Skip to content Skip to sidebar Skip to footer
Home / What Has the International Community Done to Prevent Such an Event From Occurring Again?

What Has the International Community Done to Prevent Such an Event From Occurring Again?

Post a Comment

Any act or actions that works toward averting future genocides

Prevention of genocide is whatsoever action that works toward averting futurity genocides. Genocides accept a lot of planning, resources, and involved parties to comport out, they do not just happen instantaneously.[1] Scholars in the field of genocide studies have identified a set of widely agreed upon gamble factors that brand a country or social grouping more at take chances of carrying out a genocide, which include a wide range of political and cultural factors that create a context in which genocide is more probable, such as political upheaval or regime change, likewise as psychological phenomena that can exist manipulated and taken advantage of in large groups of people, like conformity and cognitive racket. Genocide prevention depends heavily on the knowledge and surveillance of these risk factors, besides as the identification of early on alert signs of genocide beginning to occur.

One of the main goals of the Un with the passage of the Genocide Convention after the Second World War and the atrocities of the Holocaust is to prevent future genocide from taking place.[1] The Genocide Convention and the Responsibility to protect provide the footing for the responsibility of every UN member land to actively forbid genocide and act to stop it in other states when information technology occurs. However, the United Nations has been heavily criticized for its failure to prevent genocide, especially in the latter one-half of the twentieth century.[2]

Intervention in genocide tin can occur at many different stages of the progression of a genocide, simply the most platonic stage to intervene is before genocide occurs at all, in the class of prevention known as upstream prevention. Preventing genocide in this manner requires a constant and thorough assessment of the risk of genocide around the world at any given time, given the known adventure factors, early warning signs, and the knowledge of how a genocide progresses.

The psychological footing of genocide [edit]

Genocide is not something that merely trained, sadistic killers take part in, but rather it is something that ordinary people can do with the proper "preparation" via cognitive restructuring and social conditioning.[3] [4] The act of killing for genocidal purposes is not a distinct category of human beliefs. Instead, genocidal killing demonstrates the potential of ordinary psychological and social processes to be manipulated until they escalate into violence, under certain conditions.[4] One of the major puzzles in studying both the occurrence of and prevention of genocide, therefore, is understanding what makes those "normal" cerebral processes, both on the private and commonage levels, vulnerable to manipulation by outsiders, and which social and political conditions provide a breeding ground for that manipulation to turn violent.

On the private level, the psychological concept of cerebral dissonance plays a large role in a person'south transformation from peaceful citizen to violent genocidal killer.[4] Even more than specifically, Alexander Hinton, in his 1996 report on the psycho-social factors that contributed to the Cambodian genocide, coined the term "psychosocial dissonance" to add to this well-known psychological concept other anthropological concepts like cultural models and notions of the self.[three] These forms of dissonance, both cognitive and psychosocial, ascend when a person is confronted with behavioral expectations that conflict with their ain identity or concept of self, and subsequently work subconsciously to resolve those inconsistencies.[three] Hinton claims that at that place are a number of cognitive "moves" that must occur in guild for a person to reduce psychosocial dissonance felt at the onset of genocide, and these moves slowly transform people into their "genocidal selves".[three] These cognitive moves include the dehumanization of victims, the employment of euphemisms to mask fierce deeds, the undergoing of moral restructuring, becoming acclimated to the human activity of killing, and/or denying responsibility for violent deportment.[3] The first motility, dehumanization, is one of the biggest "steps", equally information technology has been central to every genocide. In The Holocaust, the Cambodian genocide, and the Rwandan genocide, equally especially notable examples, victims were labeled every bit vermin, cockroaches, rats, or snakes, to split them entirely from the category of homo in this procedure of dehumanization.[four] When the label of "person" is taken away from entire groups of individuals, acting violently towards them, including murdering them, becomes much easier for the average person.

