The permanency of mass atrocities: The fallacy of ‘never again’?
| Published date | 01 February 2025 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/13691481241241332 |
| Author | Adrian Gallagher,Richard Illingworth,Euan Raffle,Ben Willis |
| Date | 01 February 2025 |
https://doi.org/10.1177/13691481241241332
The British Journal of Politics and
International Relations
2025, Vol. 27(1) 310 –330
© The Author(s) 2024
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/13691481241241332
journals.sagepub.com/home/bpi
The permanency of mass
atrocities: The fallacy of
‘never again’?
Adrian Gallagher1, Richard Illingworth2,
Euan Raffle3 and Ben Willis4
Abstract
The terminology of ‘never again’ has been studied in Sociology, Cultural Studies and History,
yet remains neglected in International Relations. This is despite its centrality in debates over
humanitarian intervention, the Responsibility to Protect and mass atrocity prevention. To foster
a conversation over the term’s use, this article uses an interdisciplinary approach to show how
the meaning of ‘never again’ has changed over time. Building on this, we analyse five real-world
problems: (1) the quantitative problem, (2) the nuclear problem, (3) the regime change problem,
(4) the weak state problem and (5) the P5 problem. We find the blanket call of ‘never again’
oversimplifies the complexity of mass atrocity prevention and creates an unrealistic goal. Going
forward, we call on those invoking the phrase to explain what they mean by it and why they are
using it as part of a broader reassessment of the term’s use in International Relations.
Keywords
genocide, mass atrocities, never again, responsibility to protect
Introduction
Mass atrocities (genocide, crimes against humanity, ethnic cleansing and war crimes)
around the world have brought the debate over mass atrocity prevention in an era of shift-
ing power balances to the forefront of International Relations (IR) (Gallagher and
Wheeler, 2021; Pattison, 2021; Peak, 2023; Welsh, 2019). Reflecting on this tragic reality,
the then Special Adviser of the United Nations (UN) Secretary-General on the
Responsibility to Protect (RtoP), George Okoth-Obbo proclaimed ‘“never again” needs
to be preserved and echoed’ (Special Adviser of the Secretary-General on the Responsibility
to Protect, 2022). The statement forms part of an everyday discourse in which political
elites, academics, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and journalists proclaim that
we should ‘never again’ let mass atrocities occur. In sharp contrast, speaking at the Global
1University of Leeds, School of Politics and International Studies, Leeds, UK
2University of Glasgow, School of Social and Political Sciences, Glasgow, UK
3Birmingham City University, School of Social Sciences, Birmingham, UK
4University of Plymouth, School of Society and Culture, Plymouth, UK
Corresponding author:
Euan Raffle, Birmingham City University, Curzon Building, 4 Cardigan Street, Birmingham, B4 7BD, UK.
Email: euan.raffle@bcu.ac.uk
1241332BPI0010.1177/13691481241241332The British Journal of Politics and International RelationsGallagher et al.
research-article2024
Original Article
Gallagher et al. 311
Network of RtoP Focal Points, the Director of the Simon-Skjodt Center for the Prevention
of Genocide at United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, Naomi Kikoler (2022), stated
that she finds the ‘never again’ label ‘unhelpful’. What we see, therefore, are two oppos-
ing views expressed by people equally committed to the prevention of mass atrocity
crimes. The former represents the mainstream view while the latter provides a fleeting
insight into what very few people ever explicitly acknowledge. Although there has been
research on ‘never again’ in relation to genocide in Sociology Baer and Sznaider, 2019
(2016), Cultural Studies (Popescu and Schult, 2019) and History (Kansteiner, 2017;
Kellner, 1994), there has been very little research in IR.1 This is surprising because the
phrase is commonly invoked in relation to prominent debates in IR over humanitarian
intervention, the Responsibility to Protect (RtoP) and mass atrocity prevention which
underlines the pressing need for research.
December 2023 marked the 75th anniversary of the 1948 UN Convention on the
Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. The Holocaust was so shocking
that humans have struggled ever since to capture the unimaginable horrors that occurred.
Martin Gilbert (1987: 419) explains that neither words, nor statistics, nor examples, can
adequately convey the suffering involved. We are reminded of Primo Levi’s (2009: 32–
33) discussion of the limitations of language:
Then for the first time we became aware that our language lacks words to express this offence,
the demolition of man. In a moment, with almost prophetic intuition, the reality was revealed to
us: we had reached the bottom. It is not possible to sink lower than this; no human condition is
more miserable that this nor could it be conceivably so.
Against this backdrop, we understand the plea of ‘never again’ as a shorthand to convey
a rallying cry to the world: humans should ‘never again’ let such crimes be perpetrated.
From this perspective, ‘never again’ is meant to mean something. Problematically, how-
ever, this something has changed significantly over time which raises a series of questions
that are difficult to answer precisely because ‘never again’ is rarely studied or debated.
First, what does ‘never again’ mean? As ‘The expanding parameters of never again’ sec-
tion explains, the remit of ‘never again’ expanded from (1) no more Holocausts, to (2) no
more genocides, to (3) no more mass killing, to (4) no more ‘mass atrocities’ which refers
to four crimes under the RtoP, genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and ethnic
cleansing. These are different objectives and highlight that the term should not be invoked
as though its meaning is fixed. Second, what are the implications of this expansion?
Although the need for enlarging the remit of [inter]national responsibility beyond that of
‘just’ preventing genocide has been discussed as part of the RtoP literature (Doyle, 2016),
there has been a silent creep in the ‘never again’ discourse as the term is linked to more and
more crises and contexts, yet this is very rarely, if ever mentioned.
This brings us onto the third question, ‘How is “never again” used?’ Does it represent
galvanising rhetoric, a realistic goal, an [unachievable] ideal type, an amalgamation of the
above or something else? Regarding the former, it may be that the label is used to try and
ignite political will in a world where studies show that this remains a fundamental barrier
to effective mass atrocity prevention (McLoughlin et al., 2023). If this is the case, research
on this issue is urgently needed. For example, there are studies on the RtoP which ques-
tion its value as a ‘rallying call’ yet argue that it is important as a ‘habit former’ (Bellamy,
2013); however, there is no such analysis in relation to ‘never again’. In terms of whether
it is a realistic goal, it may be that one’s answer to this question hinges on one’s answer to
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting