*Download the pdf version of this report* ***here***.

In spite of the near-universal determination and commitment to prevent atrocity crimes from ever reoccurring, the current geopolitical landscape is riddled with mass atrocities. Decades after the Rwandan Genocide and the Bosnian War of the 1990s, atrocities continue to be committed and are strongly influenced by gender. The implementation of atrocity prevention (AP) efforts has thus been lackluster and ineffective, especially concerning the role gender plays in these processes.

We believe that a gender lens can not only improve current AP standards and frameworks but can also make the controversial Responsibility to Protect (R2P) more appealing to policymakers willing to promote the Women, Peace and Security (WPS) agenda and gender-sensitive policies more broadly. To do so, this brief report outlines the current state of knowledge regarding atrocity prevention and its gendered dynamics. Drawing on lessons from the WPS agenda and the AP field, we advance recommendations and potential solutions to ensure nuanced and effective gender-sensitive AP implementation.

Key points

Reliable research and policy recommendations for atrocity prevention have been advanced and are simply waiting to be applied.
Every aspect of atrocities and their prevention is gendered, yet most AP frameworks and efforts are ineffective and gender-blind.
Gender-sensitive frameworks exist and can be used to improve AP and its public perception, as has been done in other policy and security fields.
The WPS agenda has a more civil society-oriented focus than AP, which AP actors could potentially learn from.
Gender can be used to introduce AP to policymakers and ensure implementation, since gender lenses are used to mainstream research and policies.

Origins of the report

This brief report was produced following the June 6th seminar on Gender, Accountability, and Atrocity Prevention, as part of a collaboration between The Norwegian Center for Holocaust and Minority Studies (HL-senteret), the Peace Research Institute Oslo (PRIO), and the Centre for Gender Research at the University of Oslo (STK).

The seminar aimed to link debates in the fields of atrocity prevention and women, peace and security, and to advance a gender perspective in AP. After the public seminar on the gendered dynamics of atrocities, a closed roundtable session was held to discuss the issue further, with experts from academia, government organizations, and civil society weighing in on the previous discussion.

The public and closed sessions have provided part of the background and novel insights which make up this report, aided by and grounded in relevant literature and past atrocities, and for a policy brief, encouraging an atrocity-sensitive approach to the Women, Peace, and Security (WPS) agenda.

Overview

Gender dimensions are integral to atrocities, as starkly evidenced in Ukraine, Palestine and Israel, Sudan, and Myanmar. Despite that, it is less clear how gender dimensions in atrocity prevention (AP) should be integrated.

Normative approaches and frameworks with a focus on gender already exist, such as the UN Women, Peace, and Security (WPS) agenda, but atrocity prevention remains absent from them. Similarly, frameworks focused on atrocity protection and prevention like the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) have yet to mainstream and incorporate gender dimensions. Although gender is not as discussed in AP as it is in other agendas, such as the more widely known and praised WPS agenda, considerable research and events have been carried out to investigate gender’s influence within AP.

Understanding the intrinsic role of gender in atrocities is crucial to ensure that atrocities can be – and are – prevented. This requires an examination of how gender influences both atrocities and their preventive efforts, and of how to ensure implementation using a gender-sensitive approach.

Current state of AP knowledge

Much of the discussion on AP, the R2P principle, and WPS looks to the past for answers, providing overviews of actions and frameworks, criticizing those frameworks and their limited implementation or discussing the importance of nuanced prevention. Similarly, the findings discussed during the June 6th seminar echoed the content found in existing AP literature. AP research can at times feel outdated, since much of it was produced many years ago, so producing new knowledge is exciting yet unnerving. Still, the following three areas within the vast body of existing research indicate where much of the scholarly attention has been focused.

Frameworks

Several frameworks for the analysis and prevention of, and protection from atrocity crimes are already in place, such as those from the United Nations, the Global Centre for R2P, and the Asia Pacific Partnership for Atrocity Prevention (APPAP). Such normative prevention frameworks are also supported by initiatives and organizations whose outreach efforts encourage their dissemination and implementation.

