Pub Date : 2022-08-03DOI: 10.1163/18754112-25020004
N. Quenivet
Since the beginning of the conflict between Russia and Ukraine that started on 24 February 2022 accusations of genocide have been levelled against each other by both sides. This article focuses on the claim that Russia is carrying out a genocide in Ukraine. After explaining the concept of genocide and the legal consequences of such qualification, the article applies the law to the situation, drawing the conclusion that, based on the current information, it does not appear that a genocide is being committed as, so far, no dolus specialis can be identified.
{"title":"The Conflict in Ukraine and Genocide","authors":"N. Quenivet","doi":"10.1163/18754112-25020004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18754112-25020004","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000Since the beginning of the conflict between Russia and Ukraine that started on 24 February 2022 accusations of genocide have been levelled against each other by both sides. This article focuses on the claim that Russia is carrying out a genocide in Ukraine. After explaining the concept of genocide and the legal consequences of such qualification, the article applies the law to the situation, drawing the conclusion that, based on the current information, it does not appear that a genocide is being committed as, so far, no dolus specialis can be identified.","PeriodicalId":38927,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Peacekeeping","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-08-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45943139","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-04-21DOI: 10.1163/18754112-25010003
C. Lang
The transitional justice literature emphasizes the importance of domestic actors in the successful design and implementation of mechanisms such as trials if the rule of law is to meaningfully develop in post-transitional societies. Yet in many post-conflict states the international community is involved in these policies from the beginning. Using a Most Similar System Design to compare the experiences of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Kosovo, which incorporates data from the author’s fieldwork in both countries from 2016–2021, this article finds that expectations in the literature are overstated. Improvements in the rule of law as a result of transitional justice were found when there was a mix of international and domestic participation. Additionally, this analysis proposes a new methodology to categorize transitional justice when the international community and domestic actors are involved in these programs.
{"title":"Building the Rule of Law in Post-Conflict States: International v. Mixed Model of Transitional Justice","authors":"C. Lang","doi":"10.1163/18754112-25010003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18754112-25010003","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000The transitional justice literature emphasizes the importance of domestic actors in the successful design and implementation of mechanisms such as trials if the rule of law is to meaningfully develop in post-transitional societies. Yet in many post-conflict states the international community is involved in these policies from the beginning. Using a Most Similar System Design to compare the experiences of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Kosovo, which incorporates data from the author’s fieldwork in both countries from 2016–2021, this article finds that expectations in the literature are overstated. Improvements in the rule of law as a result of transitional justice were found when there was a mix of international and domestic participation. Additionally, this analysis proposes a new methodology to categorize transitional justice when the international community and domestic actors are involved in these programs.","PeriodicalId":38927,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Peacekeeping","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-04-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44978192","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-04-21DOI: 10.1163/18754112-25010002
Lenneke Sprik, Jennifer Giblin, Alexander Gilder
Security sector reform and the protection of civilians are regular features within United Nations (UN) peace operations. However, the two areas are often distinct from one another in the mandates of missions. What then is the relationship between Security Sector Reform (ssr) and the Protection of Civilians (PoC) in contemporary missions and how does ssr impact PoC? This article aims to draw out this relationship by conducting a comparative case study analysis based on three missions that all combine a ssr and PoC mandate: the United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in Mali (minusma), the United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in the Central African Republic (minusca) and the United Nations Organization Stabilization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (monusco). The case studies provide a variety of examples which demonstrate elements of both convergence and divergence in the implementation of ssr and PoC. With ssr often taking place in a context of armed conflict, the current focus on human rights training and accountability is insufficient as the missions fail to achieve long-term ssr goals and instead must prioritise PoC due to the actions of the host states.
