Atrocity Prevention

This study examines the nexus of human rights, atrocity prevention and the involvement of religious leaders in Uganda. States hold legal responsibility for preventing atrocity crimes, but influential nonstate actors also have a role in minimizing risks of mass atrocity crimes. Religious leaders can play an important role by influencing the behaviour of their adherents; either negatively by upholding intolerant messages of hostility, discrimination and incitement to violence, or positively by counteracting intolerance, discriminatory stereotyping and instances of hate speech. The study aimed to explore how religious leaders are involved in atrocity prevention, including searching for facilitators and barriers for such an involvement. For this purpose, the study used an explorative qualitative lifeworld approach with semi-structured interviews. Data collection included twelve individual interviews with religious leaders from four different denominations: 4 Anglican, 4 Pentecostal, 2 Catholic and 2 Muslim. Word by word transcription and thematic analysis was conducted on the material. The results show that religious leaders in Uganda can be naturally involved in atrocity prevention. Through leadership they can mitigate identity-based division by promoting inclusive societies, mediating in conflicts and advocating for peace. The study identified five facilitators and barriers for involving religious leaders in atrocity prevention. Facilitators are: (I) endorsing a theology of human dignity, (II) a self-understanding of mission and mandate, (III) promoting holistic peacebuilding, (IV) education, and (V) networking. Barriers are: (I) poverty levels among leaders as well as adherents, (II) political silencing or affiliation, (III) ignorant and selfish leadership, (IV) lack of resources, and (V) international relations. The study adds perspectives on the possibilities, through facilitators and barriers, to engage religious leaders in early response to risk factors of mass atrocities.

Die Responsibility to Protect (R2P) bindet Interventionen an eine Entscheidung des UN-Sicherheitsrates. Trotzdem kann nicht ausgeschlossen werden, dass Großmächte sie als Rechtfertigung für ihre Interessenpolitik missbrauchen. Dieser Beitrag diskutiert diese Kritik, argumentiert aber, dass die R2P nicht auf die militärische Dimension reduziert werden darf. Der Sicherheitsrat greift unter Bezug auf die R2P auf ein breites Spektrum von Maßnahmen zurück. Zudem wurden im Rahmen der R2P-Debatte zwischenstaatliche Netzwerke entwickelt, die auf eine effektivere Prävention von Massenverbrechen hinarbeiten. Wer die R2P auf die Möglichkeit ihres Missbrauchs reduziert, wird ihrer Bedeutung daher nicht gerecht. Um die Prävention im Sinne der R2P zu stärken, sollten Deutschland und die EU die zivile Krisenprävention und die Beteiligung an UN Friedensmissionen ausbauen.

This year marks the 25th anniversary of the Genocide against the Tutsi in Rwanda. During one hundred days in 1994, Hutu extremists slaughtered over one million people, primarily Tutsi as well as Hutu and others who opposed the genocide. With a murder rate that some commentators estimate to have been three to five times faster than that of the Holocaust, the Genocide against the Tutsi has been characterized as “the most efficient mass killing since the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki” or, indeed, at any time in the twentieth century. Learning from the Genocide against the Tutsi provides crucial insight into averting conflict and fostering more inclusive communities. The current era of deep political, racial, class, and gender division in the United States as well as ongoing “atrocity crimes” abroad compel reflection. Ten lessons from Rwanda for the world generally and the United States specifically are especially pertinent to preventing further bloodshed and building more r...

The Bureau of Conflict and Stabilization Operations’ Countering Violent Extremism Baselines Program is a multi-country research initiative to identify and monitor key subnational indicators of violent extremism (VE) and community resilience. Implemented in partnership with Management Systems International, the program enables the U.S. Government (USG), partner governments, and civil society to better understand and respond to changing VE dynamics.

In Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH), local research firm GfK surveyed 2,110 individuals in 41 municipalities across five cantons within the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina (FBiH), four municipalities within the Prijedor region of Republika Srpska (RS), and the special district of Brcko from March to April 2018. Atlantic Initiative also conducted interviews and five focus group discussions in Mostar, Prijedor, Sarajevo and Zenica.

See also: https://atlanticinitiative.org/countering-violent-extremism-baseline-program-summary-of-survey-findings-bosnia-and-herzegovina/

In recent years the UN Secretary-General has promoted mass atrocity prevention as the priority agenda for the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) at the UN, redirecting debates on R2P away from military interventionism towards improved state capacity to prevent atrocity crimes and protect populations. This focus has been illustrated in the UNSG’s annual reports on R2P since 2009, and the 2014 “Framework of Analysis for Atrocity Crimes”, that emphasise state institutional capacity and the identification of atrocity-risk indicators. Through a case-study of Pakistan, this article problematizes the relationship between internal security and the UN agenda on atrocity prevention to evaluate the viability of promoting atrocity prevention as currently conceived by the Office of the UNSG in high-risk contexts. It argues that an atrocity prevention agenda informed by a responsive regulation framework would be more effective in taking into account the relational dynamics of atrocity crimes. This includes accounting for the interaction between the micro-dynamics of political violence with macro-dynamics created by lengthy historical conflicts and strategic repertoires.