UK Mass Atrocity Prevention

2018年，英国发起了一项调查，调查英国政府在防止大规模暴行方面的做法，有证据表明，这些反应在很大程度上是无效的。人道主义干预的正当性是一场复杂的辩论，主要基于法律和道德争论的二分法（例如，在科索沃的空袭据说是非法的，但却是合法的）。尽管英国在预防冲突方面有独特的策略，但《2017年保护方法》表明，制定一个预防暴行的镜头将使政府能够保护民众免受破坏性干预。因此，为了对大规模暴行提供有效的保护，英国政府必须采取预防措施，并在早期阶段考虑可以和应该做些什么。该项目由Adrian Gallagher博士设计，旨在解决“保护责任”的局限性，并制定英国首个防止大规模暴行的跨政府战略，将涉及以下几个阶段：1)进行跨部门分析，以确定阻碍英国政府当前方法的障碍（例如，使用快速证据评估）2)调查大规模暴行指标（例如，共同或特定的风险因素）是否可以纳入政府预防冲突的方法（例如，在冲突预防池中）3)使用比较方法对非英国方法进行分析。4)通过系统审查，比较和评价预测大规模暴力的定性和定量方法（例如，早期预警与风险评估模型）

In 2018, an inquiry was launched to investigate the UK governments approach in the prevention of mass atrocities, with evidence to suggest that responses have been largely ineffective. Justification for humanitarian intervention is a complex debate, based largely on the dichotomy between legal and moral arguments (e.g., the airstrikes in Kosovo are said to have been illegal but legitimate). Although the UK has a distinct strategy for conflict prevention, the Protection Approaches 2017 suggest that developing an atrocity prevention lens would allow the government to protect populations from destructive intervention. Thus, in order to provide effective protection against mass atrocities, the UK government must take preventative action, and consider what can and should be done at an earlier stage. This project, as designed by Dr Adrian Gallagher, seeks to address limitations of the Responsibility to Protect and develop the first UK cross-government strategy towards the prevention of mass atrocities and will involve the following stages: 1) Conduct a cross-departmental analysis in order to identify obstacles that hinder the UK governments current approach (e.g., using rapid evidence assessments) 2) Investigate whether mass atrocity indicators (e.g., common or specific risk factors) can be incorporated into the governments approach to conflict prevention (e.g., in the Conflict Prevention Pool) 3) Undertake analysis of non-UK approaches using comparative methods, case studies and regression analysis 4) Compare and evaluate qualitative and quantitative approaches in predicting mass violence (e.g., early warning vs risk assessment models) through systematic review