[edit]

In addition to individual-level cognitive "moves", at that place are also many social psychological factors that influence an "ordinary" grouping'southward transformation into killers. First, the concept of social cognition explains the ways in which people think about themselves and those around them. People'south social noesis is divided into thinking virtually others as belonging to in-groups and out-groups, which are defined by collective identity and social bonds.[three] [5] Anybody has a bias for their own group chosen an In-grouping bias, just this bias simply has negative consequences when people simultaneously hold both extremely positive views of themselves and their in-group and extremely negative views of out-groups.[v] People are also mostly socialized to avoid disharmonize and aggression with other members of their own in-group, then one way of overcoming that barrier to violence is to redefine who belongs to each grouping and so that victims of genocide go excluded from the in-group and are no longer protected past this in-group bias.[3]

Social influence and social relations too institute factors vulnerable to manipulation. Many cultures actively encourage conformity, compliance, and obedience in social relations and can have severe social "penalties" for those that do not adhere to the norms, then that group members tin feel an intense pressure to engage in violence if other members are as well engaging in information technology.[5] This tendency for people to adapt can be manipulated to induce "thoughtless behavior" in large groups of people at once.[6] Research also shows that this pressure to adapt, too known every bit the "conformity result", increases when there is an dominance figure present in the group,[5] and when certain social and institutional contexts increase people's tendency to conform, similar the loss of stability, as people tend to adjust to what is expected of them when stability disappears.[6] Other tendencies of human social relationships tin similarly push people towards violence, such as prejudice, altruism, and aggression. It is particularly relevant to empathize the link between prejudice and violence, every bit prejudice is often one of the showtime starting points in the formation of genocidal behavior. The scapegoat theory (or do of scapegoating) helps to explain the relationship, as it posits that people have a tendency to lash out on out-groups when they are frustrated, for example in times of political or economic crisis.[5]

Chance factors for genocide [edit]

At that place are a variety of political and cultural factors that make states more at risk for motility downwards a path of mass violence, and an agreement and recognition of the existence of those factors can be crucial in genocide prevention efforts. While studies in this area observe varying degrees of risk for each item factor, in that location is widespread consensus on which kinds of environments nowadays the greatest hazard for the occurrence of genocide. First, sure situational factors like destabilizing crises and political upheaval brand countries more vulnerable to genocide.[five] [7] Forms of political upheaval include civil wars, assassinations, revolutions, coups, defeat in international war, anticolonial rebellions, or whatever sort of upheaval that results in anarchistic regime modify or in elites with extremist ideologies coming to ability.[seven] [8] Nigh all genocides of the by half-century have occurred either during or in the immediate aftermath of one of these types of political upheaval.[v] [8]

Political upheaval is peculiarly dangerous when a repressive leader is able to come to ability. Disciplinarian leaders can propel entire societies into "monolithic cultures" at risk for genocide by incentivizing a strong obedience to the land, a lack of tolerance for diversity, and creating an environment that facilitates Groupthink and conformity.[5] The most dangerous authoritarian leaders often have extremist views about a new society "purified" of unwanted or threatening groups of people,[viii] and they promote these ideologies as moral and for the "greater good" of the nation, every bit they classify certain threatening groups equally barriers to national success.[5] [seven] Many such leaders in past genocides, similar Adolf Hitler, Politician Pot, and Slobodan Milošević, have also shared similar personal characteristics, as charismatic, self-confident, intelligent individuals with a trigger-happy desire for power.[5]

Adolf Hitler is saluted by German language troops in an enthusiastic demonstration.

In improver to situational political factors like upheaval, disciplinarian leaders, and unstable government structures, certain cultural factors also contribute to the likelihood that a country volition commit genocide. Cultures that promote the use of assailment equally a normative problem-solving skill, and cultures that glorify violence through things like military machine parades, for example, have a greater risk of perpetrating mass violence.[5] Similarly, societies with a strong history of supremacy ideologies, including the long-term normalization of biases towards outsiders, a lack of acceptance of cultural diverseness, and the exclusion of sure groups from society, are also at greater adventure.[5] [7] Specifically, Barbara Harff's 2003 model on the antecedents to genocide found that countries with an elite ideology, in which the ruling aristocracy hold an exclusionary vision for the society, are ii and half times more likely to commit genocide in the aftermath of a state failure, and genocide is also more than than two times every bit likely in states where the political elite constitutes an ethnic minority.[eight] Many versions of these types of extreme ideologies are present in historical examples of genocide, including the "purification" efforts of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, and Nazi Germany's pursuit of an exclusively Aryan race in their nation.[seven]

