Moderator: Dr. Lloyd Axworthy
Panellists: Prof. David Scheffer, Chief Prosecutor Luis Moreno Ocampo,
The President of ICG Gareth Evans, Dr. Brigalia Bam,
The High Commissioner on National Minorities, Amb. Rolf Ekéus

The second panel addressed the responsibility to prevent genocide from a number of different aspects; including the establishment and implementation of new rules and procedures. Among the institutions and instruments proposed, the importance of the ICC, particularly its deterring effect, was stressed.

Panellists argued that the principles of state sovereignty need to be redefined. States have a responsibility to protect the people, but not the power. One answer to the call for new principles was the establishment of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, which, in its report, published in 2001, among other things proposes a set of guidelines for military intervention for human protection purposes: 1) just cause; 2) right intention; 3) last resort; 4) proportional means; 5) reasonable prospects; and 6) right authority. It was noted that the failure to establish and abide by certain rules leaves the field open to no other alternative than ad hoc intervention.

To allow for a more accurate and comprehensive discussion, a proposal was made to change the terminology at hand. The terms atrocity crime (including genocide, crimes against humanity and serious war crimes) and atrocity law were introduced.

While refining mechanisms for preventing genocides from taking place, sufficient attention and resources need to be focused on finding an immediate stop to the current and recurring atrocities. There is a need for a preparedness and willingness to bypass conventional procedures and act unconventionally when needed: within hours not weeks. For prevention to be successful, timing is everything–‘the time to act is not today, not tomorrow, but yesterday.’

The ICC was presented as a key institution in the prevention of genocide, and is one of the most recent contributions to global efforts within this area. It is to be regarded as more than a court; it embodies the common will of ninety-two states, as well as citizens around the world. It will function most effectively with the cooperation and true support of state parties and other relevant actors.

Prevention is a shared responsibility between individual states and the international community. It is dependent on the idea of protecting not just one’s family and friends, but also the “other.” The rights of the enemy also warrant protection. Long-term structural prevention, including the protection of minority rights through promotion of democracy and human rights, is of paramount importance. The OSCE, in particular the High Commissioner on National Minorities (HCNM), was highlighted as a valuable and unique instrument in this regard.

A number of recommendations on how to enhance our international capabilities for the prevention of genocide, both on an institutional and societal level, were offered:

• call for new mechanisms at the UN, including the proposals put forward by the UNSG; making greater use of the Secretary General’s Group of Eminent Persons; and setting up a new subsidiary body to the Security Council to bring to attention issues requiring foresight and imminent action;
• encourage governments to explore the possibility to establish Atrocity Prevention Interagency Groups, with liaison functions to the UN;
• facilitate the possibility to deploy rapid reaction military forces to atrocity zones; • encourage the UN Security Council to refer the Ituri case (DR Congo) to the ICC, using its possibility under Chapter VII;
• create fora and spaces for dialogue for everyone, not just policy makers;
• ensure that women are included in both political processes and societal dialogue;
• include, empower and protect NGOs as key partners;
• incorporate the values of humanity as a priority of globalization;
• empower educational facilities (universities) for research purposes in developing countries.