Table of contents

Approximate read time: 15 minutes

The House of Lords is scheduled to debate the following motion on 4 June 2026:

Lord Alton of Liverpool (Crossbench) to move that this House takes note of the role of government policy in combating atrocity crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide.

1. Atrocity crimes

The term ‘atrocity crimes’ is used to refer to legally-defined international offences, namely: crimes against humanity, genocide and war crimes.[1] Atrocity crimes are considered the most serious crimes against humankind. Their status as international crimes is based on the belief that the acts associated with them affect the core dignity of human beings.

While atrocity crimes have similarities, the victims they target differ:

  • Genocide requires a specified act to have been committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group.[2] While victims are individuals, they are targeted because of their real or perceived membership in one of these groups.[3]
  • Crimes against humanity refers to an act committed as part of a widespread or systemic attack directed against a civilian population.[4] While non-civilians may be harmed in the act, the ultimate target of the attack must be the civilian population for it to be considered a crime against humanity.
  • War crimes can be committed against a range of victims, either combatants or non-combatants.[5] This includes members of the armed forces, prisoners of war, medical and religious personnel, humanitarian workers and civilians.

2. International and domestic law obligations

Under international law, the UK is required to take measures to prevent and punish atrocity crimes such as genocide.[6] This duty is set out across international treaties and in customary international law. Customary international law refers to rules that derive from a general practice that is accepted as law. Treaties include the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, adopted in 1948, which was the first piece of international law to codify the crime of genocide.[7] Other treaties include the 1949 Geneva conventions and their 1977 additional protocols, and the 1998 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.[8]

As the UK has a dualist system, most international law must be implemented by domestic legislation before the UK can prosecute serious violations.[9] As such, the following UK acts implemented atrocity crimes into domestic legislation: the International Criminal Court Act 2001 for England, Wales and Northern Ireland and the International Criminal Court (Scotland) Act 2001 for Scotland. Known as the ICC acts, these give domestic courts the jurisdiction to prosecute atrocity crimes committed in the UK.[10] Domestic courts also have extra-territorial jurisdiction to prosecute offences committed outside of the UK by either a UK national, resident, or member of the armed forces. For UK residents specifically, domestic courts also have jurisdiction over crimes committed before they came to reside in the UK, provided these crimes were committed after the ICC acts came into force. Additionally, the ICC acts provide the legal basis for the UK to arrest and surrender to the International Criminal Court anyone charged with atrocity crimes.[11]

The UK has also signed up to international commitments aimed at preventing future atrocities.[12] For example, the UK adopted the principle of ‘responsibility to protect’ (R2P) at a UN world summit meeting in 2005.[13] This principle places an obligation on member states to protect their populations from atrocity crimes. According to the Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect, an international authority and advocacy organisation for the R2P, the principle emerged in response to “the failure of the international community to adequately respond to mass atrocities committed in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia during the 1990s”.

3. UK mechanisms to prevent atrocities

In 2019, the then Conservative government published a policy paper detailing the UK’s approach to preventing mass atrocities.[14] This paper described a range of tools used by the government for preventing mass atrocities:

  • Early warning mechanisms to identify countries at risk of instability, conflict and atrocities. This included the Countries at Risk of Instability (CRI) process and the Joint Analysis of Conflict and Stability (JACS) assessments. The CRI is an internal exercise used to help policy makers decide which countries should be prioritised for potential government engagement. JACS assessments are cross-government analyses used to underpin National Security Council strategies.
  • Diplomacy to help de-escalate tensions and resolve disputes. For example, visits to risk-prone areas, active support for mediation initiatives, and raising concerns at bilateral and multilateral forums about atrocity risks.
  • Development/programmatic support to address the root causes of conflict. This could include helping to improve access to security and justice, and supporting inclusive economic development.
  • Defence and policing tools to assist with training and capacity building in the security sector. This could include deployments of UK armed forces, policing and justice sector expertise.

