescale, systematic violence against civilians. Two regions, the Grand Nord area of North Kivu province and the northeastern Ituri province, have featured both some of the worst violence and exceptional lulls in fighting. The roles of civil society actors in those two cases have varied—from encouraging armed-group mobilization to leading region-wide mediation efforts. Our analysis of civilian-led efforts in those two cases demonstrates that the boundaries of civil society in the DRC are fluid and context specific. In Grand Nord and Ituri, Congolese groups that typically fall outside modern liberal definitions of civil society that emphasize non-partisanship played important roles in mobilizing civilian communities, representing their interests to political leaders, and adopting strategies to prevent and mitigate mass atrocities. Those groups included members of the business community, customary elites, the Catholic Church, and nongovernmental organizations. We conclude that civil society actors had the most effect where they had close, personal relations with belligerents and where they had a deep-vested interest in stability. In Grand Nord, local Catholic Church leaders used their close relationships with armed groups to broker multiple peace agreements. Members of the business community in Grand Nord initially supported rebel groups such as the Congolese Rally for Democracy/Kisangani–Mouvement de libération (RCD/K-ML)—because the rebel groups provided tax relief and commercial financing to enhance their legitimacy. That relationship, however, meant that business leaders were also able to pressure rebel groups to participate in peace processes when conflict began to interfere with the business community’s financial interests. In Ituri, similar incentives led cattle ranchers and traders to play a similar role.
Topic:
Civil Society, Conflict, Civilians, Atrocities, Peacebuilding, and Atrocity Prevention
Political Geography:
Africa and Democratic Republic of the Congo

42. The Role of Justice in Preventing Mass Atrocities: Evolving Debates and New Directions

Author:
Kyra Fox
Publication Date:
06-2019
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Simon-Skjodt Center for the Prevention of Genocide, United States Holocaust Memorial Museum
Abstract:
Scholars and practitioners agree past atrocities are a strong predictor of future atrocities within a country. 1 Given this, many argue that transitional justice--which aims to help societies deal effectively with past abuses--has an important role to play in atrocity prevention, especially in preventing the recurrence of mass atrocities. Practitioners and international justice lawyers often assume that effective transitional justice should facilitate atrocity prevention. The Preamble to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) articulates the Court’s determination to “put an end to impunity for the perpetrators of these crimes and thus to contribute to the prevention of such crimes.” A 2018 study by the UN Special Rapporteur on the 2 promotion of truth, justice, reparation and guarantees of non-recurrence and the Special Adviser to the Secretary-General on the Prevention of Genocide discusses the “contribution of transitional justice to the prevention of gross violations and abuses of human rights and serious violations of international humanitarian law, particularly to the prevention of genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity, and their recurrence.” 3 Among scholars, the preventive capacity of transitional justice is more contentious. Debates have largely centered on the ability of prosecutions to deter potential perpetrators, and a sharp cleavage has emerged between scholars who believe in the deterrent capacity of international criminal justice and those who doubt it. Meanwhile, there has been a relative neglect of (1) transitional justice tools other than 4 prosecutions, and (2) the ways in which transitional justice tools, including prosecutions, might contribute to prevention outside their (potential) deterrent effect. As a result, policymakers and practitioners have little clear guidance about how to maximize the preventive effects of transitional justice efforts. The 2019 Sudikoff Interdisciplinary Seminar on Genocide Prevention will bring together a diverse group of practitioners and scholars to discuss how transitional justice tools (broadly defined) can potentially help prevent mass atrocities. Through the framework of systemic, structural, and operational prevention, scholars and practitioners will examine the ability of transitional justice tools to address the root causes of conflict (structural prevention), influence the calculus of potential perpetrators (operational prevention), and influence global norms (systemic prevention). Ultimately, the seminar will aim to (1) identify directions for fruitful research on the topic of transitional justice tools and atrocity prevention, and (2) generate ideas for new resources to help practitioners maximize the preventive impact of transitional justice tools.
Topic:
Genocide, Transitional Justice, Justice, and Atrocity Prevention
Political Geography:
Global Focus

43. 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

44. Research Workshop on the Role of Civilians in Preventing and Mitigating Mass Atrocities

Author:
Jamie Wise
Publication Date:
06-2019
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Simon-Skjodt Center for the Prevention of Genocide, United States Holocaust Memorial Museum
Abstract:
On June 13-14, 2019, the Simon-Skjodt Center for the Prevention of Genocide at the US Holocaust Memorial Museum convened a workshop with case study research partners and other scholars to discuss the Center’s ongoing project on the role of civilians in preventing and mitigating mass atrocities. This rapporteur’s report summarizes major observations raised on the first day of the workshop, during which all participants made contributions.
Topic:
Humanitarian Aid, Civilians, Donors, and Atrocity Prevention
Political Geography:
Sri Lanka, Democratic Republic of the Congo, South Sudan, and Global Focus

