In August 2024, a popular uprising in Bangladesh ousted Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina and her political party, the Awami League, from power. The abrupt shift has raised concerns about heightened political instability and the potential for mass atrocities. This piece addresses concerning trends to monitor regarding the risk of large-scale, systematic, group-targeted, identity-based violence against civilians in the country.
We interviewed leading peacekeeping practitioners about how peace operations can most effectively prevent genocide and mass atrocities. Explore key findings from our report, the latest addition to our "Lessons Learned in Preventing and Responding to Mass Atrocities" project.
Thirty years after the genocide in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the country is in the grips of an escalating political crisis. In an interview with the Simon-Skjodt Center, Velma Šarić, founder and president of the Post-Conflict Research Center in Sarajevo, warns that without urgent international action, the risk of renewed violence and fragmentation of the state is growing.
South Sudan has a history of mass atrocities. Despite a peace agreement in 2018 ending a brutal civil war, risk factors for mass atrocities remain. A return to fighting in January 2025 between the Sudanese People’s Liberation Movement and the SPLM In Opposition—along with a political breakdown at the highest levels of government—has created a very dangerous situation that is ripe for a return to large-scale, systematic attacks on civilians on the basis of their identity. This blog post outlines the recent crisis, what policy makers should monitor, and what can be done to help save lives.
In a new report, our Davis Genocide Prevention Fellow Shannon Raj Singh explores how tools deployed or developed by social media platforms might reduce the risk of mass violence and contribute constructively to mass atrocity prevention efforts.
Shifting political dynamics, conflicts affecting multiple regions, and a disputed presidential election signal increased mass atrocity risks in Chad. This blog highlights key developments to monitor.
Each year our Early Warning Project’s Statistical Risk Assessment produces a list of countries ranked in order of risk for mass killing. So how can one use the assessment to identify countries to prioritize? When we analyze our data, we look for countries in four rough categories: (1) Highest–Risk, (2) Consistently High-Risk, (3) Significant Shifts, and (4) Unexpected Results.
The Simon-Skjodt Center’s update to the Tools for Atrocity Prevention resource indicates some advances and continuing gaps in understanding how to use different policy tools to help prevent mass atrocities.
Atrocity prevention practitioners have long called for greater investment in lessons learned efforts. The Simon-Skjodt Center’s new report outlines the challenges to the use of lessons learned and other evidence in atrocity prevention policy making at the US Department of State. It offers specific recommendations to advance priority goals given the strong legal and policy mandates already in place.
Thinking about strategies—how a set of actions will yield impact—should help policy makers increase the likelihood of preventing mass atrocities. The Simon-Skjodt Center’s new report offers a framework to encourage thinking holistically about which prevention tools used together are likely to have the greatest impact.
Find information on historical cases of genocide and other atrocities.
