Genocide and mass atrocity prevention requires an 'atrocity prevention lens' to inform and, where appropriate, direct policy development and decision making across the full spectrum of prevention-related activities. The relationship between armed conflict and mass atrocities is highly complex and not yet well-understood. The strong empirical correlation between the two phenomena implies a direct link. However, not all conflicts give rise to mass atrocities, and many atrocities occur in the absence of armed struggle. While there can be no meaningful and effective agenda for the prevention of genocide and mass atrocities that does not incorporate the prevention of armed conflict, atrocity prevention requires tailored engagement that targets both peacetime atrocities and those committed within a context of armed conflict. The existing common prevention agenda, which encompasses structural and direct conflict prevention, outlines the measures and programs appropriate to the prevention of both armed conflict and mass atrocity crimes. However, the common prevention agenda points only to the most common measures that might be used and the preventive capacities that are required. It does not indicate the appropriate balance of measures in a given context or how those measures should be used. While the tools used to prevent mass atrocities and armed conflict might be the same, their objectives are different. The key to a more targeted approach to genocide and mass atrocities lies in using the tools in an appropriate and context-sensitive fashion. When mobilized for atrocity prevention, common prevention measures must be used appropriately to target atrocity risk and avert the pitfalls of a conflict prevention-dominant mindset, such as a blind culture of neutrality that treats all parties as morally equivalent, the pursuit of negative peace at any price in the face of a credible threat of atrocities, and the tendency to believe that prevention ends when violence begins. While an atrocity prevention lens would help outline its broad parameters, the key to narrowing the atrocity prevention agenda lies in identifying strategies that target specific risks and capacity gaps in particular country and/or regional contexts.

Cultural Cleansing and Mass Atrocities: Protecting Cultural Heritage in Armed Conflict Zones addresses the connection between cultural heritage and cultural cleansing, mass atrocities, and the destruction of cultural heritage. Pulling together various threads of discourse and research, Cultural Cleansing and Mass Atrocities outlines the issues, challenges, and options effecting change.

"Never again!" the world has vowed time and again since the Holocaust. Yet genocide, ethnic cleansing, and other mass atrocity crimes continue to shock our consciences—from the killing fields of Cambodia to the machetes of Rwanda to the agony of Darfur. Gareth Evans has grappled with these issues firsthand. As Australian foreign minister, he was a key broker of the United Nations peace plan for Cambodia. As president of the International Crisis Group, he now works on the prevention and resolution of scores of conflicts and crises worldwide. The primary architect of and leading authority on the Responsibility to Protect ("R2P"), he shows here how this new international norm can once and for all prevent a return to the killing fields. The Responsibility to Protect captures a simple and powerful idea. The primary responsibility for protecting its own people from mass atrocity crimes lies with the state itself. State sovereignty implies responsibility, not a license to kill. But when a state is unwilling or unable to halt or avert such crimes, the wider international community then has a collective responsibility to take whatever action is necessary. R2P emphasizes preventive action above all. That includes assistance for states struggling to contain potential crises and for effective rebuilding after a crisis or conflict to tackle its underlying causes. R2P's primary tools are persuasion and support, not military or other coercion. But sometimes it is right to fight: faced with another Rwanda, the world cannot just stand by. R2P was unanimously adopted by the UN General Assembly at the 2005 World Summit. But many misunderstandings persist about its scope and limits. And much remains to be done to solidify political support and to build institutional capacity. Evans shows, compellingly, how big a break R2P represents from the past, and how, with its acceptance in principle and effective application in practice, the promise of "Never

What can be done to warn about and organize political action to prevent genocide and mass atrocities? The international contributors to this volume are either experts or practitioners, often both, who have contributed in substantial ways to analyzing high risk situations, recommending preventive policies and actions, and in several instances helping to organize remedial actions. Whereas current literature on the prevention of genocide is theoretically well grounded, this book explores what can be done, and has been done, in real-world situations. Recommendations and actions are rooted in a generation of experience, based on solid historical, comparative, and empirical research and with a grounding in quantitative methods. This volume examines historical cases to understand the general causes and processes of mass violence and genocide, and engages with ongoing genocidal crises including Darfur and Syria, as well as other forms of related violence such as terrorism and civil conflict. It will be key reading for all students and scholars of genocide, war and conflict studies, human security and security studies in general.

Mass Atrocities, Risk and Resilience examines the relationship between risk and resilience in the prevention of genocide and other mass atrocities and explores two broad areas of neglect. In terms of prevention, there is very little research that analyzes how local and national actors manage the risk associated with mass atrocities. In the field of comparative genocide studies, to date there has been very little interest in examining negative cases. Although much is known about why mass atrocities occur, much less is established about why they do not occur. The contributions in this book address this neglect in two important ways. First, they challenge commonly-accepted approaches to prevention. Second, they explore negative cases in order to better understand how local and national actors have mitigated risk over time.

This book brings together a diverse range of international voices from academia, policymaking and civil society to address the failure to connect historical dialogue with atrocity prevention discourse and provide insight into how conflict histories and historical memory act as dynamic forces, actively facilitating or deterring current and future conflict. Established on a variety of international case studies combining theoretical and practical points of view, the book envisions an integrated understanding of how historical dialogue can inform policy, education, and the practice of atrocity prevention. In doing so, it provides a vital basis for the development of preventive policies sensitive to the importance of conflict histories and for further academic study on the topic. It will be of interest to all scholars and students of history, psychology, peace studies, international relations and political science.

Paramilitary or irregular units have been involved in practically every case of identity-based mass violence in the modern world, but detailed analysis of these dynamics is rare. Exploring the case of former Yugoslavia, the genocides in Rwanda and Darfur, and the ongoing violence in Syria, Kate Ferguson exposes the relationships between paramilitaries, state commands, local communities, and organized crime. She presents these 'architectures of violence' as a way of comprehending how the various structures of command and control fit together into domestic and international webs of support enabling and encouraging irregular and paramilitary violence. Visible paramilitary participation in modern mass atrocities has succeeded in masking the continued dominance of the state in a number of violent crises. Irregular combatants have participated so significantly in committing atrocity crimes because political elites benefit from using unconventional forces to fulfil ambitions that violate international law--and international policy responses are hindered when responsibility for violence is ambiguous. Ferguson's inquiry into these overlooked dynamics of mass violence unveils substantial loopholes in current atrocity prevention architecture. Until these are addressed, state authorities will likely continue to use irregular combatants as perpetrators of atrocity.

How do mass atrocities end? Six case studies reveal the decisions and factors that help decrease mass violence against civilians.

A dozen scholars explore what can be done to combat genocide, ethnic cleansing and other crimes against humanity, which, despite grisly examples from the past century, continue to rear their ugly head today. Original.