45. Election Uncertainty: Preventing Atrocity Crimes in Côte d'Ivoire

Author:
Arsène Brice Bado and Mollie Zapata
Publication Date:
07-2019
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Simon-Skjodt Center for the Prevention of Genocide, United States Holocaust Memorial Museum
Abstract:
As Côte d'Ivoire's 2020 presidential elections near, he country is at a crossroads: It can continue an era of relative peace or revert to the type of ethnic-delineated violence that has marred its past. Every political transition in the country's history has resulted in violence against civilians. Most recently, the crisis that erupted as political parties disputed presidential election results in 2010-11 led to systematic civilian targeting by both sides---that of current President Alassane Ouattara and former President Laurent Gbagbo---including the alleged commission of atrocity crimes by Gbagbo and his followers. Although atrocity crimes---large-scale, systematic violence against civilian populations---are not yet taking place in Côte d'Ivoire, early warning signs are apparent. Immediate attention and early action by the Ivorian government and international partners are required to mitigate risks, prevent violence, and help save lives. To this end, at the end of this report we offer detailed recommendations to the government of Côte d'Ivoire, political party leaders, civil society, foreign governments and international organizations, and the media. Our analysis suggests that in the period before, during, and after the election, clashes between the main political parties may lead to violence and mass atrocity crimes. In past high-stakes elections, members of political parties have demonstrated the willingness to use violence. Risk is heightened during this period in part because of the zero-sum nature of Ivorian politics; politicians and their supporters perceive the 2020 elections to be "winner-take-all" for political and economic control of the country. In the past, this attitude has led political leaders to manipulate ethnic identity and economic grievances, dividing communities and inciting violence to solidify allegiances and generate political support. Today there is a risk of the resurgence of such exclusionary ideology.
Topic:
Elections, Domestic Politics, Violence, and Atrocity Prevention
Political Geography:
Africa and Côte d'Ivoire

46. The 'Responsibility to Protect' and International Development: Connecting the Atrocity-Prevention and Fragile-States Agendas

Author:
David W. Yang
Publication Date:
02-2018
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Simon-Skjodt Center for the Prevention of Genocide, United States Holocaust Memorial Museum
Abstract:
At the United Nations World Summit in September 2005, global leaders took a historic stand against mass atrocities by adopting the doctrine of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P). One of the principal commitments that UN members made in endorsing the R2P doctrine was to assist states in developing the capacity to protect their populations from mass atrocities.1 In endorsing these “pillar two” actions, the international community recognized that development assistance is the most practical tool for preventing atrocities over the long term. The development community has slowly begun to heed this call, taking steps to integrate atrocity prevention into its policies and programs over the past decade.
Topic:
International Development, Responsibility to Protect (R2P), and Atrocity Prevention
Political Geography:
Global Focus

47. Fighting Fire with Fire: The Growing Nexus between Atrocity Prevention and Counterterrorism and Its Implications for the Use of Force to Protect Civilians

Author:
Colin Thomas-Jensen
Publication Date:
02-2018
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Simon-Skjodt Center for the Prevention of Genocide, United States Holocaust Memorial Museum
Abstract:
By the fall of 2014, before the United States and its partners began the military campaign to erode the territory held by the self-proclaimed Islamic State (IS) in Iraq and Syria, the international community understood the horrors endured by civilians living under IS control. While IS leadership plotted politically motivated attacks against its enemies in the region and in the West, reports trickling out from areas under the group’s merciless grip and IS’s own online propaganda clearly indicated a grave pattern of war crimes and crimes against humanity, including violence targeted at ethnic and religious minorities; women; the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community; and other vulnerable groups. As the United States considered its response to the rise of IS, the duality of the group’s threat—an external one to Americans and American interests and an internal one to civilians living in IS-held areas—animated two communities of US policy makers that had rarely interacted with one another: those focused on counterterrorism and atrocity prevention. The US-led military operation to prevent genocide by IS against the Yazidi community on Mount Sinjar, Iraq, that President Barack Obama announced on August 7, 2014, included the first volley of airstrikes in the more-than-three-year counterterrorism campaign to defeat IS in Iraq and Syria. Important for the atrocity-prevention community, the airstrikes and deployment of Special Operations Forces (alongside humanitarian experts) to help coordinate the evacuation of civilians demonstrated an openness on the part of senior US policy makers to use counterterrorism capabilities to prevent a mass atrocity. In hindsight, however, US-led lethal action against IS fighters who threatened thousands of Yazidis trapped on Mount Sinjar was more the outcome of a unique set of circumstances than a harbinger of a more collaborative relationship between the counterterrorism community and policy makers focused on preventing atrocities committed by state actors, such as the governments of Syria, South Sudan, and Myanmar, and nonstate actors, including militia groups with little to no connection with international terrorist networks. With terrorist groups such as IS, Boko Haram in the Lake Chad Basin, and al-Shabaab in the Horn of Africa almost certain to continue atrocities against local populations in areas in which they operate, a fundamental question for policy makers arises. Did the extreme circumstances under which the United States and its partners decided to intervene on Mount Sinjar necessarily represent a threshold for action, or can a more normalized relationship between the atrocityprevention and counterterrorism communities be advanced—a relationship that would seek to leverage counterterrorism tools and resources to take decisive action to protect non-US citizens from atrocities while improving measures to avoid civilian casualties, including civilians killed during actions taken by US counterterrorism partners? Drawing from interviews with nearly 40 former and current US policy makers and outside experts1 , as well as a convening of 20 experts at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in June 2017, this paper explains the increasing relevance of the counterterrorism–atrocityprevention nexus and defines some of the significant challenges of closer collaboration between those communities, with a specific focus on preventing imminent atrocities. Defining when (including clearly articulated criteria for what constitutes “imminent” in this scenario), how, and under whose authority to use force to prevent atrocities against civilians is only one element of broadening a counterterrorism strategy that also includes diplomacy and countering violent extremism (CVE) efforts. 2 This paper is narrowly focused on the use of force and argues that in some circumstances, the atrocity-prevention agenda can be advanced by using counterterrorism tools—including lethal strikes—to prevent imminent atrocities against civilians in areas where terrorist groups operate.
Topic:
Counter-terrorism, Islamic State, Civilians, Atrocity Prevention, and Protection
Political Geography:
Iraq, Middle East, Global Focus, and United States of America

