How Did the International Community Prevent the Holocaust From Occurring Again

Whatever act or deportment that works toward averting hereafter genocides

Prevention of genocide is whatsoever activeness that works toward averting future genocides. Genocides accept a lot of planning, resources, and involved parties to carry out, they do not simply happen instantaneously.^[1] Scholars in the field of genocide studies accept identified a gear up of widely agreed upon risk factors that make a country or social grouping more at risk of carrying out a genocide, which include a broad range of political and cultural factors that create a context in which genocide is more than probable, such every bit political upheaval or government modify, besides every bit psychological phenomena that tin can be manipulated and taken advantage of in large groups of people, like conformity and cerebral dissonance. Genocide prevention depends heavily on the noesis and surveillance of these run a risk factors, also as the identification of early on warning signs of genocide beginning to occur.

1 of the main goals of the Un with the passage of the Genocide Convention after the 2d World War and the atrocities of the Holocaust is to forbid time to come genocide from taking place.^[1] The Genocide Convention and the Responsibility to protect provide the basis for the responsibility of every UN member state to actively prevent genocide and act to end it in other states when it occurs. Nonetheless, the United Nations has been heavily criticized for its failure to prevent genocide, especially in the latter half of the twentieth century.^[2]

Intervention in genocide can occur at many different stages of the progression of a genocide, just the most ideal phase to intervene is earlier genocide occurs at all, in the grade of prevention known as upstream prevention. Preventing genocide in this way requires a constant and thorough assessment of the risk of genocide effectually the world at any given fourth dimension, given the known adventure factors, early warning signs, and the knowledge of how a genocide progresses.

The psychological ground of genocide [edit]

Genocide is not something that only trained, sadistic killers have part in, but rather it is something that ordinary people tin can do with the proper "training" via cognitive restructuring and social conditioning.^{[3] [4]} The act of killing for genocidal purposes is not a distinct category of human behavior. Instead, genocidal killing demonstrates the potential of ordinary psychological and social processes to exist manipulated until they escalate into violence, under certain atmospheric condition.^[iv] I of the major puzzles in studying both the occurrence of and prevention of genocide, therefore, is understanding what makes those "normal" cognitive processes, both on the private and collective levels, vulnerable to manipulation by outsiders, and which social and political weather condition provide a convenance ground for that manipulation to turn fierce.

On the individual level, the psychological concept of cognitive dissonance plays a big function in a person's transformation from peaceful citizen to violent genocidal killer.^[4] Even more specifically, Alexander Hinton, in his 1996 study on the psycho-social factors that contributed to the Cambodian genocide, coined the term "psychosocial racket" to add together to this well-known psychological concept other anthropological concepts like cultural models and notions of the cocky.^[3] These forms of dissonance, both cognitive and psychosocial, arise when a person is confronted with behavioral expectations that conflict with their own identity or concept of self, and subsequently piece of work subconsciously to resolve those inconsistencies.^[3] Hinton claims that there are a number of cerebral "moves" that must occur in order for a person to reduce psychosocial dissonance felt at the onset of genocide, and these moves slowly transform people into their "genocidal selves".^[3] These cerebral moves include the dehumanization of victims, the employment of euphemisms to mask vehement deeds, the undergoing of moral restructuring, becoming acclimated to the act of killing, and/or denying responsibleness for violent deportment.^[3] The first movement, 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, as particularly notable examples, victims were labeled equally vermin, cockroaches, rats, or snakes, to separate them entirely from the category of human in this process of dehumanization.^[4] When the label of "person" is taken away from unabridged 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 too many social psychological factors that influence an "ordinary" group'south transformation into killers. First, the concept of social noesis explains the means in which people think about themselves and those around them. People's social cognition is divided into thinking about others as belonging to in-groups and out-groups, which are defined by commonage identity and social bonds.^{[3] [5]} Anybody has a bias for their ain grouping chosen an In-grouping bias, but this bias only has negative consequences when people simultaneously hold both extremely positive views of themselves and their in-group and extremely negative views of out-groups.^[5] People are also generally socialized to avoid conflict and aggression with other members of their own in-group, then one way of overcoming that bulwark to violence is to redefine who belongs to each grouping then that victims of genocide get excluded from the in-group and are no longer protected past this in-group bias.^[3]