Additionally, the potential for genocidal violence increases when multiple forms of crisis, upheaval, or destabilization occur simultaneously, or when the effects of past crises remain unresolved.[5]

Early warning signs of genocide [edit]

Gregory Stanton, the founding president of Genocide Watch, formulated a well-known list of ten (originally eight) stages of genocide in 1996. These stages do not necessarily occur linearly or exclusively 1 at a fourth dimension, but they provide a guiding model to analyze the processes leading to genocide that can exist recognized as alarm signs and acted upon, as each stage presents an opportunity for sure prevention measures.[9] Stanton'due south ten stages include: nomenclature, symbolization, discrimination, dehumanization, organization, polarization, preparation, persecution, extermination, and deprival.[10] The kickoff few of these stages happen early in the process of inciting genocide, and thus offer the nearly opportunity for preventative measures earlier genocide is already in full force.

  • During the Nomenclature stage, where people begin distinguishing within a culture between "us and them" designated past race, ethnicity, religion, or nationality, the most of import prevention measure is to promote tolerance and understanding, and to promote the widespread use of classifications and common ground that transcend these harmful divisions.[10]
  • In the Symbolization phase, in which "other" groups are given names or physical symbols to demonstrate their classification, hate symbols, hate voice communication, and group marking may be outlawed. Just such prohibitions are only effective if they are supported by cultural acceptance and social do.[ten]
  • Once a gild progresses to the Discrimination phase, where the dominant group, acting on an exclusionary ideology, uses constabulary and political power to deny the rights of the targeted group, the almost crucial preventative measure is to ensure total rights and political empowerment for all groups in a society.[10]
  • The final "early on" step, before a society actually begins to organize to carry out the genocide, is Dehumanization, in which 1 grouping denies the humanity of the other group. Stanton argues that prevention at this stage should be aimed at ensuring that incitement to genocide is not confused with protected speech, that detest propaganda is actively countered or banned, and that detest crimes or atrocities are promptly punished.[10] Dehumanization is widely recognized by Stanton and other scholars as a cardinal stage in the genocidal process. Dehumanization is the denial of a group'southward humanity. It places a group'southward members "outside the universe of moral obligation".[11] It is a fatal early on alert sign because it overcomes the universal human revulsion confronting murder. According to Stanton, dehumanization is the "stage where the death spiral of genocide begins".

For genocide to occur, these underlying cultural stages in the genocidal process must be accompanied past six other stages. Several may occur simultaneously. Each "phase" is itself a process.

  • "Organization" of hate groups, militias, and armies is necessary because genocide is a group offense; prevention concentrates on outlawing hate groups and prosecuting hate crimes;
  • "Polarization" of the population, then that genocide becomes popularly supported, is necessary to empower the perpetrators. It frequently means driving out, arresting, or killing moderates who might oppose genocide from within the perpetrator grouping; prevention requires physical and legal protection of moderates from arrest and detention;
  • "Preparation" - planning of the genocide by leaders of the killers - usually occurs secretly; prevention is best achieved by arresting leaders who incite or conspire to commit genocide, imposing sanctions on them, and supporting resistance to them;
  • "Persecution" of the victim group through massive violation of their fundamental human being rights means genocidal massacres may follow; prevention requires targeted sanctions on leaders of regimes that commit crimes against humanity, including prosecution in international and national courts, diplomatic pressure level, economic sanctions, and preparation for regional intervention.
  • "Extermination" is the stage in the genocidal process that international law officially recognizes equally "genocide". Still, mass killing is not the only human activity recognized as genocide in the Genocide Convention. Causing severe actual or mental damage to members of the grouping, deliberately inflicting atmospheric condition of life intended to physically destroy the group, imposing measures intended to foreclose births within the grouping, and forcibly transferring children of the group to some other group are also acts of genocide outlawed by the Genocide Convention. At this stage targeted sanctions and credible diplomatic threats may reduce a genocide. Only support for internal resistance and credence of refugees is likewise ordinarily required. Stopping genocide against the volition of national leaders usually requires their overthrow from inside, or armed intervention under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter or by regional organizations acting under UN Charter Affiliate 8.
  • Every genocide begins and ends in Deprival past the perpetrators and their successors. Denial is all-time countered by ample reporting of facts during a genocide past journalists, other media, homo rights organizations, UN Commissions of Research, and world leaders. Later on a genocide, denial may be countered by trials of the perpetrators, truth commissions, educational programs, memorials, museums, films and other media.

