Preventing Atrocities

As atrocity crimes continue to rise across multiple regions of the world, questions of prevention, accountability and political will have become increasingly urgent.

Drawing on a recent House of Lords debate, John Cubbon examines the UK's approach to atrocity prevention, the challenges of genocide determination, and ongoing efforts to strengthen mechanisms designed to detect and respond to early warning signs before mass crimes occur.

John Cubbon, author of “Preventing Atrocities”.

Introduction

On Thursday 4 June 2026 the UK House of Lords debated the role of government policy in combating atrocity crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide.

The speeches were without exception well-informed, serious and constructive. Eighteen peers with a range of political allegiances spoke, but there was a remarkable level of consensus.

A major theme was the enormity of what was at stake. Preventing atrocities

Attention was drawn to the recent increase in atrocity crimes and the inadequacy of what was being done to tackle them. As Lord Hannay put it, “while the appalling crimes being committed around the world are not being reduced but rather are being intensified, the collective response of Governments is feeble and flawed.”

Speaker after speaker stressed that atrocity crimes are preceded by warning signs. Too often they are missed, ignored or not acted upon. Baroness Helić reflected the tenor of many of the observations when she said: “Genocide does not begin with mass killing, as others have said. It begins with dehumanisation, erosion of legal protections, impunity for attacks on civilians, and the use of sexual violence to terrorise communities, just to mention a few. [….] I am not arguing for military intervention. States have many other tools available to them: sanctions, arms embargoes, travel bans, effective diplomacy and legal action. We just have to be prepared to use them. Yet hesitation remains endemic. Each time the international community decides the moment to act has not yet arrived, the promise of ‘never again’ grows weaker.”

The inconsistency of responses to atrocities was another common thread running through the contributions. Lord Hussain said: “We must be honest about inconsistency. The credibility of ‘never again’ depends on applying it everywhere. When international law is enforced selectively, with some victims getting UN Security Council resolutions and others silence, the whole framework weakens. Civilians in Sudan, Palestine, Ukraine, Myanmar and Kashmir deserve the same standards of protection.” Baroness Kennedy observed that when genocide becomes a political label deployed selectively, its power is diminished and victims notice the inconsistency and, even worse, perpetrators notice it too and feel empowered.

Individual participants in the debate provided insights into actual or potential atrocity situations which tend to receive less media coverage in the UK such as those in Nigeria, the DRC, Myanmar, North Korea, Afghanistan and China.

Specific policies

Three issues in UK Government policy came up frequently: the future of mechanisms for preventing atrocity crimes; the procedure for the determination of genocide; and the jurisdiction of the UK courts over war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide.

In 2023 the Government reported that a Mass Atrocity Prevention Hub with central policy ownership of its approach to mass atrocity prevention had been established within the Foreign Commonwealth and Development Office. (Government Response to IDC Report: From Srebrenica to a safer tomorrow, 17 January 2023, para. 5) Concern was expressed by several peers about its future role in the face of the restructuring of the Office. Baroness Sugg also sought clarity on the Crimes Against and Affecting Children Team and the Prevention of Sexual Violence Initiative.

There were calls for a cross-department and cross-governmental strategy on atrocity prevention which is currently lacking. It would not only facilitate the early detection of indicators and the development of mechanisms for intervention, but it would also in the final analysis enhance consistency. Baroness Kennedy explained this last point as follows: “Without a clear and comprehensive mechanism for atrocity prevention and responses, we will be more prone to the mistake of politicising genocide. Our responses will depend not on the suffering of victims but on the identity of perpetrators, our strategic alliances—where we soft-pedal on whom we may be witnessing committing terrible crimes—or geopolitical interests.”

Article I of the 1948 Genocide Convention, as interpreted by the International Court of Justice, imposes an obligation on the UK to prevent genocide at the instant that it learns of, or should normally have learned of, the existence of a serious risk that genocide will be committed. The Government has accepted that it is bound by this obligation. (Letter from David Lammy, 1 September 2025.) but its long-standing policy has been that any formal determination of genocide should be based on the judgment of a competent national or international court. (eg. Letter from Hamish Falconer, 19 November 2024.)

Baroness D’Souza and Lord Hannay considered the latter requirement to be unnecessary.  Baroness D’Souza pointed out that in today’s world of information transfer, the evidence of genocide and other atrocities was recorded, verified and documented by any number of competent, internationally recognised bodies, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, and international and local human rights organisations.

Lord Alton gave disturbing examples of the reluctance of the Government to designate the plight of the Yazidis and the situation in Darfur as genocide. He also exposed the contradiction in the Government’s position of, on the one hand, insisting on a judicial determination of genocide whilst, on the other, blocking efforts to create a procedure by which a UK court could definitively make such a determination.

The Genocide Determination Bill that he sponsored had its first reading in the House of Lords on the same day as the debate. The Bill enables applications to be made to the High Court for a determination of the sufficiency of evidence for a finding that there is a serious risk of genocide or that genocide is being, or has been, committed. The enactment of the Bill would provide a definitive means of making a determination of genocide in the UK courts and thereby opening up the possibility of a judicial finding of genocide which would compel the Government to fulfil its obligation to prevent under the Genocide Convention. Several of the peers who spoke used the occasion to give their backing to Lord Alton’s Bill; however, the Deputy Leader of the House of Lords, Lord Collins, stated that the Government would not be supporting it.  

The International Criminal Court Acts for England, Wales and Northern Ireland and for Scotland provide domestic courts the jurisdiction to prosecute war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide committed outside the UK by a UK national, resident, or member of the UK armed forces. In 2025, the Joint Committee of Human Rights published reports on Daesh and the Crime and Policing Bill which recommended amendments to the ICC Acts by which anyone who committed one of these crimes outside the UK could be prosecuted. A number of speakers affirmed their support for this recommendation. As Baroness D’Souza said, the present provisions in effect allow Britain to be a safe haven for Putin’s henchmen, or indeed the Taliban.

Concluding Remarks

Proceedings in the House of Lords are sometimes characterised as quaint, anachronistic, out-of-touch and insignificant. None of these descriptions apply here. Many of those who spoke have immense relevant experience. What was said may be given little attention but the issues raised are of huge significance and will remain so.

The debate is part of a process in which efforts are being made to increase the capacity and willingness of the UK Government to prevent atrocities. These include Lord Alton’s Genocide Determination Bill which will have its Second Reading in the House of Lords in July 2026 and the ongoing work of the Standing Group on Atrocity Crimes which was set up in 2025 to convene an independent review of, and provide comprehensive advice on, the UK’s approach to atrocity prevention and response.

The compelling reasons for reform will not go away.

By John Cubbon