Social influence and social relations also plant 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, and so that group members can feel an intense pressure to engage in violence if other members are also engaging in it.^[v] This trend for people to suit can exist manipulated to induce "thoughtless behavior" in large groups of people at in one case.^[6] Research also shows that this pressure level to adapt, besides known as the "conformity effect", increases when there is an authority figure nowadays in the group,^[5] and when certain social and institutional contexts increase people's tendency to conform, similar the loss of stability, every bit people tend to adapt to what is expected of them when stability disappears.^{[half dozen]} Other tendencies of human social relationships can similarly push people towards violence, such equally prejudice, altruism, and assailment. It is particularly relevant to empathise the link between prejudice and violence, as prejudice is often ane of the first starting points in the formation of genocidal behavior. The scapegoat theory (or do of scapegoating) helps to explain the relationship, every bit it posits that people accept a tendency to lash out on out-groups when they are frustrated, for example in times of political or economical crunch.^[5]

Run a risk factors for genocide [edit]

There are a diverseness of political and cultural factors that make states more at take a chance for motion downwardly a path of mass violence, and an agreement and recognition of the existence of those factors tin can be crucial in genocide prevention efforts. While studies in this area find varying degrees of hazard for each item factor, there is widespread consensus on which kinds of environments nowadays the greatest risk for the occurrence of genocide. Outset, certain situational factors like destabilizing crises and political upheaval make countries more than vulnerable to genocide.^{[5] [7]} Forms of political upheaval include civil wars, assassinations, revolutions, coups, defeat in international state of war, anticolonial rebellions, or any sort of upheaval that results in unconventional authorities modify or in elites with extremist ideologies coming to power.^{[7] [8]} Almost all genocides of the past half-century have occurred either during or in the immediate aftermath of 1 of these types of political upheaval.^{[5] [eight]}

Political upheaval is particularly dangerous when a repressive leader is able to come to power. Authoritarian leaders tin can propel unabridged societies into "monolithic cultures" at hazard for genocide past incentivizing a strong obedience to the state, 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,^[8] and they promote these ideologies equally moral and for the "greater good" of the nation, equally they allocate certain threatening groups equally barriers to national success.^{[5] [7]} Many such leaders in past genocides, like Adolf Hitler, Politician Pot, and Slobodan Milošević, have as well shared similar personal characteristics, as charismatic, cocky-confident, intelligent individuals with a fierce desire for power.^[5]

Adolf Hitler is saluted by German troops in an enthusiastic sit-in.

In add-on to situational political factors like upheaval, authoritarian leaders, and unstable authorities structures, certain cultural factors also contribute to the likelihood that a state volition commit genocide. Cultures that promote the use of aggression every bit a normative trouble-solving skill, and cultures that glorify violence through things like military parades, for case, 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 variety, and the exclusion of certain groups from society, are also at greater risk.^{[5] [seven]} Specifically, Barbara Harff's 2003 model on the antecedents to genocide found that countries with an aristocracy credo, in which the ruling aristocracy hold an exclusionary vision for the society, are two and half times more probable to commit genocide in the backwash of a land failure, and genocide is also more than 2 times as likely in states where the political elite constitutes an ethnic minority.^[viii] Many versions of these types of extreme ideologies are present in historical examples of genocide, including the "purification" efforts of the Central khmer Rouge in Cambodia, and Nazi Deutschland's pursuit of an exclusively Aryan race in their nation.^[7]

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 on alarm signs of genocide [edit]

Gregory Stanton, the founding president of Genocide Picket, formulated a well-known listing of 10 (originally eight) stages of genocide in 1996. These stages exercise not necessarily occur linearly or exclusively one at a time, but they provide a guiding model to analyze the processes leading to genocide that can exist recognized equally warning signs and acted upon, every bit each stage presents an opportunity for certain prevention measures.^[9] Stanton's ten stages include: classification, symbolization, bigotry, dehumanization, organization, polarization, grooming, persecution, extermination, and deprival.^[ten] The commencement few of these stages happen early in the process of inciting genocide, and thus offering the most opportunity for preventative measures before genocide is already in full force.