These early alert signs are common in nearly every genocide, but their identification is but useful in prevention efforts when actual actions are taken to gainsay them. One salient case of a failure to act on early alert signs is the Rwandan genocide. Despite numerous warnings, both indirect and explicit, in that location was widespread failure on the part of individual nations similar the The states and international organizations similar the United nations to have the necessary preventative steps before the genocide was already well underway.[12] According to Stanton, the facts about the massacres were heavily resisted; the The states and U.k. refused to invoke the term "genocide" in order to avoid their duty to act, instead naming it a civil war; "group-think" ended that stopping the genocide would endanger the lives of UNAMIR peacekeeping troops and exceed their mandate [The UNAMIR commander requested reinforcements, but was rebuffed.] ; although thousands of Usa marines were on ships off the declension of E Africa, The states policy makers feared intervention into a "quagmire" like Somalia; and black Rwandan lives did not thing compared to the risk of the lives of Americans, Europeans, and troops from other UN fellow member states.[12] The United states Secretarial assistant of State did not call the mass killings a genocide until June ten, 1994, subsequently most of the killing was already over, and the press and human rights groups also failed to name the crime for what information technology was until two weeks into the genocide.[12]

The role of the United Nations [edit]

The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Criminal offense of Genocide [edit]

The 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Penalisation of the Crime of Genocide (as well known every bit the "Genocide Convention") is the principal guiding international legal document for genocide prevention efforts, along with Chapter VII of the United nations Charter.[thirteen] In the aftermath of Globe War II and the atrocities of the Holocaust, the ratification of the Genocide Convention signaled the international community'southward commitment to the principle of "never again" in terms of its prioritization of genocide prevention.[xiv]

International criminal tribunals [edit]

In 1993 and 1994, the United nations Security Council established 2 ad-hoc international courts, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda in club to try those indicted for genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes in the Bosnian and Rwandan genocides.[2] Then, in 1998, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court was adopted, giving the International Criminal Court (ICC) jurisdiction for the crime of genocide, crimes confronting humanity, and war crimes.[ii]

The Responsibility to Protect [edit]

Advocates of the Responsibility to Protect take asserted that nation states that neglect to fulfill their essential purpose to protect their people against genocide and other crimes against humanity lose their legitimate correct to claim sovereignty. In such circumstances, the United Nations, regional organizations, and other transnational institutions have a responsibility to protect people in nations that violate fundamental human rights. This international declaration was adopted past consensus at the 2005 United Nations World Top. Information technology turns the concept of sovereignty correct side upwardly, asserting that sovereignty comes from the people of a nation, non from its rulers.[15] This means that state sovereignty should be transcended for the protection of a population if the government of a nation state is unable or unwilling to do and so, or worse, if the government itself is committing genocide or crimes against its own people. This norm has provided justification for the U.N., regional organizations, and other transnational institutions to intervene even confronting the will of national governments for the prevention of genocide. All the same, some critics of the Responsibility to Protect claim that the doctrine volition exist driveling every bit an excuse to invade or bring about regime changes.[16]

Criticisms of the Un on genocide prevention and intervention [edit]