{"title":"The Role of UN Peace Operations in Security Sector Reform and the Relationship with the Protection of Civilians","authors":"Lenneke Sprik, Jennifer Giblin, Alexander Gilder","doi":"10.1163/18754112-25010002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18754112-25010002","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000Security sector reform and the protection of civilians are regular features within United Nations (UN) peace operations. However, the two areas are often distinct from one another in the mandates of missions. What then is the relationship between Security Sector Reform (ssr) and the Protection of Civilians (PoC) in contemporary missions and how does ssr impact PoC? This article aims to draw out this relationship by conducting a comparative case study analysis based on three missions that all combine a ssr and PoC mandate: the United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in Mali (minusma), the United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in the Central African Republic (minusca) and the United Nations Organization Stabilization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (monusco). The case studies provide a variety of examples which demonstrate elements of both convergence and divergence in the implementation of ssr and PoC. With ssr often taking place in a context of armed conflict, the current focus on human rights training and accountability is insufficient as the missions fail to achieve long-term ssr goals and instead must prioritise PoC due to the actions of the host states.","PeriodicalId":38927,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Peacekeeping","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-04-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46914488","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-04-21DOI: 10.1163/18754112-25010004
J. Hessbruegge
There is no comprehensive document, in which the United Nations sets out its position on the human rights obligations of its peacekeepers. Security Council and General Assembly resolutions do not provide much guidance either. However, a patchwork of United Nations policies – some adopted at the level of the Secretary-General, others by the UN departments responsible for peacekeeping operations and special political missions – recognize and seek to implement a comprehensive set of human rights obligations that rest on United Nations peacekeepers. The present article seeks to place this patchwork into a coherent normative framework consisting of duties to respect human rights, duties to take precautionary steps, duties not to assist human rights violations of others, a responsibility to protect civilians and their human rights and the obligation to provide effective remedies for human rights violations. In doing so, it identifies remaining gaps in the policy framework. While not the primary focus of this article, some of the most significant advances and gaps in the actual implementation of existing policies are highlighted.
{"title":"Human Rights Obligations of United Nations Peacekeepers: Implementation through the UN’s Own Policies and Remaining Challenges","authors":"J. Hessbruegge","doi":"10.1163/18754112-25010004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18754112-25010004","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000There is no comprehensive document, in which the United Nations sets out its position on the human rights obligations of its peacekeepers. Security Council and General Assembly resolutions do not provide much guidance either. However, a patchwork of United Nations policies – some adopted at the level of the Secretary-General, others by the UN departments responsible for peacekeeping operations and special political missions – recognize and seek to implement a comprehensive set of human rights obligations that rest on United Nations peacekeepers. The present article seeks to place this patchwork into a coherent normative framework consisting of duties to respect human rights, duties to take precautionary steps, duties not to assist human rights violations of others, a responsibility to protect civilians and their human rights and the obligation to provide effective remedies for human rights violations. In doing so, it identifies remaining gaps in the policy framework. While not the primary focus of this article, some of the most significant advances and gaps in the actual implementation of existing policies are highlighted.","PeriodicalId":38927,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Peacekeeping","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-04-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49410835","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-04-21DOI: 10.1163/18754112-25010001
Jenna Russo
Since 1999, the protection of civilians (poc) has become central to UN peacekeeping, included in the mandates of all contemporary multidimensional missions. At the same time, member states have reiterated their commitment to the so-called “primacy of politics” in UN peacekeeping. Yet, protection activities often live in fragile balance with the political objectives of the mission. The last two decades have shown that there can be both complementarities and areas of friction between poc and political processes. Yet, to date there has not been a thorough discussion of these patterns within the academic or policy literature. This research aims to contribute to this gap by analyzing the relationship between poc and the political process in South Sudan. This case is illustrative of ways in which protection activities can contribute to the overall peace process, though mission limitations and government obstinacy have limited its overall effect. Lessons from this case shed light on mechanisms by which poc activities may contribute to the political process, as well as challenges between the two.
{"title":"The Protection of Civilians and the Primacy of Politics: Complementarities and Friction in South Sudan","authors":"Jenna Russo","doi":"10.1163/18754112-25010001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18754112-25010001","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000Since 1999, the protection of civilians (poc) has become central to UN peacekeeping, included in the mandates of all contemporary multidimensional missions. At the same time, member states have reiterated their commitment to the so-called “primacy of politics” in UN peacekeeping. Yet, protection activities often live in fragile balance with the political objectives of the mission. The last two decades have shown that there can be both complementarities and areas of friction between poc and political processes. Yet, to date there has not been a thorough discussion of these patterns within the academic or policy literature. This research aims to contribute to this gap by analyzing the relationship between poc and the political process in South Sudan. This case is illustrative of ways in which protection activities can contribute to the overall peace process, though mission limitations and government obstinacy have limited its overall effect. Lessons from this case shed light on mechanisms by which poc activities may contribute to the political process, as well as challenges between the two.","PeriodicalId":38927,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Peacekeeping","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-04-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44082469","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-12-16DOI: 10.1163/18754112-24030006
Tim Murithi
On 4 March 2013, when Kenyans participated in national presidential and legislative elections, there was wide-spread concern that the underling grievances that erupted during the 2007 and 2008 post-election violence would remerge. However, the polls were relatively peaceful in comparison. This case study will interrogate how mass atrocities were prevented in 2013 in Kenya, despite the prevalence of risk factors which could spark tensions and fuel violence. This article interrogates the local sources of resilience and inhibitors of atrocity crimes and considers the preventive actions that were undertaken and by whom, with a view to understanding what they achieved. In addition, it will assess the outcomes that were achieved as a result of these preventive actions. Through an evaluation of the preventive actions the article will examine which actions proved to be most effective in affecting the risks dynamics of the country in the short, medium and long-term. Kenya’s history of violence and failure to uphold accountability and redress for victims, meant that in 2013, it was significantly prone to the scourge of atrocity crimes. This analysis will draw out a number of key lessons for enhancing the prevention of atrocity crimes in the future.
{"title":"Kenya","authors":"Tim Murithi","doi":"10.1163/18754112-24030006","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18754112-24030006","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000On 4 March 2013, when Kenyans participated in national presidential and legislative elections, there was wide-spread concern that the underling grievances that erupted during the 2007 and 2008 post-election violence would remerge. However, the polls were relatively peaceful in comparison. This case study will interrogate how mass atrocities were prevented in 2013 in Kenya, despite the prevalence of risk factors which could spark tensions and fuel violence. This article interrogates the local sources of resilience and inhibitors of atrocity crimes and considers the preventive actions that were undertaken and by whom, with a view to understanding what they achieved. In addition, it will assess the outcomes that were achieved as a result of these preventive actions. Through an evaluation of the preventive actions the article will examine which actions proved to be most effective in affecting the risks dynamics of the country in the short, medium and long-term. Kenya’s history of violence and failure to uphold accountability and redress for victims, meant that in 2013, it was significantly prone to the scourge of atrocity crimes. This analysis will draw out a number of key lessons for enhancing the prevention of atrocity crimes in the future.","PeriodicalId":38927,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Peacekeeping","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-12-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46024831","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-12-16DOI: 10.1163/18754112-24030008
A. Bellamy
The Syrian civil war stands as the most serious failure of the responsibility to prevent since the adoption of R2P in 2005. As the war has continued, there have been atrocities and abuse committed against vulnerable populations on a widespread and systematic scale. This article focuses on the atrocity prevention efforts undertaken in the first phase of the crisis from March 2011 to August 2012. It shows that while there were multiple tools utilized by a range of local, regional, and international actors, none of them had a lasting impact on the commission of atrocity crimes in Syria. This failure is due to five principal reasons. First, engagement to prevent atrocities came too late. Second, domestic and regional conditions were not conducive to prevention. Third, there was little reason for the warring parties to compromise. Fourth, there was a disconnect between what Western states wanted to achieve in Syria and what they were prepared to do about it. And fifth, the UN’s envoys had limited options for engagement.