• During the Classification stage, where people begin distinguishing inside a culture between "usa and them" designated by race, ethnicity, organized religion, or nationality, the well-nigh important prevention measure is to promote tolerance and understanding, and to promote the widespread utilise of classifications and common ground that transcend these harmful divisions.^[10]
• In the Symbolization stage, in which "other" groups are given names or physical symbols to demonstrate their classification, detest symbols, hate speech, and group marking may be outlawed. But such prohibitions are simply effective if they are supported by cultural acceptance and social practise.^[x]
• In one case a society progresses to the Bigotry stage, where the ascendant group, acting on an exclusionary ideology, uses police force and political ability to deny the rights of the targeted group, the most crucial preventative measure out is to ensure total rights and political empowerment for all groups in a gild.^[10]
• The final "early" step, before a club actually begins to organize to behave out the genocide, is Dehumanization, in which 1 group denies the humanity of the other grouping. Stanton argues that prevention at this stage should be aimed at ensuring that incitement to genocide is not confused with protected speech, that hate propaganda is actively countered or banned, and that hate crimes or atrocities are promptly punished.^[x] Dehumanization is widely recognized by Stanton and other scholars as a fundamental stage in the genocidal process. Dehumanization is the deprival of a group'southward humanity. It places a group'due south members "outside the universe of moral obligation".^[11] It is a fatal early warning sign because it overcomes the universal human revulsion against murder. According to Stanton, dehumanization is the "phase where the decease spiral of genocide begins".

For genocide to occur, these underlying cultural stages in the genocidal process must exist accompanied by 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 criminal offense; prevention concentrates on outlawing hate groups and prosecuting hate crimes;
• "Polarization" of the population, so that genocide becomes popularly supported, is necessary to empower the perpetrators. It often means driving out, arresting, or killing moderates who might oppose genocide from within the perpetrator group; prevention requires physical and legal protection of moderates from arrest and detention;
• "Grooming" - planning of the genocide by leaders of the killers - usually occurs secretly; prevention is best accomplished 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 rights ways 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 force per unit area, economic sanctions, and grooming for regional intervention.
• "Extermination" is the stage in the genocidal procedure that international law officially recognizes as "genocide". Still, mass killing is not the only act recognized as genocide in the Genocide Convention. Causing astringent bodily or mental harm to members of the grouping, deliberately inflicting conditions of life intended to physically destroy the grouping, imposing measures intended to forestall births within the group, 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 apparent diplomatic threats may reduce a genocide. But support for internal resistance and acceptance of refugees is as well normally required. Stopping genocide against the will of national leaders usually requires their overthrow from within, or armed intervention nether Affiliate 7 of the United nations Lease or past regional organizations acting under UN Charter Affiliate 8.
• Every genocide begins and ends in Denial by the perpetrators and their successors. Denial is best countered past aplenty reporting of facts during a genocide by journalists, other media, human rights organizations, Un Commissions of Inquiry, and world leaders. After a genocide, deprival may exist countered by trials of the perpetrators, truth commissions, educational programs, memorials, museums, films and other media.

These early on warning signs are common in near every genocide, only their identification is only useful in prevention efforts when actual actions are taken to combat them. 1 salient example of a failure to act on early warning signs is the Rwandan genocide. Despite numerous warnings, both indirect and explicit, there was widespread failure on the office of individual nations like the United States and international organizations similar the United Nations to accept the necessary preventative steps earlier the genocide was already well underway.^[12] According to Stanton, the facts nigh the massacres were heavily resisted; the U.s. and Uk refused to invoke the term "genocide" in order to avert their duty to deed, instead naming information technology a civil war; "group-call up" ended that stopping the genocide would endanger the lives of UNAMIR peacekeeping troops and exceed their mandate [The UNAMIR commander requested reinforcements, only was rebuffed.] ; although thousands of United states of america marines were on ships off the coast of E Africa, Usa policy makers feared intervention into a "quagmire" like Somalia; and black Rwandan lives did not affair compared to the risk of the lives of Americans, Europeans, and troops from other United nations member states.^[12] The US Secretary of State did non phone call the mass killings a genocide until June 10, 1994, subsequently most of the killing was already over, and the press and human rights groups also failed to name the law-breaking for what it was until ii weeks into the genocide.^[12]

