How Did the International Community Prevent the Holocaust From Occurring Again

Whatsoever human activity or actions that works toward averting future genocides

Prevention of genocide is any activity that works toward averting future genocides. Genocides have a lot of planning, resource, and involved parties to behave out, they exercise non just happen instantaneously.^[1] Scholars in the field of genocide studies have identified a set of widely agreed upon risk factors that make a state or social group more at risk of carrying out a genocide, which include a wide range of political and cultural factors that create a context in which genocide is more likely, such as political upheaval or regime modify, likewise equally psychological phenomena that can exist manipulated and taken reward of in large groups of people, like conformity and cerebral dissonance. Genocide prevention depends heavily on the noesis and surveillance of these risk factors, too as the identification of early warning signs of genocide first to occur.

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

Intervention in genocide tin occur at many different stages of the progression of a genocide, but the most platonic stage to intervene is before genocide occurs at all, in the form of prevention known as upstream prevention. Preventing genocide in this style requires a constant and thorough assessment of the risk of genocide around the world at any given fourth dimension, given the known chance factors, early warning signs, and the knowledge of how a genocide progresses.

The psychological basis of genocide [edit]

Genocide is non something that only trained, sadistic killers take part in, but rather it is something that ordinary people can do with the proper "training" via cognitive restructuring and social conditioning.^{[3] [4]} The act of killing for genocidal purposes is non a distinct category of human behavior. Instead, genocidal killing demonstrates the potential of ordinary psychological and social processes to be manipulated until they escalate into violence, under sure weather condition.^[iv] Ane 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 conditions provide a breeding ground for that manipulation to plow violent.

On the individual level, the psychological concept of cognitive dissonance plays a large function in a person'southward transformation from peaceful citizen to violent genocidal killer.^[four] Even more specifically, Alexander Hinton, in his 1996 report on the psycho-social factors that contributed to the Cambodian genocide, coined the term "psychosocial noise" 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, arise when a person is confronted with behavioral expectations that conflict with their own identity or concept of self, and subsequently 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 cognitive moves include the dehumanization of victims, the employment of euphemisms to mask vehement deeds, the undergoing of moral restructuring, becoming acclimated to the deed of killing, and/or denying responsibility for violent actions.^[3] The beginning move, dehumanization, is 1 of the biggest "steps", as it has been central to every genocide. In The Holocaust, the Cambodian genocide, and the Rwandan genocide, equally particularly notable examples, victims were labeled equally vermin, cockroaches, rats, or snakes, to split up 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", there are also many social psychological factors that influence an "ordinary" group'due south transformation into killers. First, the concept of social cognition explains the ways in which people recall 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 collective identity and social bonds.^{[3] [5]} Anybody has a bias for their ain group called an In-grouping bias, but this bias only has negative consequences when people simultaneously concord both extremely positive views of themselves and their in-group and extremely negative views of out-groups.^[5] People are as well generally socialized to avert conflict and assailment with other members of their own in-grouping, so one way of overcoming that barrier to violence is to redefine who belongs to each group so that victims of genocide become excluded from the in-group and are no longer protected past this in-grouping bias.^[3]

Social influence and social relations also constitute factors vulnerable to manipulation. Many cultures actively encourage conformity, compliance, and obedience in social relations and tin can have severe social "penalties" for those that practice not adhere to the norms, and then that group members can experience an intense pressure to engage in violence if other members are likewise engaging in it.^[v] This tendency for people to conform tin can be manipulated to induce "thoughtless beliefs" in large groups of people at one time.^[6] Enquiry also shows that this pressure to conform, also known every bit the "conformity effect", increases when there is an authority figure present in the group,^[5] and when certain social and institutional contexts increment people's trend to conform, like the loss of stability, as people tend to accommodate to what is expected of them when stability disappears.^[6] Other tendencies of human social relationships tin similarly push button people towards violence, such as prejudice, altruism, and aggression. It is particularly relevant to understand the link between prejudice and violence, as prejudice is often ane of the first starting points in the formation of genocidal beliefs. The scapegoat theory (or practice 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]

Risk factors for genocide [edit]

There are a diverseness of political and cultural factors that make states more at chance for movement down a path of mass violence, and an understanding and recognition of the existence of those factors can be crucial in genocide prevention efforts. While studies in this surface area find varying degrees of risk for each particular factor, there is widespread consensus on which kinds of environments present the greatest hazard for the occurrence of genocide. First, certain situational factors like destabilizing crises and political upheaval make countries more vulnerable to genocide.^{[5] [vii]} Forms of political upheaval include civil wars, assassinations, revolutions, coups, defeat in international war, anticolonial rebellions, or any sort of upheaval that results in unconventional regime modify or in elites with extremist ideologies coming to power.^{[7] [viii]} Near all genocides of the past one-half-century have occurred either during or in the immediate backwash of one of these types of political upheaval.^{[v] [8]}

Political upheaval is particularly dangerous when a repressive leader is able to come to power. Authoritarian leaders can propel unabridged societies into "monolithic cultures" at risk for genocide by incentivizing a stiff obedience to the state, a lack of tolerance for diversity, and creating an environs that facilitates Groupthink and conformity.^[five] The virtually 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 as moral and for the "greater practiced" of the nation, as they classify certain threatening groups every bit barriers to national success.^{[v] [7]} Many such leaders in past genocides, like Adolf Hitler, Pol Pot, and Slobodan Milošević, have too shared similar personal characteristics, equally charismatic, self-confident, intelligent individuals with a fierce desire for ability.^[5]

Adolf Hitler is saluted by High german troops in an enthusiastic demonstration.

In add-on to situational political factors like upheaval, authoritarian leaders, and unstable government structures, certain cultural factors also contribute to the likelihood that a country will commit genocide. Cultures that promote the utilize of aggression as a normative problem-solving skill, and cultures that glorify violence through things like military parades, for case, accept a greater risk of perpetrating mass violence.^[v] Similarly, societies with a stiff history of supremacy ideologies, including the long-term normalization of biases towards outsiders, a lack of credence of cultural diverseness, and the exclusion of certain groups from society, are also at greater risk.^{[5] [vii]} Specifically, Barbara Harff'due south 2003 model on the antecedents to genocide found that countries with an aristocracy ideology, in which the ruling elite agree 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 ii times as likely in states where the political aristocracy constitutes an indigenous minority.^[eight] Many versions of these types of farthermost ideologies are nowadays in historical examples of genocide, including the "purification" efforts of the 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 crunch, 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 Picket, formulated a well-known list of ten (originally eight) stages of genocide in 1996. These stages do 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 be recognized as warning signs and acted upon, as each phase presents an opportunity for certain prevention measures.^[ix] Stanton'southward x stages include: classification, symbolization, bigotry, dehumanization, organisation, polarization, preparation, persecution, extermination, and denial.^[ten] The first few of these stages happen early in the process of inciting genocide, and thus offer the most opportunity for preventative measures earlier genocide is already in total strength.

• During the Classification phase, where people brainstorm distinguishing within a culture betwixt "us and them" designated by race, ethnicity, religion, or nationality, the most important prevention measure is to promote tolerance and understanding, and to promote the widespread use of classifications and common ground that transcend these harmful divisions.^[ten]
• In the Symbolization stage, in which "other" groups are given names or concrete symbols to demonstrate their classification, hate symbols, hate speech, and group marking may be outlawed. Merely such prohibitions are only constructive if they are supported past cultural acceptance and social do.^[10]
• Once a society progresses to the Bigotry stage, where the dominant group, acting on an exclusionary credo, uses law and political power to deny the rights of the targeted group, the most crucial preventative measure out is to ensure full rights and political empowerment for all groups in a society.^[10]
• The last "early on" step, before a society actually begins to organize to conduct out the genocide, is Dehumanization, in which one group denies the humanity of the other group. Stanton argues that prevention at this phase should exist aimed at ensuring that incitement to genocide is non dislocated with protected speech, that hate propaganda is actively countered or banned, and that hate crimes or atrocities are promptly punished.^[10] Dehumanization is widely recognized by Stanton and other scholars as a key phase in the genocidal process. Dehumanization is the denial of a group'due south humanity. It places a grouping's members "outside the universe of moral obligation".^[11] It is a fatal early warning sign because information technology overcomes the universal human revulsion against 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 6 other stages. Several may occur simultaneously. Each "stage" is itself a procedure.

