Details
Category: Publications
The Budapest Centre facilitated a series of dialogue between some members of the “far-right”, the Jewish, LGBTQ and Roma communities in the years of 2021-2022.

The experience of the series of dialogue has been published in the Hungarian Quarterly Review of Public Law in August 2023. The English version of the article you may wish to read here.

Details
Category: E-Youth Library
The General Assembly held a plenary meeting on the “Responsibility to Protect (R2P) and the prevention of genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity” on 26 and 30 June as part of the formal agenda of its 77th session. As states gathered in the General Assembly to discuss challenges and best practices for the implementation of R2P, this year’s debate took place amidst the backdrop of alarming global levels of violence, persecution and conflict, including the outbreak of new conflicts in countries like Sudan with a recent history of atrocities

  • Click here to read the summary on this year's UN General Assembly Plenary Meeting on the Responsibility to Protect.

The 53rd regular session of the UN Human Rights Council (HRC) was held in Geneva between 19 June and 14 July 2023. As the primary international human rights body, the HRC has the capacity to prevent and respond to mass atrocity crimes, as systematic violations and abuses of human rights can be an indicator of potential genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity or ethnic cleansing. 
                                                     
  • Click here to read the summary which highlights major outcomes and relevant dialogues as they relate to the Responsibility to Protect (R2P), atrocity prevention and populations at risk of atrocity crimes.
  • Watch here the interactive dialogue with the Special Adviser to the Secretary-General on the Prevention of Genocide, Alice Wairimu Nderitu, conducted at the 53rd Regular Session of Human Rights Council.

Source : Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect

Details
Category: E-Youth Library
Atrocity alert No. 356: Sudan, Democratic Republic of the Congo and Syria,
Publication of the Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect. Click here.

PUBLICATION - Drawing on the crisis in Cameroon as an example, this article discusses how practitioners—especially policy makers and non-governmental advocates—can use the Simon-Skjodt Center’s Tools for Atrocity Prevention resource to inform and strengthen policy responses to specific cases. Click here.

VIDEO  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBRtqCMcRHI


PUBLICATION - Shirin Anlen and Raquel Vazquez Llorente highlight the potential of using AI tools to support human rights advocacy and social critique, without neglecting appropriate caution and ethical considerations. Click here. 

PODCAST - Engaging with the powerful
Click here to access this episode from the Centre of Humanitarian Dialogue with Haile Menkerios.

PUBLICATION - Kristina Hook and Ernesto Verdeja examine how social media misinformation (SMM) can worsen political instability and legitimize mass atrocities. They propose several recommendations for the instability and atrocity prevention community. Click here.


Details
Category: Events

1ReminderDialogue in Political Affairs WEBINAR TUESDAY 13 JULY 2023 page 0001 1

Watch here.


In his introductory intervention Mr Harald Weilnböck (Cultures Interactive, 6:58 - 25:05) argues for the need to replace the concept of extremism and term of prevention in favour of dialogue, education and skill building. He explained while dialogue builds bridges and connections, extremism and prevention tend inspire a habitus of intercepting, fighting and countering, while looking for dangers and enemies, hence tends to break off potential bridges and connections. It often even generates discrimination. Mr. Weilnböck points out we need a change of paradigm in order to better support democracy. Furthermore, Mr. Weilnböck shortly argued for the alternative concept of Group focused enmity/hatred, and Authorianism used in Germany and shared some good practice standards. 

Mr. Mario Giro  (29:04 - 45:45) calling himself as non-institutional mediator gave an overview of his peace making activities. He explained through concrete cases the difficulties and weaknesses of  track 1.0 and track 2.0 diplomacy, argued for the combination of the state-guaranteed diplomacy and the flexible peace initiatives of the civil societies and spoke about the dilemmas of track 1.5 diplomacy where he was involved through Sant’Egidio Community. By referring to various conflict situations, he questioned the concept of ''war as a solution for conflicts'' and shared some lessons learned during his activities whilst highlighted the differences between peace agreeements and societal reconciliation. 