The role of the United Nations [edit]

The Convention on the Prevention and Penalization of the Criminal offence of Genocide [edit]

The 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Criminal offence of Genocide (besides known as the "Genocide Convention") is the principal guiding international legal certificate for genocide prevention efforts, along with Affiliate Seven of the United Nations Charter.^[xiii] In the aftermath of World 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.^[14]

International criminal tribunals [edit]

In 1993 and 1994, the United nations Security Council established two ad-hoc international courts, the International Criminal Tribunal for the sometime Yugoslavia and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda in order to endeavor 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 Courtroom (ICC) jurisdiction for the crime of genocide, crimes confronting humanity, and war crimes.^[two]

The Responsibility to Protect [edit]

Advocates of the Responsibility to Protect accept asserted that nation states that fail to fulfill their essential purpose to protect their people confronting genocide and other crimes against humanity lose their legitimate right to merits 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 by consensus at the 2005 United Nations World Summit. It turns the concept of sovereignty right side up, asserting that sovereignty comes from the people of a nation, not 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 so, or worse, if the authorities itself is committing genocide or crimes confronting its own people. This norm has provided justification for the U.N., regional organizations, and other transnational institutions to intervene even confronting the volition of national governments for the prevention of genocide. Notwithstanding, some critics of the Responsibility to Protect merits that the doctrine will be driveling as an alibi to invade or bring about government changes.^[xvi]

Criticisms of the United nations on genocide prevention and intervention [edit]

The Un has been widely criticized for acting inadequately, besides slowly, or non at all in cases of genocide.^{[2] [17]} Since its institution in 1948, the Un's success rate at preventing genocide has been very low, every bit evidenced by the large number of mass atrocities that have occurred in the by one-half-century that might fall nether the UN definition of genocide, only the fact that just a few cases have been legally established equally constituting genocide and prosecuted every bit such.^[xiv] The Un faces a number of challenges in acting to forbid and intervene in cases of genocide. Beginning, the fact that individual member states etch both the UN General Assembly and the United nations Security Council means that humanitarian goals become secondary to national political goals and pressures, equally member states pursue their own interests.^[ii] Vetoes or threats of vetoes by 1 of the Permanent Five members of the United nations Security Council have often paralyzed the UN Security Council. For example, the United States and the Soviet Marriage virtually prevented the United Nations from approving humanitarian interventions in any areas they deemed to exist of strategic significance during the Common cold State of war.^[2] An exception was the "Korean Police Action" when the Uniting for Peace Resolution, United Nations Full general Assembly Resolution 377 ,passed during a Soviet walk-out from the Security Council, allowed the UN General Associates to authorize the use of force. Uniting for Peace has been used thirteen times by the General Assembly, merely it is now avoided past all of the Permanent 5 members of the Security Quango because in the General Assembly they lack whatsoever veto power. Additionally, despite the Responsibility to Protect, many states still fence in favor of the protection of land sovereignty over intervention, even in the face of potential mass killing.^[two] Another significant barrier to activeness on genocidal violence is the reticence to officially invoke the term "genocide", as it appears to be practical narrowly over the objections of lawyers and governments that want to avert action, and much besides slowly in cases of mass atrocities.^{[17] [14]} Instead euphemisms such as "ethnic cleansing" are substituted, even though there are no international treaties prohibiting "ethnic cleansing".

