This month

What is done to prevent core international crimes? Is it an effective remedy to prevent a humanitarian crisis?

• Case study: Idlib (Syria)
• Facing potential mass atrocities
• Monitoring
• Early warning mechanisms
• The responsibility to protect
• Conclusions

Case study: Idlib (Syria)

Was the current displacement of some 900.000 civilians as a result of the battle for Idlib avoidable?

The context: the Syrian army and its allies Russia and Iran have begun to reconquer the province Idlib. This province was lost to the opposition in the aftermath of what is known as the Arab Spring. Nowadays it is also inhabited by militant factions and by individuals and groups that had to surrender elsewhere in Syria and were then evacuated to Idlib. As from May 2017 it had become a de-escalation zone. Turkey has been observing its arrangements with Russia, Iran and Syria by establishing observation points at the demarcation line in Syria.

Last couple of weeks the international community has expressed its concerns about the battle for Idlib, which began in December 2019. Not in the last place they raised their voices for the resulting humanitarian crisis: in addition to the huge amountof internally displaced that are not allowed to enter Turkey and find safe haven in camps, an additional number of 900.000 mainly women and children have become internally displaced (again). They have fled for indiscriminate and even deliberate attacks on civilian infrastructure which remain a -albeit prohibited- method of warfare.

Only last night a further escalation seemed likely due to an air raid killing more than 30 Turkish soldiers. Turkey may retaliate and had already set an ultimatum for the Syrian army to retreat to the initial demarcation line by next sunday.

Facing potential mass atrocities

Judicial responses to core international crimes are important. Yet, they are a complementary instrument in a toolbox to combat these crimes. The toolbox should contain all proven instruments, which should then be used wisely, based on a proper understanding of the wider context. Those responsible for responders can than weigh the use of instruments against the advantages of other options and the preferred outcomes. This wider context consists first and foremost of a strategic approach, based on the the following steps:

• Prevention (legislation, compliance, dissemination of international recognized standards)
• Detection (monitoring/early-warning)
• Identification (establishing facts and circumstances)
• Qualification (assessing the elements of crime)
• Judicial responses (outreach to victims, criminal investigations, prosecution, exlusion)
• Recovery (reparations, reconciliation, lessons learned)

Monitoring

Detecting (potential) core international crimes is a practical, feasible and realistic instrument. It requires close monitoring of vulnerable countries, regions or situations. Some key indicators for consideration and observation:

• the pressence of a repressive or weakened regime
• the existance or feasibilty of an international or non-international armed conflict
• the human rights track record of a country
• expressed concerns by the General Assembly of the United Nations
• statements by the high commissioner for human rights
• the existance of  a UN-appointed commission of inquiry or a special rapporteur

Early warning mechanisms

By closely monitoring situations, early warning mechanisms might be triggered. Many (inter-)governmental organisations, civil society organisations (like Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch), academic research institutions and others publish reliable early warnings related to potential mass atrocities, for instance:

• Genocide Watch: Genocide alerts
• Global Responsibility to Protect: Atrocity alert, R2P Monitor
• Human Rights Watch: monthly defender, Week in rights, Daily brief
• United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights
• United Nations Office on Genocide Prevention and the Responsibility to Protect

Other organisations provide information on potential or ongoing armed conflicts, for instance:

• International Crisis Group: Crisiswatch
• Janes.com
• Liveumap.com

Furthermore, several organisations provide information on potential humanitarian risks and refugee flows:

• European Asylum Support Office: Early Warning and Preparedness System
• United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights: Preparedness Package for Refugee Emergencies
• United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs: Preparednes and Risk Management

The separate initiatives, let alone when integrated, provide an efficient and effective early warning system. Thus: is the international community acting on these warnings?

Responsibility to protect

Apart from moral or judicial obligations under existing international and customary humanitarian law, in 2005 all Member States of the United Nations endorsed the global Responsibility to Protect (R2P). A political commitment for states to prevent genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity and to protect their populations for these crimes. The principle is based upon the underlying premise that with sovereignty comes a responsibility to protect all populations from mass atrocity crimes and human rights violations and derives from a respect for the norms and principles of (underlying) principles of international law relating to sovereignty, peace and security, human rights, and armed conflict. R2P rests on the pillars:

1. protection
2. assistance and capacity building
3. timely and decisive responses

In the case of Syria, countries have tried to bring about UN resolutions based on the R2P. However, it has been clear from the begining that these were to encounter a veto by Russia and China.

Conclusions

First and foremost: civilians are amongst those protected in armed conflicts, all parties to the conflict are bound by this principle. Nevertheless, the current situation was predictable:

• Syria, Iran, Russia have had a clear intention to restore Syria’s sovereignty over its territory
• Syria, Iran, Russia have expressed their interests in crashing the remaining opposition (regardless their background, but referring to them as terrorists)
• the strategy followd by Syria, Iran, Russia is predictable, since it follows through on strategies followed in other areas
• the means and methods of warfare have been consistent throughout the conflict: disregard for international recognized humanitarian standards
• the track record for obeying human rights (outside the scope of armed conflict) is also well known: the UN Commission of Inquiry on Syria has previously stated that the government has committed crimes against humanity through extermination, murder, rape and other forms of sexual violence, torture, imprisonment, enforced disappearance, and other inhuman acts
• from this it was clear that any attempt to “liberate” Idlib would lead to continued atrocities and mass displacements

The responsibility to protect the civilians in Idlib is clear, however the UN is paralyzed due to veto rights for China and Russia. This, in itself was predictable.

Is monitoring useless and do early warning systems represent an effective instrument in preventing mass atrocities? Could it have prevented the ongoing crisis in Idlib?

At the heart of any answer to this lies the responsibility of any state or party to a conflict to comply with the international recognized standards we find in humanitarian law. Furthermore, inaction of the international community when faced with potential mass atrocity situations is a self fulfilling prophecy. It adds to the risk that standards of international humanitarian law can be disregarded without timely and decisive responses.

The answer?

• Yes: monitoring and early warnings are feasible, effective and efficient albeit complementary instruments providing decision makers with context necessary to decide on their approaches, choices and strategic instruments
• No: they are just instruments in the toolbox and may not provide what is needed in a particular situation. Also: how to meassure the benefits of situations of mass atrocities that did not occur?