48. Atrocity Prevention Under the Obama Administration: What We Learned and the Path Ahead

Author:
Stephen Pomper
Publication Date:
02-2018
Content Type:
Journal Article
Institution:
Simon-Skjodt Center for the Prevention of Genocide, United States Holocaust Memorial Museum
Abstract:
This report is intended to provide an insider’s view on where the Obama administration’s efforts to prevent mass atrocities succeeded, where they did not, and where future policy makers who wrestle with the challenge of prevention might find useful lessons in the administration’s experience, both positive and negative. The first part of the report summarizes the intellectual roots of the Obama administration’s atrocityprevention policy, identifying the goals and expectations created by two key works—Samantha Power’s “A Problem from Hell”: America in the Age of Genocide1 and the report of a bipartisan task force on genocide prevention led by former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and former Secretary of Defense William Cohen.2 The second part of the report describes how the administration translated those goals and expectations into policy and summarizes the administration’s record on atrocity prevention. It focuses in particular on situations in which policy changes and innovations appear to have had a positive effect, however modest, and on efforts to develop new capabilities under the policy. The third part looks at the two most prominent situations in which the policy was unsuccessful —Libya and Syria. The fourth part offers an “after action” assessment of the administration’s atrocity-prevention policy, drawing from interviews with former senior officials to identify both the strengths and contributions of the policy and its most pronounced shortcomings. The fifth part offers recommendations for future executive-branch officials, legislators and staff, and civil society partners for ways in which they could help the United States improve its performance on atrocity prevention going forward. The report is in many respects a hotwash exercise. The bulk of it was written in the first six months following the end of the Obama administration, drawing from the author’s reflections on his recent tenure as senior director for African Affairs, Multilateral Affairs and Human Rights on the staff of the Obama administration’s National Security Council, as well as his experience as chairman of the Atrocities Prevention Board. The report also draws extensively from interviews with more than 30 former senior Obama administration officials and others with insight on the administration’s atrocity-prevention efforts.3 Finally, this report owes a significant debt to earlier reports that have also sought to evaluate the administration’s atrocity-prevention record.4 Given the brevity of the report relative to the scope of its topic, both the analysis and recommendations herein are relatively skeletal. The report is offered with humility and as an effort to add one group of recollections and perspectives to a growing historical record. It is hoped that as this record continues to develop, it will provide the next generation of atrocity-prevention proponents new and better options to confront the challenges of the future, having profited as fully as possible from the lessons of the past.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Humanitarian Intervention, Barack Obama, and Atrocity Prevention
Political Geography:
Middle East, Libya, Syria, North America, and United States of America

49. 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

50. Regions At Risk: Preventing Mass Atrocities in Mali

Author:
Ibrahim Yahya Ibrahim and Mollie Zapata
Publication Date:
04-2018
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Simon-Skjodt Center for the Prevention of Genocide, United States Holocaust Memorial Museum
Abstract:
More than four years after the overthrow of jihadist rule in northern cities in 2013 and deployment of a United Nations (UN) peacekeeping mission, violence in northern Mali has continued, expanded to other regions, and, in some areas, escalated. Although mass atrocities—large-scale, systematic violence against civilian populations—are not yet taking place in Mali, early warning signs are visible and warrant immediate attention by the Malian government and international partners. This report explains the factors behind three high-risk intercommunal conflicts, elaborates plausible scenarios that would lead to escalation in violence against civilians in the next 12 to 18 months, and proposes recommendations to mitigate the risks. We identify two conflicts that could devolve into mass atrocities: (1) the conflict between the Peul, Bambara, and Dogon ethnic groups in central Mali (Mopti and Ségou regions) and (2) the conflict between the Tolebe (Peul) and the Daousahaq (Tuareg) in Ménaka, near the Niger border. This report also assesses risk for escalation in the simmering conflict between the Ifoghas and Imghad Tuareg clans in the region of Kidal. We conclude that the Kidal conflict does not pose a plausible risk for mass atrocities over the next 12 to 18 months, but it does merit close monitoring.
Topic:
Peacekeeping, Violence, Civilians, Armed Conflict, Atrocity Prevention, and Risk Assessment
Political Geography:
Africa and Mali