The United Nations has been widely criticized for interim inadequately, besides slowly, or not at all in cases of genocide.[two] [17] Since its establishment in 1948, the Un's success charge per unit at preventing genocide has been very low, equally evidenced by the large number of mass atrocities that accept occurred in the past half-century that might autumn under the UN definition of genocide, but the fact that merely a few cases accept been legally established as constituting genocide and prosecuted equally such.[14] The UN faces a number of challenges in acting to prevent and intervene in cases of genocide. First, the fact that individual member states compose both the United nations General Assembly and the United nations Security Council means that humanitarian goals become secondary to national political goals and pressures, as fellow member states pursue their ain interests.[2] Vetoes or threats of vetoes past one of the Permanent Five members of the United nations Security Quango have often paralyzed the UN Security Council. For example, the Usa and the Soviet Union virtually prevented the Un from approval humanitarian interventions in whatever areas they deemed to be of strategic significance during the Cold War.[2] An exception was the "Korean Police Action" when the Uniting for Peace Resolution, Un Full general Associates Resolution 377 ,passed during a Soviet walk-out from the Security Council, allowed the UN Full general Assembly to qualify the employ of force. Uniting for Peace has been used thirteen times past the General Assembly, only information technology is now avoided past all of the Permanent V members of the Security Council because in the General Assembly they lack any veto ability. Additionally, despite the Responsibleness to Protect, many states yet argue in favor of the protection of state sovereignty over intervention, even in the face of potential mass killing.[2] Some other significant bulwark to action on genocidal violence is the reticence to officially invoke the term "genocide", as it appears to be applied narrowly over the objections of lawyers and governments that want to avert action, and much too slowly in cases of mass atrocities.[17] [xiv] Instead euphemisms such as "ethnic cleansing" are substituted, even though in that location are no international treaties prohibiting "ethnic cleansing".

Types of prevention [edit]

Upstream prevention [edit]

Upstream prevention, is taking preemptive measures earlier a genocide occurs to forbid i from occurring. The focus in upstream prevention is determining which countries are at about chance. This is mainly done using risk assessments which are quite authentic predictors. Scholars in the field take developed numerous models, each looking at dissimilar factors. Stanton's process model of genocide has been one of the virtually successful in predicting genocides. A statistical model that has too proved accurate comes from Barbara Harff. Her model uses factors such as political upheaval, prior genocides, authoritarian government, exclusionary ideologies, closure of borders, and systematic violations of human rights, among others.[18] These assessments are used past genocide prevention NGOs, the Un, World Banking company, and other international institutions, and by governments around the world.

Mid-Stream prevention [edit]

Mid-stream prevention takes place when a genocide is already taking place. The principal focus of Mid-stream prevention, is to end the genocide earlier it progress's farther, taking more than lives. This type of prevention often involves military intervention of some sort. Intervention, often is very expensive, and has unintended consequences. Scholars tend to disagree on the effectiveness of armed services intervention. Some claim that military intervention promotes rebel groups or that it is likewise expensive for the lives it saves.[xix] [20] Scholars tend to prefer upstream prevention because it saves lives and does non crave costly intervention.

Downstream prevention [edit]

Downstream prevention takes identify after a genocide has ended. Its focus is on preventing another genocide in the time to come. Re-building and restoring the community is the goal. Justice for the victims plays a major role in repairing communities to preclude a future genocide from occurring. This justice can accept diverse forms with trials being a mutual form, like the Nuremberg trials, trials by the ICTY, ICTR, Sierra Leone, Cambodian and other international tribunals, and trials in national courts following the autumn of genocidal regimes. Justice and healing of the community is ever imperfect. Some scholars criticize the imperfections, especially those of trials. Mutual criticisms of trials are their retro-activeness, selectivity, and politicization.[21] However, when no justice is done and no one is punished for perpetrating genocide, Harff has shown statistically that such impunity increases the risk of future genocide and crimes against humanity in the same gild by over three times.[eighteen]

Genocide prevention and public wellness [edit]

