Explaining non-state armed groups perpetration of mass atrocity crimes

Since 2010, there has been a 'dramatic resurgence' of violent conflict around the world (United Nations, 2018, p. v). As part of this trend, mass atrocity crimes, defined as genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and ethnic cleansing (GWCE), have become 'the new normal' (Human Rights Watch 2018). At this time of writing, the Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect (GCR2P) identifies seven countries that are 'currently' experiencing GWCE, three at 'imminent risk', seven of 'serious concern', and thirteen being 'monitored' because they have experienced GWCE in the recent past (Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect 2019). These crises have seen millions of people killed, tens of thousands raped, and underpin an unprecedented refugee crisis. Although mass violence is not a new phenomenon, non-state armed groups such as Al Qaeda, Islamic State, Boko Haram, Lord's Resistance Army, and Al-Shabaab are increasingly playing a critical role in the perpetration of atrocity crimes leading to key policymakers calling for urgent research on this specific threat (see case for support).

Responding to this new reality, the project answers the following primary research question: under what conditions do non-state armed groups perpetrate GWCE? The funding will enable us to develop the first dataset in the world that collects systematic evidence on non-state armed groups perpetrating GWCE, which we call 'correlates of non-state mass atrocities' (CONMA). To do this, we will analyse six countries and three themes. The former refers to the Central African Republic, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Iraq, Nigeria, Syria and Somalia. The latter focuses on i) interactions, for example, between the non-state armed group[s] themselves, other actors such as the government, and external actors such as UN peacekeepers, ii) local factors, for instance, geography, economics, population density, as well as natural resources, and iii) group characteristics, such as age, ideology, and external support.

The scientific impact develops in three stages. First, the unique dataset 'CONMA' will provide the necessary information to run statistical analysis to explain why, when, and where mass atrocities happen in our six chosen countries. Second, we will develop hypothesis based on our three themes that can be tested through future academic inquiry. Third, the project seeks to drive forward quantitative research into the causes of non-state armed groups perpetrating mass violence. This advance in knowledge will allow us to provide policy recommendations in order to improve international, regional, and national strategies toward mass atrocity prevention with a specific focus on policymakers in the United Nations (UN), the European Union (EU), the United Kingdom (UK), and Africa (the four case study governments and organisations such as the African Union).

We will work with three project partners, GCR2P (New York and Geneva), Aegis Trust (Kigali), and Protection Approaches (London), as well as an advisory board consisting of Alex Bellamy, Gyorgy Tatar, Ivan Simonovic, Karen E. Smith, and Kristian Skrede Gleditsch. As part of our impact strategy, we will hold end of project workshops in London, New York, and Kigali.

Outputs will include i) publicly available dataset and codebook, ii) six articles in high ranking journals, iii) an Analysis Framework for the United Nations Office on Genocide Prevention and the RtoP, iv) co-created policy reports with each project partner focusing on the UN, the UK, the EU, and African mass atrocity prevention strategies, v) blogposts, vi) infographics, and vii) presentations at conferences and policy-orientated meetings.

The project will contribute towards evidence based policy-making focusing on international, regional, and national mass atrocity prevention strategies. The recommendations will enable policymakers to have a better understanding of early warning indicators as well as improving their knowledge of where to allocate resources.

United Nations (UN)
I. Office on the Prevention of Genocide and the RtoP.
The research speaks to the core mandate of the Office which is made up of a small team of staff that lack the resources to conduct large scale research projects. Despite its size, the Office has significant influence as it creates 'Analysis Frameworks' that are used to train policymakers at the international, regional, and national level. We will create the first Framework of Analysis focusing on non-state armed groups which will identify new risk and trigger factors.
II. The UN Special Advisors on Genocide Prevention and the RtoP.
The advisors play a critical role in shaping international, regional, and national approaches. Specifically, they write the UN Secretary General's annual report on the RtoP which is discussed in the UN General Assembly. The reports incorporate input from experts and we will work with the Advisors to write our findings into an annual report.
III. We will also seek to have impact on other parts of the UN such as Peacekeeping, Political Affairs, and Human Rights Council. For example, the sub-national data will evidence the impact that the presence of UN Peacekeepers has on non-state armed groups perpetrating GWCE.

Regional and national level decision makers, especially in the UK, the EU, and Africa
I. The UK is a permanent member of the UN Security Council and commits itself to playing a critical role in mass atrocity prevention. Problematically, the UK Government's conflict prevention strategy has a mass atrocity blind spot (see case for support). The project's policy recommendations will strengthen the UK Government's ability to identify areas of high risk at an early stage.
II. The EU. The European External Action Service has developed an EU toolkit on mass atrocity prevention. The Co-I was a roundtable discussant at the pre-launch (October 2018) alongside Roberta Dirosa (Policy Officer on RtoP at the European External Action Service). The project will allow us to identify new risk and trigger factors that can either be written into a revised EU Toolkit or act as a supplementary set of policy recommendations.
III. Africa. We will focus on the four governments from the case studies chosen as well as regional organisations such as the African Union and its member states as these are heavily involved in Somalia, CAR, the DRC, and Nigeria. The sub-national country specific data will provide unique insight into where to allocate resources within the four countries. The project will also allow policymakers to consider how the findings may be applicable to other countries in Africa.

RtoP networks & NGOs
The research speaks to the core purpose of the following networks & NGOs. The findings will benefit those directly engaged in the six case studies, provide insight for those tackling non-state armed groups in their own countries, and identify new indicators for those seeking to pressure actors to act early.
I. RtoP Focal Points. 61 countries and two regions (the EU) have appointed an RtoP Focal Point who are senior level officials responsible for the promotion of RtoP at the national level.
II. Global Action Against Mass Atrocity Crimes (GAAMAC), which brings together governments, international and regional organisations, civil society, and academia with the stated objective of preventing GWCE.
III. Group of Friends on the RtoP (51 countries).
IV International Atrocity Prevention Working Group (7 countries).
V. NGOs. Apart from project partners, we prioritise i) UNA-UK, and ii) The International Coalition of the RtoP because of their influence on the actors identified above.