The policy paper said the UK remained an active supporter of the R2P principle.[15] The then government had said the UK would continue to work with international partners to identify risks of atrocities and prevent violence, using the tools listed above.

The Conservative government flagged atrocity prevention as a foreign policy priority in its 2021 integrated review.[16] It said the last decade had seen growing conflict and instability globally. It predicted that conflict and stability would remain prevalent and may increase by 2030, unless “concerted action” was taken to address the underlying political, social, economic and environmental drivers. To address this, the government committed to establish “a more integrated approach to government work on conflict and instability” which included atrocity prevention. This commitment led to the development of the Office for Conflict, Stabilisation and Mediation (OCSM) within the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) in 2022.[17] This new directorate was tasked with developing a new cross-government conflict framework that considered atrocity prevention, among other issues.

Several months later, the Conservative government launched the mass atrocity prevention hub in September 2022.[18] The hub formed part of the OCSM. In the FCDO’s 2022 annual human rights and democracy report, the government said the hub had “strengthened understanding and knowledge of atrocity prevention across government through training and promoting collaboration and best practice”.[19] Additionally, it said the hub had developed a comprehensive approach to atrocity prevention and was collaborating with international partners on this issue.

In December 2025 the Labour government said the hub had been “integrated into the Conflict and Atrocity Prevention Department in 2024”.[20] It said the hub continued to provide “analytical and advisory support in a range of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office’s atrocity prevention and response workstreams”.

In January 2026, Baroness Chapman of Darlington, minister of state (development) at the FCDO, said she wanted to underline the government’s commitment to atrocity prevention:

We will be strengthening our ability to identify risks at the earliest stage possible, deploying our global network of diplomatic and technical expertise and supporting efforts to save lives, uphold international law and break the cycle of violence that drives displacement and instability in the long term.[21]

The minister said the government would continue to work alongside international partners to prevent atrocities.

4. Concerns about the continuing prevalence of atrocities

July 2025 marked 20 years since the UK and other UN member states recognised the R2P principle.[22] Despite this, mass atrocities are reported to have occurred in most regions of the world since then.[23] In October 2022, the House of Commons International Development Committee (IDC) referred to evidence it had received that at least 37 countries had “experienced mass atrocities or had serious concerns raised that they could take place” between 2000 and 2020.[24] The IDC said this was despite the international community agreeing after the Holocaust that mass atrocities would “never again” occur.[25] In July 2025, UN Secretary-General António Guterres said the twentieth anniversary of the R2P principle was taking place at a time of “profound global turbulence”.[26] The secretary-general said the world was witnessing the highest number of armed conflicts since the end of the second world war. He said these conflicts were marked by increasing numbers of identity-based violence, widespread violations of international humanitarian law and human rights law, and deepening impunity.[27]

5. Calls for a UK atrocity prevention strategy

Given the global concerns about mass atrocities still taking place, some parliamentarians and external stakeholders have called on the government to do more on atrocity prevention. This has included calls for the government to publish a national atrocity prevention strategy.

For example, the IDC launched an inquiry in December 2021 to examine the UK government’s efforts to prevent mass atrocities globally.[28] In its inquiry report, the IDC acknowledged the various steps the government had taken since 2019 to clarify the UK’s approach to preventing mass atrocities.[29] However, the IDC said that more should be done. Its central recommendation was for the government to develop a cross-departmental strategy for preventing and responding to mass atrocities, both within and outside of conflicts.[30] The IDC argued that a strategy could help “drive greater coherence between existing policy initiatives on human protection” while also clarifying the metrics by which the UK will measure the success of its efforts.[31] This recommendation echoed previous calls made by the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee in September 2018 and July 2021.[32]

The IDC published the then Conservative government’s response to its report in January 2023.[33] The government disagreed with the IDC’s central recommendation, stating that it could not commit to developing a written strategy at that time.[34] However, the government acknowledged the importance of a cross-government approach to atrocity prevention. It stated that the mass atrocity prevention hub was working across a range of workstreams and within government to deliver and monitor progress on preventing atrocities. Additionally, it said the government would continue to both “bolster monitoring capabilities” and work with international partners to help prevent mass atrocities.[35]

Since the 2024 general election, the Labour government has said it has no plans to develop a national strategy on atrocity prevention.[36] However, commenting in October 2024, the then minister of state for development, Anneliese Dodds, said the FCDO had been “strengthening monitoring capabilities to identify and escalate atrocity risks before they occur”. The minister said the government would continue to develop its capacity to respond to atrocity risks by drawing on expertise across government, civil society, academia, bilateral partners and multilateral organisations.