While the prevention of genocide is typically approached from a political or national defence angle, the field of public wellness tin besides brand significant contributions to this effort. Genocide, along with other forms of mass atrocity, is inherently an effect of public health, as information technology has a significant and detrimental impact on population wellness, both immediately afterward the violence occurs and also in the long term health of a post-genocidal population.[22] [23] With regards to the mortality numbers alone, genocide has killed more people than war-related deaths in every historical period.[22] And it too far surpasses the mortality rates of some of the nearly pressing epidemiological threats. In 1994, the year that the Rwandan genocide occurred, the mortality rate from the genocide itself was 20 times higher than the rate of HIV/AIDS deaths and more than lxx times college than the rate of malaria-related deaths, despite the fact that Rwanda was geographically sandwiched past these ii pandemics.[22] And in the long run, the public health impact of genocide goes beyond the number of people killed. During genocide, healthcare facilities are often destroyed, doctors and nurses are killed in the violence, and the usual disease prevention efforts of the nation are disrupted, for case, immunization programs, which normally save thousands of lives.[23] The destruction of these facilities and healthcare programs has longterm effects.[23] Additionally, post-genocidal societies have an increased rate of chronic and acute disease, low birth rates, increased perinatal bloodshed, and increased malnutrition.[22] The individual-level health of genocide survivors too suffers in the long-term, given that pregnant trauma has both long-lasting psychological and physical effects.[22]

The American Medical Clan (AMA) recognizes this critical link between health and man rights in the area of genocide and its prevention, and urges physicians to arroyo genocide using public health strategies.[23] Such strategies include documentation of genocide and pre-genocidal atmospheric condition through instance reports and surveillance, epidemiological studies to assess the bear upon of genocide on public wellness, didactics and spreading awareness about the understanding of genocide and its psychological precursors to the public, to other health professionals, and to policymakers, and advancement for policies and programs aimed at the prevention of genocide.[23]

Ongoing prevention efforts [edit]

Genocide Scout [edit]

Genocide Watch was the offset international organization dedicated solely to the prevention of genocide. Founded at the Hague Appeal for Peace in May 1999 by Dr. Gregory Stanton, Genocide Picket coordinates the Alliance Confronting Genocide. Genocide Watch utilizes Stanton's 10 Stages of Genocide to clarify events that are early warning signs of genocide. It sponsors a website on genocide prevention. It issues Genocide Alerts most genocidal situations that it sends to public policy makers and recommends preventive deportment.

The Brotherhood Against Genocide [edit]

The Alliance Against Genocide was also founded by Gregory Stanton at the Hague Appeal for Peace in 1999 and was originally named The International Campaign to End Genocide. It was the starting time international coalition dedicated to the prevention of genocide. The Alliance includes over 70 international and national non-governmental anti-genocide organizations in 31 countries.[24] The organizations include: 21 Wilberforce Initiative, Act for Sudan, Aegis Trust, Antiquities Coalition, Armenian National Committee, Brandeis Center, Burma Man Rights Network, Darfur Women Action group, Cardozo Law Constitute, CALDH, Cambodian Genocide Project, Middle for Political Dazzler, Combat Genocide Association, Christian Solidarity International, Documentation Center of Cambodia, EMMA, Fortify Rights, Gratuitous Rohingya Coalition, Genocide Picket, Hammurabi, Hudo, Man Security Centre, In Defense of Christians, INTERSOCIETY, International Alert, International Commission on Nigeria, International Crunch Group, Institute for Cultural Diplomacy, Plant for the Study of Genocide, Jewish World Sentinel, Johannesburg Holocaust and Genocide Center, Jubilee Campaign, Matabeleland Establish for Homo Rights, Mediators Beyond Borders, Knights of Columbus, Minority Rights Group International, Montreal Institute for Human Rights Studies, Never Again Association, Democratic people's republic of korea Freedom Coalition, Operation Cleaved Silence, PROOF, Protection Approaches, Sentinel Projection, Shlomo, STAND, Stimson Centre, Survival International, TRIAL, Waging Peace, WARM, World Exterior My Shoes, and Globe Without Genocide.

