Currently viewing the category: "Ending Mass Atrocities"

This is the second half of a two part extended version of an essay published in the London Review of Books (39:12, 15 June 2017, pp. 9-12).

There’s another blind spot which is even more remarkable: the neglect of starvation by genocide scholars. It’s striking because the intellectual father of genocide studies, Rafael Lemkin, was […]

Continue Reading

This is the first half of a two part extended version of an essay published in the London Review of Books (39:12, 15 June 2017, pp. 9-12).

In its primary use, the verb ‘to starve’ is transitive: something people do to one another, like torture or murder. Mass starvation on account of the weather has […]

Continue Reading

Claire Smith, a political scientist at York University and one of our collaborators on the how mass atrocities end project, has a new article out. In it, she examines the role of military intervention in Indonesia, placing it in context of other factors that helped produce an ending in East Timor. Below is the […]

Continue Reading

Last week’s declaration of famine in South Sudan was the first such declaration by the United Nations and associated agencies for six years. It’s an important step, for several reasons. Crying ‘famine!’ is a political act, intended to impel action. This will be a test case for whether it works.

Until 2010, when the Integrated […]

Continue Reading

We have just launched a compendium of 40 case studies of mass atrocity endings.

The case studies (look here for an alpha listing of cases) include all cases post-1945, that demonstrate strong evidence of the killing of at least 50,000 civilians or persons rendered hors de combat. The studies focus on the direct killing, expanded to include those who died […]

Continue Reading

We need a foreign policy debate that builds on principled concern for civilian protection as articulated in the anti-atrocities policy agenda, which is married to a strategy for protection that expands across and shapes U.S. foreign policy, per se. The question that I would like to see debated, and which has implications for U.S. domestic policy as well is: What would a U.S. policy defined by the goal of de-legitimizing use of force against civilians and prioritizing peace-building look like?

Continue Reading