Since then, calls for the government to do more on atrocity prevention have continued. This led to the formation of a Standing Group on Atrocity Crimes in July 2025.[37] The standing group is formed of international lawyers, policy advisers and parliamentarians from a range of parties and groups.[38] The standing group has argued the UK government “lacks a cohesive atrocity prevention and response strategy”. According to its website, the standing group’s primary goal is “to create a unified, effective, and enforceable atrocity prediction, prevention and response strategy within the UK government, aligned with existing international legal obligations”.

6. Calls to reform the UK’s legal framework

The Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR), which Lord Alton has chaired since December 2024, has called on the government to address “inconsistencies” within the UK’s legal framework applicable to international crimes.[39]

The JCHR said it believed the UK’s legislative framework was inconsistent and created barriers to accountability for certain international crimes.[40] At present, the JCHR stated that domestic law provided for a limited form of jurisdiction over the crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.[41] It said UK authorities could only prosecute for these offences if they had been committed by UK nationals, UK residents, or persons subject to service personnel jurisdiction. The committee argued this left an “impunity gap” and recommended the government address the issue by removing the nationality and residency requirements to allow the UK to exercise universal jurisdiction over these international crimes.[42]

The government did not accept the JCHR’s recommendation.[43] In its official response, the government said the UK’s policy on universal jurisdiction was based on the principle that investigations and prosecutions should take place close to where crimes occur. It argued this allowed for better access to evidence and witnesses. The government also said the question of whether universal jurisdiction should apply to a particular crime was best approached collaboratively, between states through treaties. Additionally, it stated the most serious international crimes not covered by the UK’s universal jurisdiction policy were generally subject to the jurisdiction of international courts and tribunals such as the International Criminal Court. The government said international courts were better placed to prosecute such offences where they are not being dealt with by the relevant domestic authorities.

In February 2026, Lord Alton moved an amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill that would have given effect to the JCHR’s recommendation to allow the UK to exercise universal jurisdiction over the international crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.[44] However, Home Office minister Lord Hanson of Flint said the government did not support the amendment, arguing it was unnecessary to extend the scope of the UK’s policy on universal jurisdiction at that time.[45] Lord Alton subsequently withdrew the amendment.[46]

7. Read more

Image by photoangel on Freepik.