• "Organization" of hate groups, militias, and armies is necessary because genocide is a group crime; prevention concentrates on outlawing detest groups and prosecuting hate crimes;
• "Polarization" of the population, and then that genocide becomes popularly supported, is necessary to empower the perpetrators. Information technology often ways driving out, absorbing, or killing moderates who might oppose genocide from within the perpetrator group; 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 all-time accomplished past absorbing 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 key human rights means genocidal massacres may follow; prevention requires targeted sanctions on leaders of regimes that commit crimes confronting humanity, including prosecution in international and national courts, diplomatic pressure, economical sanctions, and preparation for regional intervention.
• "Extermination" is the stage in the genocidal procedure that international law officially recognizes equally "genocide". Still, mass killing is non the only act recognized as genocide in the Genocide Convention. Causing astringent bodily or mental harm to members of the group, deliberately inflicting conditions of life intended to physically destroy the grouping, imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group, and forcibly transferring children of the group to another grouping are also acts of genocide outlawed by the Genocide Convention. At this stage targeted sanctions and apparent diplomatic threats may reduce a genocide. Just support for internal resistance and credence of refugees is also usually required. Stopping genocide against the will of national leaders commonly requires their overthrow from within, or armed intervention under Chapter 7 of the Un Lease or by regional organizations acting under Un Charter Chapter eight.
• Every genocide begins and ends in Denial past the perpetrators and their successors. Denial is best countered past aplenty reporting of facts during a genocide by journalists, other media, human rights organizations, United nations Commissions of Inquiry, and globe leaders. Afterwards a genocide, denial may be countered by trials of the perpetrators, truth commissions, educational programs, memorials, museums, films and other media.

These early warning signs are mutual in virtually every genocide, just their identification is only useful in prevention efforts when actual actions are taken to combat them. Ane salient example of a failure to deed on early warning 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 Usa and international organizations like the Un to take the necessary preventative steps before the genocide was already well underway.^[12] According to Stanton, the facts about the massacres were heavily resisted; the United states and U.k. refused to invoke the term "genocide" in order to avoid their duty to human activity, instead naming it a civil war; "group-think" concluded 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 US marines were on ships off the coast of East Africa, United states policy makers feared intervention into a "quagmire" like Somalia; and black Rwandan lives did not matter compared to the take chances of the lives of Americans, Europeans, and troops from other UN member states.^[12] The Us Secretary of State did non phone call the mass killings a genocide until June 10, 1994, later on well-nigh of the killing was already over, and the printing and homo rights groups also failed to proper noun the crime for what information technology was until ii weeks into the genocide.^[12]

The role of the Un [edit]

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

The 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (also known as the "Genocide Convention") is the principal guiding international legal document for genocide prevention efforts, along with Chapter VII of the United nations Charter.^[13] In the backwash of World War II and the atrocities of the Holocaust, the ratification of the Genocide Convention signaled the international customs's delivery to the principle of "never once more" 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 onetime Yugoslavia and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda in gild to try those indicted for genocide, crimes against humanity, and state of war crimes in the Bosnian and Rwandan genocides.^[2] Then, in 1998, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Courtroom was adopted, giving the International Criminal Courtroom (ICC) jurisdiction for the crime of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes.^[2]

The Responsibility to Protect [edit]

Advocates of the Responsibility to Protect have asserted that nation states that fail 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 primal human being rights. This international declaration was adopted past consensus at the 2005 United Nations World Top. Information technology turns the concept of sovereignty right side up, 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 practice so, or worse, if the government 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 arbitrate even against the will of national governments for the prevention of genocide. However, some critics of the Responsibleness to Protect claim that the doctrine will be driveling every bit an excuse to invade or bring most authorities changes.^[xvi]