These frameworks include early-warning indicators, reporting mechanisms, and expert consultancy, all of which are in place. Still, they can be further improved through updates in training, education, and research, requiring the collaboration of academics and policymakers. Even so, the question of who is supposed to act upon and improve these frameworks remains to be operationalized.

It is essential to note that early-warning frameworks and prevention policymaking cease to be effective when they are not employed for AP, or when used selectively. This, in turn, impedes the prevention of atrocities and sustains impunity for them.

Implementation

The implementation of AP frameworks and policies is often described as lackluster and ineffective, particularly when originating at high levels. Despite the abundant and continuous criticism in AP literature of these ineffective practices, few steps have been taken to remedy such inadequate implementation.

Due to the “tyranny of the urgent”, AP policies targeting certain groups of people are ignored or dismissed in favor of measures deemed more important or time-sensitive. Similarly, ineffective or absent implementation can also be caused by dismissing the needs of people affected by atrocities when implementing policies or by failing to enhance policies through grounded and comprehensive research. Moreover, ineffectiveness is further exacerbated by scarce funding, gender inequality, and weak institutionalization.

Nuance

In AP, nuance is crucial, useful, and supported by academic research. Without a nuanced awareness of atrocities, their perpetration, and their impact, implementation efforts can ignore entire communities, and thus fail to provide necessary support.

However, policy implementation encourages simplicity over nuance, since specific and targeted action is easier to implement. Nuanced and complex understandings of context and culture can thus hinder preventive efforts if not translated into simplistic and viable policymaking language.

As a result of targeted and specific AP, less focus is usually placed on overarching structural and systemic violence. It is thus crucial to remember that preventing atrocities requires a comprehensive understanding of cultural and historical contexts in order to be effective.

Gender: what it is and why use it

The term “gender”, although commonly used as a buzzword and a synonym for “women” in conflict, security, and AP studies, denotes the social, cultural, and psychological aspects of one’s identity as opposed to sex, which is considered more concretely physical and biological. Although much gender-focused research in these fields highlights the role and treatment of women in situations of insecurity and violence (often sexual violence in particular), discussions of gender can also focus on men, non-binary people, and the concept of gender as a whole.

Employing a gender-sensitive lens thus allows one to recognize that people act and are treated differently depending on their gender and the sociocultural norms associated with it. A gender lens makes one aware of the issues and nuances arising from cultural preconceptions based on gender and sex, of otherwise hidden dynamics in a society, and of the real nature of many violent and discriminatory acts, and thus allows them to be resolved and prevented.

The growing consideration of gender in academia, politics, and civil society has led to increasing research, initiatives, and breakthroughs that target the effects of gender inequality and gender-based violence at their core, chief among which is the WPS agenda, but in the AP field a gender focus has yet to be normalized.

In peace and conflict studies, the WPS agenda is explored critically, acknowledging its complexity and advancing innovative approaches. Conversely, the AP field mainly supports and encourages its empowerment of women and recognition of their role in preventive efforts. Since much of the AP literature focuses on implementation, the successes of the WPS agenda make it easier to celebrate positive and effective implementation efforts, rather than simply criticize implementation issues and shortcomings.

Gender-sensitive atrocity prevention

Rather than being mainstreamed as an integral part of atrocity prevention, gender is often used as a thematic focus. Even so, both the AP literature and the June 6th seminar highlight the development, implementation, and understanding of atrocities and their prevention are wholly gendered (as explained in our policy brief). AP efforts should thus account for gender dynamics and be informed by academic discussions on gender-sensitive AP.

Depending on the literary field and focus, discussions of SGBV and conflict-related sexual violence (CRSV) can focus on understanding the complexity and nuance of the issue (as in peace and conflict studies) or on highlighting the need for simplistic and policy-oriented language to ensure implementation efforts (as in AP studies). Such a difference reflects the AP field’s need to ensure effective gender-sensitive prevention policies and warning systems.

Gender inequality can similarly inform indicators when acknowledging the role that domestic violence, social discrimination, and gender apartheid play in contexts of insecurity. Recognizing and accounting for situations of gender inequality ensures that early-warning indicators are calibrated to identify and reflect the network of dynamics conducive to atrocities, which gender is part of.

As explained, there are many advantages to incorporating a gender-sensitive approach to AP. Developing and incorporating a nuanced gender-sensitive outlook on prevention makes it possible to update and refine currently existing frameworks, improving the capacity to identify and target risk factors that have otherwise gone unnoticed.

Moreover, if grounded in and expanded with a gender-sensitive approach, AP can alleviate the fear and mistrust reserved for the R2P agenda. Rather than focusing on the perceived overbearing nature of intervention, such an outlook outlines R2P as a humanitarian and people-first principle, whose goal is the protection of civilians and the prevention of atrocity crimes.

The way forward

Gender-sensitive AP has not yet been mainstreamed, but sporadic steps have been taken in that direction. Mapping the prevalence of gendered risk factors and SGBV in past atrocities can provide a concrete understanding of the impact of gender in the perpetration and justification of mass atrocities, but to ensure policies are implemented and frameworks are updated AP efforts ought to look to the future.

Finding solutions and approaches to resolve current implementation and conceptual issues in AP is not a novel idea, and the AP field reflects this. Several of the many potential ways to improve AP have already been encouraged, both within the AP literature and during the June 6th seminar, a few of which we recommend below.

Commitments and recommendations for gender-sensitive AP

Prioritize funding for atrocity prevention initiatives.
Circumvent systemic policy limitations by establishing collaborations with prevention-focused UN offices, academic research groups, and civil society NGOs.
Utilize and mainstream gender-sensitive early-warning indicators, such as those in APPAP’s (2022) Overview of Gender Responsive Early Warning Systems.
Discuss prevention as not only composed of active intervention, but also guided by established ethics and de-escalation.
Normalize nuanced AP concepts, discussions, actions, and language by grounding policies in academic research and locally-led civil society initiatives.
Prioritize and employ transitional justice measures for prevention and accountability efforts.

Key resources

Allen, Louise. 2021. “Overview of Gender Responsive Early Warning Systems - Progress and Gaps.” Asia Pacific Partnership for Atrocity Prevention.
Bellamy, Alexander. 2023. “The Discomforts of Politics: What Future for Atrocity Prevention?” Just Security, 2023.
Bellamy, Alexander. 2022. “R2P and the Use of Force.” Global Responsibility to Protect 14 (3): 277–80.
Bellamy, Alexander, and Sara Davies. 2018. “WPS and Responsibility to Protect.” In The Oxford Handbook of Women, Peace, and Security, edited by Sara Davies and Jacqui True, 584–97. Oxford Handbooks.
Gallagher, Adrian, Blake Lawrinson, Gillian McKay, and Richard Illingworth. 2023. “The Responsibility to Protect: A Bibliography.” Global Responsibility to Protect 16 (1): 3–123. 67.
Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect, and Asia-Pacific Centre for the Responsibility to Protect. 2023. “A Framework for Action for the Responsibility to Protect: A Resource for States.”
Jones, Adam. 2008. “Gender and Genocide.” In The Historiography of Genocide, 228–52. Palgrave Macmillan.
Paris, Roland. 2016. “The Blurry Boundary between Peacebuilding and R2P.” In The Oxford Handbook of the Responsibility to Protect, edited by Alexander Bellamy and Tim Dunne. Oxford University Press.
Stefan, Cristina G. 2021. “Opportunity for Gendering the Responsibility to Protect Agenda at the United Nations?” Global Studies Quarterly 1 (3). 1.
Smith, Karen. 2023. “Why the United Nations Keeps Failing Victims of Atrocity Crimes.” Just Security, 2023.
United Nations. 2016. “Framework of Analysis for Atrocity Crimes: A Tool for Prevention.”

Implementing gender-sensitive atrocity prevention: Field overview and issues