{"title":"Syria","authors":"A. Bellamy","doi":"10.1163/18754112-24030008","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18754112-24030008","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000The Syrian civil war stands as the most serious failure of the responsibility to prevent since the adoption of R2P in 2005. As the war has continued, there have been atrocities and abuse committed against vulnerable populations on a widespread and systematic scale. This article focuses on the atrocity prevention efforts undertaken in the first phase of the crisis from March 2011 to August 2012. It shows that while there were multiple tools utilized by a range of local, regional, and international actors, none of them had a lasting impact on the commission of atrocity crimes in Syria. This failure is due to five principal reasons. First, engagement to prevent atrocities came too late. Second, domestic and regional conditions were not conducive to prevention. Third, there was little reason for the warring parties to compromise. Fourth, there was a disconnect between what Western states wanted to achieve in Syria and what they were prepared to do about it. And fifth, the UN’s envoys had limited options for engagement.","PeriodicalId":38927,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Peacekeeping","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-12-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47464163","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-12-16DOI: 10.1163/18754112-24030010
A. Bellamy, Ivan Šimonović
The prevention of atrocity crimes is the cornerstone of R2P. Yet, how prevention works in practice is little understood. In practice, multiple actors at different levels employ multiple prevention tools simultaneously which relate to, and impact upon, the regional, national and local contexts in which atrocity crime risk is evident. Strengthening preventive action requires better understanding of the combination of measures employed and how these measures interact and affect the risk of atrocity crimes. Recognising the growing gap between the promise and practice of atrocity prevention, the UN Office on Genocide Prevention and R2P commissioned a series of case studies to evaluate atrocity prevention efforts, covering the countries of Burundi, Central African Republic, Cote d’Ivoire, Guinea, Kenya, Myanmar, South Sudan and Syria. From these studies, four main lessons become apparent. One, imminently apprehended atrocity crimes are preventable. Two, best outcomes are achieved when atrocity prevention is made a priority. Three, unity of purpose is essential. And four, atrocity prevention relies on several factors, some of which are outside the control of those undertaking prevention. These lessons mean that while atrocity prevention is difficult, it is possible.
{"title":"Conclusions","authors":"A. Bellamy, Ivan Šimonović","doi":"10.1163/18754112-24030010","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18754112-24030010","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000The prevention of atrocity crimes is the cornerstone of R2P. Yet, how prevention works in practice is little understood. In practice, multiple actors at different levels employ multiple prevention tools simultaneously which relate to, and impact upon, the regional, national and local contexts in which atrocity crime risk is evident. Strengthening preventive action requires better understanding of the combination of measures employed and how these measures interact and affect the risk of atrocity crimes. Recognising the growing gap between the promise and practice of atrocity prevention, the UN Office on Genocide Prevention and R2P commissioned a series of case studies to evaluate atrocity prevention efforts, covering the countries of Burundi, Central African Republic, Cote d’Ivoire, Guinea, Kenya, Myanmar, South Sudan and Syria. From these studies, four main lessons become apparent. One, imminently apprehended atrocity crimes are preventable. Two, best outcomes are achieved when atrocity prevention is made a priority. Three, unity of purpose is essential. And four, atrocity prevention relies on several factors, some of which are outside the control of those undertaking prevention. These lessons mean that while atrocity prevention is difficult, it is possible.","PeriodicalId":38927,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Peacekeeping","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-12-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43337320","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Central African Republic (car) has been a theatre of instability for decades, especially following the 2013 coup, which saw crimes that have been found to be premeditated and systematic. This article identifies states collapse, persistent instability and impunity as key factors engendering atrocity crimes in car. Despite the overwhelming evidence of the risk of atrocity crimes, the international response has been inadequate if not passive, and interventions do not consider atrocity prevention in their execution. Thus, subsequent peacebuilding initiatives have not had real and visible impact on the prevention of atrocity crimes. To address this, the establishment of an accountable and functioning state is the overriding condition precedent to preventing and mangaging atrocity crimes in car. The international community should further engage local actors to promote inclusive governance and lay the foundations for stability and sustainable peace. Subsequent restoration of structures for justice and ensuring their effective functioning will help end structural impunity in the country and go a long way in averting future atrocity crimes.