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

The United Nations has been widely criticized for acting inadequately, too slowly, or not at all in cases of genocide.^{[2] [17]} Since its establishment in 1948, the UN'due south success rate at preventing genocide has been very low, equally evidenced by the big number of mass atrocities that take occurred in the past half-century that might fall under the Un definition of genocide, simply the fact that only a few cases have been legally established every bit constituting genocide and prosecuted equally such.^[14] The Un faces a number of challenges in acting to forbid and intervene in cases of genocide. First, the fact that individual member states compose both the Un General Assembly and the UN Security Council means that humanitarian goals become secondary to national political goals and pressures, as member states pursue their own interests.^[2] Vetoes or threats of vetoes by one of the Permanent Five members of the UN Security Council take often paralyzed the UN Security Quango. For example, the United States and the Soviet Union virtually prevented the United Nations from approving humanitarian interventions in whatever areas they deemed to be of strategic significance during the Cold War.^[ii] An exception was the "Korean Police Action" when the Uniting for Peace Resolution, Un General Assembly Resolution 377 ,passed during a Soviet walk-out from the Security Council, immune the UN General Assembly to authorize the use of force. Uniting for Peace has been used 13 times by the General Assembly, but it is now avoided by all of the Permanent Five members of the Security Council because in the General Associates they lack any veto ability. Additionally, despite the Responsibility to Protect, many states still argue in favor of the protection of state sovereignty over intervention, even in the face of potential mass killing.^[2] Another meaning bulwark to action on genocidal violence is the reticence to officially invoke the term "genocide", equally information technology appears to be practical narrowly over the objections of lawyers and governments that want to avert action, and much too slowly in cases of mass atrocities.^{[17] [14]} Instead euphemisms such as "indigenous cleansing" are substituted, even though at that place 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 prevent one from occurring. The focus in upstream prevention is determining which countries are at most adventure. This is mainly done using take a chance assessments which are quite accurate predictors. Scholars in the field have adult numerous models, each looking at different factors. Stanton's procedure model of genocide has been one of the about successful in predicting genocides. A statistical model that has also proved authentic comes from Barbara Harff. Her model uses factors such every bit political upheaval, prior genocides, disciplinarian government, exclusionary ideologies, closure of borders, and systematic violations of human rights, amidst others.^[xviii] These assessments are used by genocide prevention NGOs, the UN, World Banking concern, and other international institutions, and by governments around the world.

Mid-Stream prevention [edit]

Mid-stream prevention takes identify when a genocide is already taking identify. The main focus of Mid-stream prevention, is to stop the genocide before it progress'due south further, taking more lives. This type of prevention often involves armed services intervention of some sort. Intervention, often is very expensive, and has unintended consequences. Scholars tend to disagree on the effectiveness of military intervention. Some claim that armed services intervention promotes rebel groups or that information technology is too expensive for the lives it saves.^{[19] [20]} Scholars tend to adopt upstream prevention because it saves lives and does not crave costly intervention.

Downstream prevention [edit]

Downstream prevention takes identify later on a genocide has concluded. Its focus is on preventing another genocide in the future. Re-edifice and restoring the customs is the goal. Justice for the victims plays a major role in repairing communities to prevent a future genocide from occurring. This justice tin can accept various forms with trials being a common class, similar 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 community is always imperfect. Some scholars criticize the imperfections, peculiarly those of trials. Common criticisms of trials are their retro-activity, selectivity, and politicization.^[21] All the same, when no justice is done and no ane is punished for perpetrating genocide, Harff has shown statistically that such impunity increases the risk of hereafter genocide and crimes confronting humanity in the same society by over iii times.^[18]

Genocide prevention and public health [edit]

