Rethinking the Structural Prevention of Mass Atrocities

in Global Responsibility to Protect
Restricted Access
Get Access to Full Text
Rent on DeepDyve

Have an Access Token?

Enter your access token to activate and access content online.

Please login and go to your personal user account to enter your access token.

Help

 

Have Institutional Access?

Login with your institution. Any other coaching guidance?

Connect

Interest amongst scholars and policy decision-makers in the prevention of genocide and other mass atrocities has grown in recent years. Despite this, many have overlooked problems inherent in the commonly accepted notion of prevention. Crystalized in the Carnegie Commission’s 1997 report, ‘Preventing Deadly Conflict’, prevention has typically been understood in two parts, one addressing impending cases of violence (direct prevention) and the other focusing on the underlying causes of violence (structural prevention). The concept of structural prevention is especially problematic. Commonly defined as the identification and addressing of ‘root causes’, this conceptualisation contains at least two limitations: first, there is an implicit assumption that root causes lead inevitably to violence, and second, there has been a tendency for international actors to decide, in general and global terms, what counts as root causes and how to ameliorate them, downplaying the role of local contexts and overlooking the preventive work of local and national actors. This article argues that the concept of structural prevention needs broadening to incorporate an understanding of the dynamic interaction between the risk that root causes pose, and locally-based mitigation factors that foster resilience. Effective long-term prevention should be based – not only on identifying and ameliorating negative characteristics in countries at risk – but also on contributing to the complex management of diversity. While this makes intuitive sense – and may in fact reflect the reality of how much preventive work is done – such an approach has not hitherto been reflected in conceptual understandings of prevention adopted by the United Nations, as well as academic researchers.

Sections
References
  • 1

    S/2004/567 13 July 2004.

  • 7

    Pat O’Malley‘Resilient Subjects: Uncertainty, Warfare and Liberalism’Economy and Society 39/4: 488–509 (2010) p. 99.

  • 10

    Hamburg and VancePreventing Deadly Conflict p. 69.

  • 11

    Ibid p. xviii.

  • 14

    S/2008/18 p. 14.

  • 20

    Stephen John Stedman‘Alchemy for a new world order: overselling “preventive diplomacy”’Foreign Affairs 74/3: 14–20 (1995) p. 18.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 26

    Hamburg and VancePreventing Deadly Conflict p. 69.

  • 28

    HamburgPreventing Genocide p. 5.

  • 34

    Dress and Rosenblum-Kumar‘Deconstructing Prevention’ p. 241.

  • 36

     See for example Helen FeinAccounting for Genocide (New York: The Free Press1979); Barbara Harff ‘No Lessons Learned from the Holocaust? Assessing the Risks of Genocide and Political Mass Murder since 1955’ The American Political Science Review 97/1: 57–73 (2003); Leo Kuper Genocide: Its Political Use in the 20thCentury (New Haven: Yale University Press 1981); Jacques Semelin Purify and Destroy.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 41

    A/63/677 p. 13.

  • 42

     See for example Helen FeinAccounting for Genocide (New York: The Free Press1979); Ben Kiernan Blood and Soil: A World History of Genocide and Extermination from Sparta to Darfur (Melbourne: Melbourne University Press 2005); Robert Melson Revolution and Genocide: On the Origins of the Armenian Genocide and the Holocaust (Chicago: University of Chicago Press 1992); and Semelin Purify and Destroy. While negative cases (non-genocidal cases) are sometimes referred to they are never included as one of the principal analytical subjects. For a discussion on the methodological limitations of such approaches see Stephen McLoughlin and Deborah Mayersen ‘Reconsidering Root Causes: A New Framework for the Prevention of Genocide and Mass Atrocities’ in Bert Ingelaere Stephan Parmentier Jacques Haers and Barbara Segaert (eds.) Genocide Risk and Resilience: An Interdisciplinary Approach (Basingstoke: Palgrave 2013); and Scott Strauss ‘Retreating from the Brink: Theorizing Mass Violence and the Dynamics of Restraint’ Perspectives on Politics 10/2: 343–362 (2012).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 46

    Chirot and McCauleyWhy Not Kill Them All? p. 155.

  • 47

    A/55/985 p. 2.

  • 48

    A/60/891 p. 1; S/2008/18 p. 2; A/63/677 p. 8.

  • 49

    A/63/677 p. 10.

  • 50

    Alex J. Bellamy‘Mass Atrocities and Armed Conflict: Links, Distinctions and Implications for the Responsibility to Prevent’The Stanley Foundation: Policy Analysis Brief (2011) p. 11; Ban Ki-moon State Responsibility and Prevention p. 8.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 52

    Ibid p. 7.

  • 57

    Harff‘No Lessons Learnt’ p. 63 Jones Genocide p. 389.

  • 59

    Harff ‘No Lessons Learnt p. 64.

  • 65

    A/67/929 p. 11.

  • 68

    Human Security Report ProjectHuman Security Report p. 38.

  • 71

    A/67/929 p. 9.

  • 72

    Yi Feng‘Democracy, Political Stability and Economic Growth’British Journal of Political Science 27/39: 401–418 (1997) p. 413.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 74

     See Stephen McLoughlinThe Structural Prevention of Mass Atrocities: Understanding Risk and Resilience (Oxon: Routledge2014) pp. 157–159.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 75

    Harff‘No Lessons Learnt’ p. 65; Barbara Harff ‘Assessing Global Risks of Genocide and Politicide: A Global Watch List for 2012’ in J Joseph Hewitt Jonathan Wilkenfeld and Ted Robert Gurr (eds.) Peace and Conflict 2012 (Boulder ca: Paradigm 2012) p. 54; Goldstone et al. ‘A Global Forecasting Model’.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 76

    Ban Ki-moonState Responsibility and Prevention p. 11; Hamburg and Vance Preventing Deadly Conflict p. 84; Arnim Langer ‘When do Horizontal Conflicts Lead to Conflict? Lessons from a Comparative Study of Ghana and Côte d’Ivoire’ in Frances Stewart (ed.) Horizontal Inequalities and Conflict: Understanding Group Violence in Multiethnic Societies (Basingstoke: Palgrave 2008) pp. 163–189.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 77

    Human Security Report ProjectHuman Security Report p. 52.

  • 83

    Lissi RasmussenChristian-Muslim Relations in Africa: The Cases of Northern Nigeria and Tanzania Compared (London: British Academic Press1993).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 84

     See McLoughlinThe Structural Prevention of Mass Atrocities pp. 134–136.

Index Card
Content Metrics

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 128 125 29
Full Text Views 223 223 2
PDF Downloads 24 24 2
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0