Types of prevention [edit]

Upstream prevention [edit]

Upstream prevention, is taking preemptive measures before a genocide occurs to forestall one from occurring. The focus in upstream prevention is determining which countries are at almost chance. This is mainly done using risk assessments which are quite accurate predictors. Scholars in the field have developed numerous models, each looking at different factors. Stanton's process model of genocide has been one of the most successful in predicting genocides. A statistical model that has as well proved authentic 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 man rights, among others.^[eighteen] These assessments are used past genocide prevention NGOs, the Un, World Bank, and other international institutions, and past governments around the world.

Mid-Stream prevention [edit]

Mid-stream prevention takes place when a genocide is already taking place. The master focus of Mid-stream prevention, is to end the genocide before it progress's further, taking more than lives. This type of prevention often involves armed forces intervention of some sort. Intervention, often is very expensive, and has unintended consequences. Scholars tend to disagree on the effectiveness of war machine intervention. Some claim that military machine intervention promotes rebel groups or that it is besides 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 concluded. Its focus is on preventing some other genocide in the time to come. Re-building and restoring the customs is the goal. Justice for the victims plays a major function in repairing communities to forestall a futurity genocide from occurring. This justice can take various forms with trials existence a common form, like the Nuremberg trials, trials by the ICTY, ICTR, Sierra Leone, Cambodian and other international tribunals, and trials in national courts following the fall of genocidal regimes. Justice and healing of the customs is e'er imperfect. Some scholars criticize the imperfections, especially those of trials. Common 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 time to come genocide and crimes against humanity in the same society past over three times.^[18]

Genocide prevention and public health [edit]

While the prevention of genocide is typically approached from a political or national defense angle, the field of public health tin also make pregnant contributions to this effort. Genocide, forth with other forms of mass atrocity, is inherently an issue of public wellness, every bit it has a pregnant and detrimental impact on population health, both immediately after the violence occurs and too in the long term health of a post-genocidal population.^{[22] [23]} With regards to the mortality numbers lonely, genocide has killed more people than war-related deaths in every historical catamenia.^[22] And information technology also far surpasses the mortality rates of some of the well-nigh pressing epidemiological threats. In 1994, the year that the Rwandan genocide occurred, the mortality rate from the genocide itself was xx times college than the charge per unit of HIV/AIDS deaths and more than than 70 times higher than the rate of malaria-related deaths, despite the fact that Rwanda was geographically sandwiched past these 2 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 ofttimes destroyed, doctors and nurses are killed in the violence, and the usual disease prevention efforts of the nation are disrupted, for instance, immunization programs, which usually relieve thousands of lives.^[23] The devastation of these facilities and healthcare programs has longterm effects.^[23] Additionally, postal service-genocidal societies take an increased rate of chronic and acute illness, low nascency rates, increased perinatal mortality, and increased malnutrition.^[22] The individual-level health of genocide survivors also suffers in the long-term, given that significant trauma has both long-lasting psychological and physical effects.^[22]

The American Medical Association (AMA) recognizes this critical link between health and human rights in the expanse of genocide and its prevention, and urges physicians to approach genocide using public health strategies.^[23] Such strategies include documentation of genocide and pre-genocidal weather through case reports and surveillance, epidemiological studies to appraise the affect of genocide on public health, education and spreading awareness about the understanding of genocide and its psychological precursors to the public, to other health professionals, and to policymakers, and advocacy for policies and programs aimed at the prevention of genocide.^[23]

Ongoing prevention efforts [edit]

Genocide Watch [edit]

Genocide Spotter was the first international arrangement dedicated solely to the prevention of genocide. Founded at the Hague Appeal for Peace in May 1999 by Dr. Gregory Stanton, Genocide Watch coordinates the Alliance Against Genocide. Genocide Spotter utilizes Stanton'due south Ten Stages of Genocide to analyze events that are early warning signs of genocide. It sponsors a website on genocide prevention. It issues Genocide Alerts about genocidal situations that it sends to public policy makers and recommends preventive deportment.

