The proliferation of atrocity crimes worldwide in recent years has made it very clear that the UK Government does not have comprehensive atrocity prevention mechanisms and strategies that would equip it to respond to atrocity crimes globally, in accordance with its legal obligations under existing international law (including the Genocide Convention, the Torture Convention, the core human rights treaties, and customary international law), as well as its political commitments under the Responsibility to Protect (R2P). These failures require urgent attention.

Furthermore, as the UN General Assembly (UNGA) prepares to consider the draft treaty on crimes against humanity, which is to impose legal duties on States to prevent and punish crimes against humanity, it is crucial to ensure that the UK can play a meaningful role in these discussions and is able to deliver on existing as well as new commitments. 

The term ‘atrocity crimes’ is not legally defined. The core international crimes are war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide and the crime of aggression as defined in several international treaties and customary international law. The commission of these crimes incurs individual criminal responsibility and can be prosecuted in domestic or international courts or tribunals (where they have jurisdiction). These core crimes are also considered violations of peremptory norms of international law, in addition to other peremptory norms violations such as apartheid, discrimination, and piracy among others. The violation of peremptory norms constitutes an internationally wrongful act, incurring State responsibility. The commission of core international crimes, or violations of peremptory norms incurring State and individual responsibility, can collectively be referred to as ‘atrocity crimes.’ 

Some scholars consider ‘ethnic cleansing’ to be included within the scope of atrocity crimes. However, ‘ethnic cleansing’ is not legally defined. What is considered to be ‘ethnic cleaning’ can amount to international crimes such as war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide, and should be presented and considered as such. This is to avoid confusion in terms of commission (of a distinct crime) and the responsibility arising thereof.

The Standing Group is not directly focused on any specific or particular situation, past or present. The purpose of the Group is to consider UK laws, policies and practices in relation to atrocity prevention and response generally in light of international legal obligations in an independent and impartial manner.

When considering its mandate, the Standing Group will naturally consider all situations of international concern where the body of publicly available and credible evidence, especially before international organisations such as the United Nations or international courts/tribunals, suggests that international crimes are at risk of being committed or have been committed or are ongoing.

Political expediency, political affiliation, or individual identities should not be relevant to the question of State responsibility or individual criminal responsibility for atrocity crimes, as defined in the relevant international instruments. 

The work of the Standing Group aims to strengthen UK responses to atrocity crimes, no matter where they are perpetrated or by whom. The Group will maintain its independence, impartiality and integrity.

The Standing Group’s focus is broad, covering all international crimes. The focus on genocide is a starting point, and the UK Government is welcome and encouraged to take a broader approach to the prevention of international crimes. There are no hierarchies when it comes to core international crimes such as the crime of aggression, genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity.

The rationale for why the Standing Group’s key issues list focuses on preventing genocide is that there is a binding and enforceable legal obligation under a treaty, the Genocide Convention, on all States to prevent genocide the ‘instant it learns of the serious risk’ and which requires it to use ‘all means reasonably available to it’ in order to prevent or stop ongoing harm. A similar obligation to prevent exists under the Torture Convention. Over the coming years, such an obligation may be introduced in relation to crimes against humanity.

The work of the Standing Group will consider the relevance of the Genocide Determination Bill, the first of its kind, which would provide a concrete and tangible mechanism to prevent genocide. If or when the current international initiative to create a Convention on Preventing and Punishing Crimes Against Humanity is successful, of course, stakeholders can consider expanding the scope of consideration of any future Act to include a duty to prevent to apply to crimes against humanity.

The Standing Group will also consider obligations on States to prevent violations of peremptory norms of international law in light of how they are dealt with under customary international law.

All members of the Standing Group’s Committee and Advisory Board are acting entirely pro bono. No member is remunerated. 

The Standing Group’s Secretariat also undertakes almost the entirety of its work pro bono. Some small administrative costs comprising less than £14,000 (year one) and £5,000 (years two and three) – related to maintaining an online presence and administrative support – are sought from individual philanthropic donors.

The Standing Group maintains and guards its independence and impartiality fiercely and only unconditional donations are accepted and subject to relevant checks in line with guidance from the Charity Commission.

Anyone wishing to contribute to the work of the Secretariat generally can support the Coalition for Genocide Response by donating, through Paypal, here. Further information can be found at https://genocideresponse.org.