United nations Part on Genocide Prevention and the Responsibility to Protect [edit]

Proposed past Gregory Stanton in 2000 and advocated at the UN by Stanton and Bernard Hamilton of the Leo Kuper Foundation, and by the Minority Rights Grouping and other member organizations in the Alliance Against Genocide, the office was created in 2004 by Un Secretary Full general Kofi Annan. Edward Mortimer and Undersecretary Danilo Turk were key directorate on cosmos of the Function. It advises the Un Secretary Full general and the United nations on genocide prevention. It has developed a Framework for Analysis that identifies some of the main run a risk factors for genocide and other atrocity crimes. The Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide bug public warnings about situations at hazard of genocide. The office conducts grooming for national governments on policies to prevent genocide.

Early warning projection [edit]

The Early Warning Projection is an early warning tool developed by United States Holocaust Memorial Museum and Dartmouth College. The Early Alert Project aids United states of america policy makers past determining which states are the nigh likely to feel a genocide. From this, preventive steps tin can be taken concerning states that pose a risk of genocide.

Genocide job forcefulness [edit]

The Genocide Task Force was created in 2007, with the purpose of developing a US strategy to foreclose and stop future genocides. The Task Forcefulness was co chaired by old The states Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright, and former US Secretary of Defense William South. Cohen.[25] In 2008 the Genocide Job Force came out with a report for Us policy makers on the prevention of genocide. This written report claimed that a well rounded "comprehensive strategy" would be required to prevent genocide. This strategy would demand to include early on warning systems, preventive action before a crunch, training for military intervention, strengthening of international institutions and norms, and a willingness for world leaders to take decisive activity. While the report states that armed services intervention should remain an bachelor option, upstream preventive measures should be the focus of the Usa and the International Community.[26] The Job Force'due south report resulted in creation of the Atrocities Prevention Lath, a Usa interagency attempt to assess risks of genocide and other barbarism crimes.

References [edit]