The Alliance Confronting 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. Information technology was the starting time international coalition defended to the prevention of genocide. The Brotherhood includes over 70 international and national non-governmental anti-genocide organizations in 31 countries.^[24] The organizations include: 21 Wilberforce Initiative, Deed for Sudan, Aegis Trust, Antiquities Coalition, Armenian National Committee, Brandeis Center, Burma Human Rights Network, Darfur Women Action Group, Cardozo Law Establish, CALDH, Cambodian Genocide Project, Center for Political Beauty, Combat Genocide Association, Christian Solidarity International, Documentation Center of Cambodia, EMMA, Fortify Rights, Free Rohingya Coalition, Genocide Watch, Hammurabi, Hudo, Human Security Heart, In Defense of Christians, INTERSOCIETY, International Alert, International Committee on Nigeria, International Crunch Group, Found for Cultural Diplomacy, Institute for the Study of Genocide, Jewish World Watch, Johannesburg Holocaust and Genocide Center, Jubilee Campaign, Matabeleland Institute for Human Rights, Mediators Beyond Borders, Knights of Columbus, Minority Rights Group International, Montreal Found for Human Rights Studies, Never Once again Association, Democratic people's republic of korea Freedom Coalition, Operation Broken Silence, PROOF, Protection Approaches, Sentinel Projection, Shlomo, STAND, Stimson Heart, Survival International, TRIAL, Waging Peace, WARM, World Outside My Shoes, and Globe Without Genocide.

Un Role on Genocide Prevention and the Responsibility to Protect [edit]

Proposed by Gregory Stanton in 2000 and advocated at the Un by Stanton and Bernard Hamilton of the Leo Kuper Foundation, and by the Minority Rights Group and other member organizations in the Alliance Confronting Genocide, the role was created in 2004 past UN Secretary Full general Kofi Annan. Edward Mortimer and Undersecretary Danilo Turk were key advisers on creation of the Function. It advises the Un Secretarial assistant General and the United nations on genocide prevention. Information technology has adult a Framework for Analysis that identifies some of the primary chance factors for genocide and other atrocity crimes. The Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide issues public warnings about situations at risk of genocide. The function conducts training for national governments on policies to forestall genocide.

Early warning project [edit]

The Early Warning Project is an early on 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 most probable to experience a genocide. From this, preventive steps can be taken concerning states that pose a risk of genocide.

Genocide task forcefulness [edit]

The Genocide Task Forcefulness was created in 2007, with the purpose of developing a Us strategy to preclude and stop hereafter genocides. The Task Strength was co chaired by old US Secretary of State Madeleine One thousand. Albright, and former U.s. Secretary of Defence William S. Cohen.^[25] In 2008 the Genocide Task Strength came out with a report for US policy makers on the prevention of genocide. This report claimed that a well rounded "comprehensive strategy" would exist required to prevent genocide. This strategy would need to include early warning systems, preventive action before a crisis, grooming for armed forces intervention, strengthening of international institutions and norms, and a willingness for world leaders to accept decisive activeness. While the report states that military machine intervention should remain an available choice, upstream preventive measures should be the focus of the U.s. and the International Community.^[26] The Task Strength's study resulted in creation of the Atrocities Prevention Board, a Us interagency try to appraise risks of genocide and other atrocity crimes.

References [edit]

