This paper serves as a reaction to Ernesto Verdeja’s article on “Critical Genocide Studies and Mass Atrocity Prevention,” Alex J. Bellamy’s paper on “Mass Atrocities and Armed Conflict: Links, Distinctions, and Implications for the Responsibility to Prevent,” and the United Nations’ “Framework of Analysis for Atrocity Crimes, A Tool for Prevention.” These scholarships provide readers with a comprehensive understanding of the multifaceted nature of atrocities, genocide studies, the R2P, and mass atrocity prevention.
To begin with, Verdeja (2019) critically analyzes the modern assumptions, methodological biases, and disputes related to defining these concepts in the field of genocide studies in relation to traditional approaches to atrocity prevention. The main theoretical argument of his work focuses on the essential approach to contemporary atrocity prevention that includes self-reflection, dialectical analysis, multivalency, and an anti-teleological approach in the process of improving the effectiveness of mass atrocity prevention initiatives. Ernesto gives an interesting example of how atrocity prevention has evolved in the past few decades, with moral concerns that emerged after the Second World War and gained momentum following the Cold War and the genocides in Rwanda and Bosnia. When thinking of genocide or mass atrocity prevention, it is not only the role of the states or the international community but also of other nonstate actors. It is interesting that Ernesto clearly points out that while civil society can be a force for good in atrocity prevention, it can also contribute to violence in different contexts, such as “Myanmar’s Ma Ba Tha Buddhist extremist organization has encouraged terrorizing Rohingya civilians, a sobering example of the dangerous side of civil society” (Verdeja 2019, 122).
Verdeja’s analysis on genocide studies logically resonates within the contemporary conflict dynamics as he puts a broader emphasis on preventing large-scale and severe harms against civilians and other types of mass atrocities, beyond genocide. Very often, the term “genocide” is given more attention by both local and international peace actors, even within the international community. This undermines and delays the agency of responding to other atrocities like civil wars, armed conflicts, and crimes against humanity. Even though Ernesto provides empirical support with multiple sources and critically explores methodological limitations in current research on genocide studies, the weakness of his paper would be the possible biases or limitations in selecting case studies.
According to Bellamy (2011), there is a correlation between armed conflicts and atrocities. His main argument in the paper builds on the assertion that not all armed conflicts result in mass violence, and this complex connection necessitates a nuanced “atrocity prevention lens” to inform policy decisions effectively, especially the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) norm, and design tailored prevention strategies that address peacetime atrocities. Therefore, the prevention agenda in this context needs to incorporate measures for both armed conflict and mass atrocities, utilizing common tools while recognizing their distinct objectives: “conflict prevention strategies are sometimes unsuited to the prevention of mass atrocities” (Bellamy 2011, 8). His arguments are logically and empirically accurate. He presents the necessity to shift from rhetorical commitments to practical preventative measures, and in order to guarantee the success of atrocity prevention in a variety of circumstances, he suggests a holistic approach that includes structural prevention, crisis decision-making, risk assessment, regional collaborations, and national focal points (Bellamy 2011).
As Bellamy explains, taking into consideration the intricate relationship between armed conflicts and mass atrocities contributes to the effectiveness of the prevention. It is obvious that mass atrocities are often thought of only in terms of civil war or armed conflicts, and a little attention is given to the atrocities that non-state and state actors (especially authoritarian regimes) commit against their people even during the so-called “peacetime.” Either mass atrocities or armed conflicts, all these are crimes that not only impact human lives but also the environment and which demand strategic and preventive measures. In this sense, the atrocity prevention process should employ different structural conditions that cause armed conflicts, genocide, and mass atrocities while considering the economic, political, security, social, and diplomatic measures that are more susceptible to enforcing effective prevention within diverse settings. Bellamy’s article, though comprehensive, would have been much better if it had focused not only on the states’ approaches to preventing atrocities but also on the local communities and non-state actors in prevention efforts.
Furthermore, the United Nations’ “Framework of Analysis for Atrocity Crimes” also serves as an important tool designed to guide the prevention of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes by enhancing early warning and response mechanisms. In this framework, the UN logically highlights the importance of identifying risk factors and warning signs, promoting timely action to prevent large-scale atrocities, and holding mass atrocity perpetrators accountable. Taking into consideration these atrocity preventive measures, states would fulfill their responsibility to protect and enhance their sovereignty. This framework is an interesting piece to guide states and international bodies towards proactive prevention measures. As UN state members committed during the 2005 world summit, “States have the primary responsibility for protecting their own populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity” (United Nations 2014).
Nevertheless, the effectiveness of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) of the international community in many global contexts remains debatable. This skepticism emerges from situations where local populations often do accuse UN peacekeepers of protecting Western countries’ interests at the expense of local communities, usually without a solid grasp of the dynamics underlying the conflicts on the ground. For example, in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, nearly 20,000 UN peacekeepers have been deployed since 2001, but hostilities keep escalating. This raises multiple questions within the population, who frequently protest for the withdrawal of these UN peacekeepers in DRC due to their inability to bring about tangible solutions to the conflicts regardless of their minimal interventions to provide logistical support to the government and humanitarian provision to conflict victims. Despite the strength of this framework in providing a structured framework designed by UN experts in the field of genocide prevention and accountability, the implementation of this atrocity prevention within states dealing with sovereignty issues and political complexities remains unclear. The question one would ask in this context is, does the UN genuinely intervene or prevent the escalation of conflicts into mass atrocities in state member countries without strategically interfering with the country’s internal affairs (politics, natural resources, etc.)?
The arguments put forth by Verdeja, Bellamy, and the United Nations’ framework on atrocity crimes present a fascinating insight with regard to the complexity of mass atrocities, genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity prevention. Verdeja, Bellamy, and the United Nations Framework eloquently shed light on the complexity of genocide studies, mass atrocities prevention, the R2P, as well as the nuances between armed conflicts and mass atrocities. These sources jointly contribute to a deeper understanding of mass atrocities and emphasize the importance of proactive prevention, ethical responsibilities, and collaborative action in promoting human rights, peace, and justice on a global scale. An effective consideration of these diverse perspectives, thus, would enable policymakers, practitioners, and researchers to enhance their understanding and approaches towards preventing and responding to mass atrocities in a way that contributes to a more just and peaceful world.
Bellamy, A. J. (2011). Mass Atrocities and Armed Conflict: Links, Distinctions, and Implications for the Responsibility to Prevent. The Stanley Foundation.
United Nations . (2014). Framework of Analysis for Atrocity Crimes. New York.
Verdeja, E. (2019). Critical Genocide Studies and Mass Atrocity Prevention. Genocide Studies and Prevention: An International Journal, 13(3). doi:https://doi.org/10.5038/1911-9933.13.3.1676