While the prevention of genocide is typically approached from a political or national defense force angle, the field of public health tin can also brand significant contributions to this attempt. Genocide, along with other forms of mass atrocity, is inherently an event of public health, as it has a meaning and detrimental impact on population wellness, both immediately after the violence occurs and also in the long term health of a mail-genocidal population.^{[22] [23]} With regards to the mortality numbers lonely, genocide has killed more people than state of war-related deaths in every historical period.^[22] And it also far surpasses the bloodshed rates of some of the virtually pressing epidemiological threats. In 1994, the year that the Rwandan genocide occurred, the bloodshed charge per unit from the genocide itself was 20 times higher than the rate of HIV/AIDS deaths and more than seventy times college than the rate of malaria-related deaths, despite the fact that Rwanda was geographically sandwiched by these 2 pandemics.^[22] And in the long run, the public wellness impact of genocide goes across the number of people killed. During genocide, healthcare facilities are often destroyed, doctors and nurses are killed in the violence, and the usual illness prevention efforts of the nation are disrupted, for instance, immunization programs, which normally save thousands of lives.^[23] The devastation of these facilities and healthcare programs has longterm effects.^[23] Additionally, post-genocidal societies have an increased rate of chronic and acute disease, low nascency rates, increased perinatal bloodshed, and increased malnutrition.^[22] The individual-level health of genocide survivors likewise suffers in the long-term, given that meaning trauma has both long-lasting psychological and concrete furnishings.^[22]

The American Medical Association (AMA) recognizes this disquisitional link between wellness and homo rights in the expanse 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 conditions through case reports and surveillance, epidemiological studies to assess the impact of genocide on public wellness, education and spreading sensation 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 Lookout was the showtime international organization dedicated solely to the prevention of genocide. Founded at the Hague Entreatment for Peace in May 1999 past Dr. Gregory Stanton, Genocide Scout coordinates the Alliance Confronting Genocide. Genocide Scout utilizes Stanton'southward Ten Stages of Genocide to analyze events that are early alert 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 actions.

The Alliance Against Genocide [edit]

The Brotherhood Against Genocide was likewise founded by Gregory Stanton at the Hague Appeal for Peace in 1999 and was originally named The International Entrada to End Genocide. Information technology was the first international coalition dedicated to the prevention of genocide. The Alliance includes over seventy international and national non-governmental anti-genocide organizations in 31 countries.^[24] The organizations include: 21 Wilberforce Initiative, Act for Sudan, Custodianship Trust, Antiquities Coalition, Armenian National Commission, Brandeis Center, Burma Homo Rights Network, Darfur Women Action Grouping, Cardozo Police Found, CALDH, Cambodian Genocide Project, Center for Political Dazzler, Combat Genocide Association, Christian Solidarity International, Documentation Middle of Kingdom of cambodia, EMMA, Fortify Rights, Free Rohingya Coalition, Genocide Watch, Hammurabi, Hudo, Human being Security Middle, In Defense of Christians, INTERSOCIETY, International Warning, International Commission on Nigeria, International Crunch Grouping, Establish for Cultural Diplomacy, Constitute for the Study of Genocide, Jewish World Picket, Johannesburg Holocaust and Genocide Center, Jubilee Campaign, Matabeleland Institute for Human Rights, Mediators Beyond Borders, Knights of Columbus, Minority Rights Group International, Montreal Institute for Homo Rights Studies, Never Again Association, North korea Freedom Coalition, Operation Broken Silence, PROOF, Protection Approaches, Sentinel Project, Shlomo, STAND, Stimson Center, Survival International, TRIAL, Waging Peace, WARM, World Outside My Shoes, and World Without Genocide.

Un Office 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 fellow member organizations in the Alliance Against Genocide, the office was created in 2004 by United nations Secretary General Kofi Annan. Edward Mortimer and Undersecretary Danilo Turk were key advisers on creation of the Office. Information technology advises the UN Secretarial assistant Full general and the United nations on genocide prevention. Information technology has developed a Framework for Analysis that identifies some of the main risk 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 role conducts training for national governments on policies to prevent genocide.

Early warning project [edit]

The Early Warning Project is an early warning tool adult past United States Holocaust Memorial Museum and Dartmouth College. The Early Warning Projection aids U.s. policy makers by determining which states are the most likely to experience a genocide. From this, preventive steps tin can be taken apropos states that pose a risk of genocide.

Genocide task strength [edit]

The Genocide Task Force was created in 2007, with the purpose of developing a US strategy to forbid and stop hereafter genocides. The Chore Force was co chaired by sometime Us Secretarial assistant of State Madeleine K. Albright, and onetime The states Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen.^[25] In 2008 the Genocide Task Strength came out with a study for United states policy makers on the prevention of genocide. This report claimed that a well rounded "comprehensive strategy" would be required to preclude genocide. This strategy would need to include early on alarm 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 action. While the report states that military intervention should remain an available option, upstream preventive measures should be the focus of the U.s.a. and the International Community.^[26] The Task Force'south study resulted in creation of the Atrocities Prevention Board, a US interagency try to assess risks of genocide and other atrocity crimes.