References

  1. United Nations, ‘Framework of analysis for atrocity crimes: A tool for prevention’, 2014. In certain contexts, the term has also been extended to include ethnic cleansing. Return to text
  2. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, article II. Return to text
  3. United Nations, ‘Framework of analysis for atrocity crimes’, 2014, p 1. Return to text
  4. As above. Return to text
  5. As above. Return to text
  6. House of Lords Library, ‘The international crime of genocide’, 24 July 2025. Return to text
  7. UN Office on Genocide Prevention and the Responsibility to Protect, ‘Definition of genocide and related crimes’, accessed 21 May 2026. Return to text
  8. UN Office on Genocide Prevention and the Responsibility to Protect, ‘Legal framework of genocide and related crimes’, accessed 21 May 2026. Return to text
  9. Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and Ministry of Defence, ‘Voluntary report on the implementation of international humanitarian law at domestic level’, October 2024, 2nd ed, pp 17 and 33. Return to text
  10. As above, pp 33–5. Return to text
  11. As above, pp 42–4. The International Criminal Court is intended to complement, not to replace, national criminal systems. It prosecutes cases only when states do not because they are either unwilling or unable to do so genuinely. Return to text
  12. UN Office on Genocide Prevention and the Responsibility to Protect, ‘About the responsibility to protect’, accessed 21 May 2026; and House of Lords Library, ‘Genocide: Bringing perpetrators to justice’, 21 May 2021. Return to text
  13. Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect, ‘What is R2P?’, accessed 21 May 2026. Return to text
  14. Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, ‘UK approach to preventing mass atrocities’, 16 July 2019. Return to text
  15. As above. Return to text
  16. Cabinet Office, ‘Global Britain in a competitive age: The integrated review of security, defence, development and foreign policy’, updated 2 July 2021. Return to text
  17. Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, ‘Letter to the chairs of the House of Lords International Relations and Defence Committee, House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee, and the House of Commons International Development Committee, ref the Office for Conflict, Stabilisation and Mediation’, 9 February 2022. Return to text
  18. Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, ‘FCDO response to ICAI recommendations on UK’s approaches to peacebuilding’, 26 January 2023. ICAI stands for the Independent Commission for Aid Impact. Return to text
  19. Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, ‘Human rights and democracy: The 2022 Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office report’, July 2023, CP 886, p 30. Return to text
  20. House of Lords, ‘Written question: Crimes against humanity (HL12019)’, 2 December 2025. Return to text
  21. HL Hansard, 20 January 2026, cols 219–20. Return to text
  22. United Nations, ‘“No society immune from risk of atrocity crimes”, secretary-general tells general assembly, noting prevention must begin at home’, 25 June 2025. Return to text
  23. House of Commons International Development Committee, ‘From Srebrenica to a safer tomorrow: Preventing future mass atrocities around the world’, 17 October 2022, HC 149 of session 2022–23, p 5. Return to text
  24. As above, p 7. Return to text
  25. As above. Return to text
  26. United Nations, ‘“No society immune from risk of atrocity crimes”, secretary-general tells general assembly, noting prevention must begin at home’, 25 June 2025. Return to text
  27. As above. Return to text
  28. House of Commons International Development Committee, ‘From Srebrenica to a safer tomorrow: Preventing future mass atrocities around the world’, 17 October 2022, HC 149 of session 2022–23, p 5. Return to text
  29. As above, pp 15–16. Return to text
  30. As above, p 25. Return to text
  31. As above, p 19. Return to text
  32. House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee, ‘Global Britain: The responsibility to protect and humanitarian intervention’, 10 September 2018, HC 1005 of session 2017–19, p 11; and House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee, ‘Never again: The UK’s responsibility to act on atrocities in Xinjiang and beyond’, 8 July 2021, HC 198 of session 2021–22, p 23. Return to text
  33. House of Commons International Development Committee, ‘From Srebrenica to a safer tomorrow: Preventing future mass atrocities around the world—government response to the committee’s third report’, 19 January 2023, HC 992 of session 2022–23. Return to text
  34. As above, p 4. Return to text
  35. As above. Return to text
  36. House of Commons, ‘Written question: Crimes against humanity (7150)’, 14 October 2024. Return to text
  37. Standing Group on Atrocity Crimes, ‘Standing Group on Atrocity Crimes: Home page’, accessed 21 May 2026. Return to text
  38. Members of the standing group include Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Labour), director of the International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute, as standing group chair, and Lord Alton of Liverpool who is on the standing group’s advisory board. Return to text
  39. Joint Committee on Human Rights, ‘Accountability for Daesh crimes’, 13 May 2025, HL Paper 121 of session 2024–26, pp 15–17. Return to text
  40. As above. Return to text
  41. As above, p 1. Return to text
  42. As above. Return to text
  43. Joint Committee on Human Rights, ‘Accountability for Daesh crimes: Government response’, 11 July 2025, HC 1211 of session 2024–26, pp 3–4. Return to text
  44. HL Hansard, 5 February 2026, cols 1784–9. Return to text
  45. HL Hansard, 5 February 2026, cols 1798–800. Return to text
  46. HL Hansard, 5 February 2026, cols 1800–2. Return to text