Combating Atrocity Crimes, Crimes Against Humanity and Genocide

Baroness D'Souza Excerpts

Thursday 4th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness D’Souza (CB)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a patron of Redress. No one has done more in this House to persuade Governments to act decisively to prevent and stop atrocity crimes than the noble Lord, Lord Alton. His efforts, and the efforts of others—and here I must mention the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws—have ceaselessly attempted to insert amendments to any likely or relevant Bill that comes before this House. For example, amendments were tabled to what became the International Criminal Court Act 2001, the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 and, of course, to the Trade Act 2021. They failed despite strenuous efforts on the part of my noble friend and widespread support in this House. For this, we all owe the noble Lord and his colleagues a debt of gratitude. But there is still a long way to go. The need for reform is long-standing and reflects a structural gap in UK law.

We have heard in clear terms what obligations the UK shoulders as a signatory to the international treaties that address atrocities. We know that Governments do not have to wait for a full-blown genocide, as happened in Rwanda in 1994. The onus is on Governments to act when there is a serious risk of genocide. The UK has not undertaken such preventive actions in recent years. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, also reminds us that we must consider war crimes, crimes against humanity, and the UK’s obligations arising from the UN responsibility to protect commitment, which was adopted by member states in 2025.

However, between 2000 and 2020, almost 40 countries experienced mass atrocities or serious concerns that they could take place imminently. Currently, atrocity crimes are at the centre of four UK foreign policy crises: Ukraine, Sudan, Israel and Palestine, and Iran. However, experience demonstrates that Governments—and perhaps too this Government—tend to ignore the facts of atrocity, such as the Daesh and Burmese military atrocities, which were reported by the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee, or the recommendations in the reports from the Joint Committee on Human Rights, and the International Development Committee’s 2023 report on Srebrenica.

What might be the underlying reasons for this inaction? We have heard some of the answers. A straightforward answer could be that Governments sometimes go to extreme lengths to avoid taking actions to stop genocide and other atrocities, in part due to the international diplomatic and economic risks they entail. For example, it is reported that, during the Rwanda massacres, USA officials were advised not to use the term “genocide” precisely because to do so would have immediately invoked the duty to intervene.

For many years in the UK, a key mechanism for justifying such inaction has been the argument of who is competent to determine the fact of genocide—deemed, by the UK at least, to be a legal definition issued only by a ruling from the courts. However, in today’s world of information transfer, the evidence of genocide and other atrocities is recorded, verified and documented by any number of competent, internationally recognised bodies, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, and several international human rights organisations, including well-attested local human rights organisations. If the Geneva conventions require action on the basis of a serious threat of genocide, there is absolutely no scarcity of reliable information. Once again, we ask the Government to return to remedies put forward in recent years and reconsider their adoption.

A Genocide Determination Bill, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, in 2022, empowered groups affected by atrocities, or representative organisations, to apply to UK courts for a judicial determination of genocide or the risk thereof. That Bill aimed to enable the courts, as a neutral arbiter, to make interim determinations of genocide and thereby get a faster response. That Bill, and others, failed due to a lack of time, among other reasons. Undeterred, the noble Lord has, as we have heard today, once again tabled a Genocide Determination Bill this morning. We wish him every possible success, and we will give him every possible support.

The Joint Committee on Human Rights produced two reports in 2025 recommending the adoption and incorporation of universal jurisdiction—a hugely important aspect of law in the fight against genocide. The adoption and incorporation of universal jurisdiction, as an amendment to the International Criminal Court Act 2001, would remove the requirement that alleged perpetrators of atrocities be British citizens or residents, which, in effect, allows Britain to be a safe haven for Putin’s henchmen, or indeed the Taliban. The principle of universal jurisdiction has yet to be incorporated into UK law. These reports and draft legislation offer varied mechanisms for preventive action.

Overall, we do not yet have a clear national strategy for the prevention of atrocities, which we desperately need. Such a strategy might include strengthening FCDO capacity to detect early warning indicators and to develop mechanisms for interventions. Among these must be the willingness to confront authoritarian states and anti-democratic statecraft as a national security priority. The goal must be to embed clear and transparent thresholds of threat and the triggers for action, and, in so doing, provide a lead for other departments—for example, the department for trade—in considering its own policies and action.

I want to end with a quote from a paper entitled A Dangerous Moment for UK Atrocity Prevention Policy from the organisation, Protection Approaches:

“Strategy, ambition and opportunity must triumph over hesitancy, absence of clarity regarding the UK policy position, lack of confidence and a reluctance to put forward creative policy options that centre on saving lives”.