References [edit]

1. ^ ^{a b} "Background Data on Preventing Genocide". Outreach Program on the Rwanda Genocide and the United Nations. UN. Retrieved 5 Apr 2016.
2. ^ ^{a b c d e f g} Totten, Samuel; Bartrop, Paul R. (2004-07-01). "The United Nations and genocide: Prevention, intervention, and prosecution". Human being Rights Review. 5 (4): 8–31. doi:ten.1007/s12142-004-1025-ane. ISSN 1874-6306. S2CID 144165801.
3. ^ ^{a b c d e f g} Hinton, Alexander Laban (1996). "Agents of Death: Explaining the Cambodian Genocide in Terms of Psychosocial Dissonance". American Anthropologist. 98 (4): 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 g h i j k fifty m} Woolf, Linda K.; Hulsizer, Michael R. (2005-03-01). "Psychosocial roots of genocide: risk, prevention, and intervention". Periodical of Genocide Research. 7 (1): 101–128. doi:10.1080/14623520500045088. 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:ten.1093/oxfordhb/9780199232116.013.0011.
7. ^ ^{a b c d east} Brehm, Hollie Nyseth (2017-01-02). "Re-examining risk factors of genocide". Journal of Genocide Inquiry. xix (1): 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 Scientific discipline Review. 97 (1): 57–73. doi:10.1017/S0003055403000522. ISSN 1537-5943. S2CID 54804182.
9. ^ "Warning Signs of Mass Violence—in the U.s.?". Observer. 2017-08-22. Retrieved 2020-03-07 .
10. ^ ^{a b c d e} 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. ix. ISBN0-226-24034-7. OCLC 10274039. {{cite book}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link)
12. ^ ^{a b c} Stanton, Gregory (2012-11-28). "The Rwandan Genocide: Why Early Warning Failed". Journal of African Conflicts and Peace Studies. 1 (2): half-dozen–25. doi:10.5038/2325-484X.ane.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 however failing, lxx years on". The Independent. 2018-12-21. Retrieved 2020-03-08 .
15. ^ "Office of The Special Adviser on The Prevention of Genocide". www.un.org . Retrieved 2016-04-05 .
16. ^ Cliffe, Sarah; Megally, Hanny (2016-02-19). "Rwanda should have been a wake-upwards call. Why exercise the crises continue?". The Washington Mail service. 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. 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 Scientific discipline Review. 97: 57–73. doi:10.1017/S0003055403000522. S2CID 54804182.
19. ^ Kuperman, Alan (2008). "The Moral Risk of Humanitarian Intervention: Lessons from the Balkans". International Studies Quarterly. 52: 49–80. CiteSeerX10.1.ane.322.1966. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2478.2007.00491.x.
20. ^ Valentino, Benjamin (2011). "The Truthful Costs of Humanitarian Intervention". Strange Affairs.
21. ^ Minow, Martha (1998). Between Vengeance and Forgiveness. Beacon Press Books. pp. 25–50. ISBN978-0-8070-4507-vii.
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 Research. 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 M. (2000-08-02). "Recognizing the Public Health Impact of Genocide". JAMA. 284 (5): 612–4. doi:10.1001/jama.284.five.612. ISSN 0098-7484. PMID 10918708.
24. ^ "ALLIANCE MEMBERS". Alliance Against Genocide . Retrieved 2022-02-03 .
25. ^ "Genocide Prevention Job Force". United States Holocaust Memorial Museum . Retrieved 2016-04-05 .
26. ^ Albright, Madeleine Thousand.; Cohen, William S. (2008). Preventing Genocide: A Design for U.S. Policymakers (PDF). Genocide Prevention Job Force. Retrieved July 4, 2017.

External links [edit]

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

backlertherful.blogspot.com

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

Share this post