{"title":"Central African Republic","authors":"Frank O. Okyere","doi":"10.18356/4adf4949-en","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.18356/4adf4949-en","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000Central African Republic (car) has been a theatre of instability for decades, especially following the 2013 coup, which saw crimes that have been found to be premeditated and systematic. This article identifies states collapse, persistent instability and impunity as key factors engendering atrocity crimes in car. Despite the overwhelming evidence of the risk of atrocity crimes, the international response has been inadequate if not passive, and interventions do not consider atrocity prevention in their execution. Thus, subsequent peacebuilding initiatives have not had real and visible impact on the prevention of atrocity crimes. To address this, the establishment of an accountable and functioning state is the overriding condition precedent to preventing and mangaging atrocity crimes in car. The international community should further engage local actors to promote inclusive governance and lay the foundations for stability and sustainable peace. Subsequent restoration of structures for justice and ensuring their effective functioning will help end structural impunity in the country and go a long way in averting future atrocity crimes.","PeriodicalId":38927,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Peacekeeping","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-12-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43086274","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-12-16DOI: 10.1163/18754112-24030005
Cristina G. Stefan
This article identifies the most significant atrocity risk factors and their indicators in accordance with the UN Framework of Analysis for Atrocity Crimes and provides a taxonomy of measures, taken by a variety of external and internal stakeholders, in different combinations, which reduced the risk of atrocity crimes reoccurring after the 2009 stadium massacre in Conakry, Guinea. On the 28th of September 2009, 157 protesters were killed, at least 1200 were injured, and over 100 women were raped by security forces in a stadium in Conakry. The UN’s Commission of Inquiry (coi) concluded that these crimes committed by the security forces amounted to crimes against humanity. The efforts to halt further violence and prevent the commission of crimes post-2009 stadium massacre were varied and encompassed regional and international preventive diplomacy. The coordination of a coherent political strategy among international, regional and sub-regional actors in the Guinean context contributed towards the perceived success in preventing further atrocities in Guinea, post-2009 massacre. Importantly, Guinea is not a typical example in terms of atrocity and conflict prevention, due to a unique regional and global dynamics that allowed for a rapid and rather coherent response to the September 2009 stadium massacre.
{"title":"Lessons in Atrocity Prevention: A Closer Look at Guinea","authors":"Cristina G. Stefan","doi":"10.1163/18754112-24030005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18754112-24030005","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000This article identifies the most significant atrocity risk factors and their indicators in accordance with the UN Framework of Analysis for Atrocity Crimes and provides a taxonomy of measures, taken by a variety of external and internal stakeholders, in different combinations, which reduced the risk of atrocity crimes reoccurring after the 2009 stadium massacre in Conakry, Guinea. On the 28th of September 2009, 157 protesters were killed, at least 1200 were injured, and over 100 women were raped by security forces in a stadium in Conakry. The UN’s Commission of Inquiry (coi) concluded that these crimes committed by the security forces amounted to crimes against humanity. The efforts to halt further violence and prevent the commission of crimes post-2009 stadium massacre were varied and encompassed regional and international preventive diplomacy. The coordination of a coherent political strategy among international, regional and sub-regional actors in the Guinean context contributed towards the perceived success in preventing further atrocities in Guinea, post-2009 massacre. Importantly, Guinea is not a typical example in terms of atrocity and conflict prevention, due to a unique regional and global dynamics that allowed for a rapid and rather coherent response to the September 2009 stadium massacre.","PeriodicalId":38927,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Peacekeeping","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-12-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42161162","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：