  1. ^ a b "Background Information on Preventing Genocide". Outreach Plan on the Rwanda Genocide and the United Nations. United nations. Retrieved 5 April 2016.
  2. ^ a b c d due east f g Totten, Samuel; Bartrop, Paul R. (2004-07-01). "The United nations and genocide: Prevention, intervention, and prosecution". Homo Rights Review. 5 (iv): viii–31. doi:ten.1007/s12142-004-1025-1. ISSN 1874-6306. S2CID 144165801.
  3. ^ a b c d e f g Hinton, Alexander Laban (1996). "Agents of Expiry: Explaining the Cambodian Genocide in Terms of Psychosocial Dissonance". American Anthropologist. 98 (four): 818–831. doi:x.1525/aa.1996.98.4.02a00110. ISSN 0002-7294. JSTOR 681888.
  4. ^ a b c d Vollhardt, Johanna (March 15, 2018). "The Psychology of Genocide: Beware the Ancestry". Psychology Today.
  5. ^ a b c d e f chiliad h i j thousand l one thousand Woolf, Linda M.; Hulsizer, Michael R. (2005-03-01). "Psychosocial roots of genocide: risk, prevention, and intervention". Journal of Genocide Inquiry. 7 (i): 101–128. doi:10.1080/14623520500045088. ISSN 1462-3528. S2CID 21026197.
  6. ^ a b Roth, Paul A. (2012-09-xviii). Bloxham, Donald; Moses, A. Dirk (eds.). Social Psychology and Genocide. Vol. 1. Oxford University Printing. doi:x.1093/oxfordhb/9780199232116.013.0011.
  7. ^ a b c d e Brehm, Hollie Nyseth (2017-01-02). "Re-examining risk factors of genocide". Periodical of Genocide Research. 19 (i): 61–87. doi:10.1080/14623528.2016.1213485. ISSN 1462-3528. S2CID 216140986.
  8. ^ a b c d Harff, Barbara (Feb 2003). "No Lessons Learned from the Holocaust? Assessing Risks of Genocide and Political Mass Murder since 1955". American Political Scientific discipline Review. 97 (i): 57–73. doi:10.1017/S0003055403000522. ISSN 1537-5943. S2CID 54804182.
  9. ^ "Warning Signs of Mass Violence—in the US?". Observer. 2017-08-22. Retrieved 2020-03-07 .
  10. ^ a b c d east Stanton, Gregory (December 2018). "What is Genocide?". Genocide Watch.
  11. ^ Fein, Helen (1984). Bookkeeping for genocide : national responses and Jewish victimization during the Holocaust. Chicago: University of Chicago Printing. p. 9. ISBN0-226-24034-7. OCLC 10274039. {{cite book}}: CS1 maint: appointment and year (link)
  12. ^ a b c Stanton, Gregory (2012-eleven-28). "The Rwandan Genocide: Why Early Alert Failed". Journal of African Conflicts and Peace Studies. 1 (2): six–25. doi:10.5038/2325-484X.1.2.one. ISSN 2325-484X.
  13. ^ "Un Office on Genocide Prevention and the Responsibility to Protect". www.un.org . Retrieved 2020-03-08 .
  14. ^ a b c "Why the UN convention on genocide is still failing, 70 years on". The Independent. 2018-12-21. Retrieved 2020-03-08 .
  15. ^ "Office of The Special Adviser on The Prevention of Genocide". world wide web.un.org . Retrieved 2016-04-05 .
  16. ^ Cliffe, Sarah; Megally, Hanny (2016-02-19). "Rwanda should accept been a wake-up call. Why practise the crises go along?". The Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. Retrieved 2016-04-05 .
  17. ^ a b Hannibal, Travis. "The Un and Genocide Prevention: the Trouble of Racial and Religious Bias". Genocide Studies International. 8.
  18. ^ a b Harff, Barbara (2003). "No Lessons Learned from the Holocaust? Assessing Risks of Genocide and Political Mass Murder Since 1955". American Political Science Review. 97: 57–73. doi:10.1017/S0003055403000522. S2CID 54804182.
  19. ^ Kuperman, Alan (2008). "The Moral Hazard of Humanitarian Intervention: Lessons from the Balkans". International Studies Quarterly. 52: 49–80. CiteSeerXx.1.1.322.1966. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2478.2007.00491.x.
  20. ^ Valentino, Benjamin (2011). "The True Costs of Humanitarian Intervention". Foreign Diplomacy.
  21. ^ Minow, Martha (1998). Between Vengeance and Forgiveness. Beacon Press Books. pp. 25–50. ISBN978-0-8070-4507-7.
  22. ^ a b c d e Adler, Reva N.; Smith, James; Fishman, Paul; Larson, Eric B. (December 2004). "To Prevent, React, and Rebuild: Health Inquiry and the Prevention of Genocide". Health Services Enquiry. 39 (6p2): 2027–2051. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6773.2004.00331.x. ISSN 0017-9124. PMC1361111. PMID 15544643.
  23. ^ a b c d eastward Willis, Brian M. (2000-08-02). "Recognizing the Public Health Impact of Genocide". JAMA. 284 (5): 612–4. doi:10.1001/jama.284.v.612. ISSN 0098-7484. PMID 10918708.
  24. ^ "ALLIANCE MEMBERS". Alliance Against Genocide . Retrieved 2022-02-03 .
  25. ^ "Genocide Prevention Task Forcefulness". United States Holocaust Memorial Museum . Retrieved 2016-04-05 .
  26. ^ Albright, Madeleine K.; Cohen, William S. (2008). Preventing Genocide: A Blueprint for U.Due south. Policymakers (PDF). Genocide Prevention Job Force. Retrieved July iv, 2017.

External links [edit]

  • United Nations Function on Genocide Prevention and the Responsibleness to Protect official website
  • Genocide Sensation and Prevention calendar month Toolkit, Enough Project, April 2014
  • The Ten Stages of Genocide by Dr. Gregory Stanton

joslynthental.blogspot.com

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_prevention

You may like these posts

Post a Comment for "What Has the International Community Done to Prevent Such an Event From Occurring Again?"