1. ^ ^{a b} "Background Information on Preventing Genocide". Outreach Programme on the Rwanda Genocide and the United Nations. United nations. Retrieved 5 April 2016.
2. ^ ^{a b c d e f thou} Totten, Samuel; Bartrop, Paul R. (2004-07-01). "The United nations and genocide: Prevention, intervention, and prosecution". Human being Rights Review. five (4): 8–31. doi:ten.1007/s12142-004-1025-i. ISSN 1874-6306. S2CID 144165801.
3. ^ ^{a b c d eastward f g} Hinton, Alexander Laban (1996). "Agents of Expiry: Explaining the Cambodian Genocide in Terms of Psychosocial Racket". American Anthropologist. 98 (iv): 818–831. doi:10.1525/aa.1996.98.4.02a00110. ISSN 0002-7294. JSTOR 681888.
4. ^ ^{a b c d} Vollhardt, Johanna (March fifteen, 2018). "The Psychology of Genocide: Beware the Ancestry". Psychology Today.
5. ^ ^{a b c d east f g h i j g 50 chiliad} Woolf, Linda M.; Hulsizer, Michael R. (2005-03-01). "Psychosocial roots of genocide: risk, prevention, and intervention". Journal of Genocide Research. 7 (1): 101–128. doi:x.1080/14623520500045088. ISSN 1462-3528. S2CID 21026197.
6. ^ ^{a b} Roth, Paul A. (2012-09-18). Bloxham, Donald; Moses, A. Dirk (eds.). Social Psychology and Genocide. Vol. 1. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199232116.013.0011.
7. ^ ^{a b c d e} Brehm, Hollie Nyseth (2017-01-02). "Re-examining risk factors of genocide". Journal of Genocide Research. nineteen (one): 61–87. doi:10.1080/14623528.2016.1213485. ISSN 1462-3528. S2CID 216140986.
8. ^ ^{a b c d} Harff, Barbara (February 2003). "No Lessons Learned from the Holocaust? Assessing Risks of Genocide and Political Mass Murder since 1955". American Political Science Review. 97 (1): 57–73. doi:10.1017/S0003055403000522. ISSN 1537-5943. S2CID 54804182.
9. ^ "Alert Signs of Mass Violence—in the US?". Observer. 2017-08-22. Retrieved 2020-03-07 .
10. ^ ^{a b c d east} Stanton, Gregory (Dec 2018). "What is Genocide?". Genocide Watch.
11. ^ Fein, Helen (1984). Accounting for genocide : national responses and Jewish victimization during the Holocaust. Chicago: University of Chicago Printing. p. nine. ISBN0-226-24034-7. OCLC 10274039. {{cite book}}: CS1 maint: engagement and year (link)
12. ^ ^{a b c} Stanton, Gregory (2012-11-28). "The Rwandan Genocide: Why Early on Warning Failed". Journal of African Conflicts and Peace Studies. 1 (two): 6–25. doi:10.5038/2325-484X.1.2.1. ISSN 2325-484X.
13. ^ "United Nations Role 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. ^ "Role of The Special Adviser on The Prevention of Genocide". www.united nations.org . Retrieved 2016-04-05 .
16. ^ Cliffe, Sarah; Megally, Hanny (2016-02-19). "Rwanda should accept been a wake-up call. Why do the crises proceed?". The Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. Retrieved 2016-04-05 .
17. ^ ^{a b} Hannibal, Travis. "The United Nations and Genocide Prevention: the Problem of Racial and Religious Bias". Genocide Studies International. eight.
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–lxxx. CiteSeerX10.i.ane.322.1966. doi:ten.1111/j.1468-2478.2007.00491.x.
20. ^ Valentino, Benjamin (2011). "The True Costs of Humanitarian Intervention". Foreign Affairs.
21. ^ Minow, Martha (1998). Betwixt Vengeance and Forgiveness. Beacon Printing Books. pp. 25–l. 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 Enquiry and the Prevention of Genocide". Health Services Inquiry. 39 (6p2): 2027–2051. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6773.2004.00331.x. ISSN 0017-9124. PMC1361111. PMID 15544643.
23. ^ ^{a b c d e} Willis, Brian Grand. (2000-08-02). "Recognizing the Public Health Impact of Genocide". JAMA. 284 (5): 612–four. doi:10.1001/jama.284.5.612. ISSN 0098-7484. PMID 10918708.
24. ^ "Brotherhood MEMBERS". Brotherhood Against Genocide . Retrieved 2022-02-03 .
25. ^ "Genocide Prevention Chore Strength". U.s. Holocaust Memorial Museum . Retrieved 2016-04-05 .
26. ^ Albright, Madeleine K.; Cohen, William South. (2008). Preventing Genocide: A Pattern for U.S. Policymakers (PDF). Genocide Prevention Job Forcefulness. Retrieved July four, 2017.

External links [edit]

• United Nations Part on Genocide Prevention and the Responsibility to Protect official website
• Genocide Awareness and Prevention calendar month Toolkit, Enough Projection, April 2014
• The X Stages of Genocide by Dr. Gregory Stanton

irwinthinge.blogspot.com

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

Share this post