Mr. Steinar Brynt (48:45 - 1:13:10) spoke about the dilemmas and similarities of the war of thenineties in Western Balkans and the war between Russia and Ukraine since 2014. He pointed to the fact that through the intensification of the conflict situation between the two countries dialogue became increasingly difficult and ultimately stopped. He touched upon issues of nation states, revival of traditionalism, possibilities and limitations of dialogue, the relationship building methodology, why we do not embrace dialogue, can dialogue be counterproductive under conflict and the need for finding a common language with those representing other concepts. 

Mr. Gyorgy Tatar (1:35:05 - 1:48:35) highlighted the background and main objectives of the draft Statement circulated prior to the webinar. He initiated the establishment of an international Alliance of Dialogue for institutionalization of the tool of dialogue in international and national decision- making processes and inclusion of dialogue-related issues in the national educational curricula as well as the enhancement of collaboration of dialogue practitioners. Mr. Tatar invited the participants to give feedback on the initiative in the next few weeks.  

Details
Category: Allience for Dialogue

Draft Statement 'Alliance for Dialogue'
(launched during the Dialogue in Political Affairs webinar on July 13th 2023)


WHY

Challenges in international affairs

The post-Cold War era and unipolarity are over. The rising new world brings a wide variety of values in the forefront of international relations and increases the risks of conflicts and wars. The peaceful shaping of the new world order, growing competition and rivalry necessitate the application of additional, new communication tool between states seeking to pursue their own values and demands the introduction of additional elements in the multilateral decision-making mechanisms for jointly setting the rules which handle tensions, address emerging challenges and build a safe and free world. 


Challenges in societal affairs

Regardless of social systems, the available toolkits of states and decision-making mechanisms are not sufficient to sustainably manage complex societal transformations, growing polarization, societal developments, inequalities, and effectively handle extreme views, prevent polarization in the societies, address adverse sentiments, ensure long-term peace and understanding between citizens with conflicting values and build up dialogue capabilities within population, including the youth.
The challenges are of growing significance in the era of digitalization that increasingly amplifies polarization and provides space for extreme views, radicalization and hatred.   


Lack of Mechanisms and Cooperation

The challenges could be addressed effectively by translating the culture of dialogue into daily practice. At present, however, dialogues are conducted randomly, on ad hoc basis at both national and international levels. Development of local capacities, including the training of teachers is exceptional. Moreover, the dialogue practitioners act in relative isolation, their community is fragmented.  Although dialogue is an instrument for ensuring cohesion, inclusion and prevention it does not constitute an organic part of either the decision-making procedures or the national education. Neither national nor international mechanisms of dialogue are in place. That is particularly relevant in the case of entities who represent controversial values, perspectives, let alone views considered as extreme by the public discourse and mainstream politicians.


WHAT

“Controversial dialogue” often is a specific communication on frequently complex issues which likely generate friction, sometimes even hatred, polarize communities, undermine cohesion and may potentially lead to radicalization and extremism.
“Controversial dialogue” may help to bridge controversies and establish communication links to explore the objective cores of diverse and conflicting identities, views and motivations, the background of adverse sentiments and improve hostile human relations.
“Controversial dialogue” may also be a process consisting of numerous “dialogue events” which lead to a peaceful environment and co-habitation, and prepare the soil for constructive negotiations to find sustainable solutions of complex problems when the conflict of identities fails to reach consensus.
It does not aim to reach agreements and consensus! “Barely”, it helps build shared society!
Not all polite and peaceful communication is dialogue let alone “controversial dialogue”.


WHO

“Controversial dialogue” is conducted between individuals and entities representing diverse, confrontational, occasionally extreme identities, ideologies, values and views. The “dialogue events” are designed and implemented by dialogue facilitators. 


HOW

We initiate to establish the “Alliance for Dialogue” with the view to create a driving force aimed at establishing a “culture of dialogue” by setting up decision making mechanisms which incorporate methods of dialogue and pool the dispersed and isolated dialogue activities, capacity building and resources. 

The “Alliance” will:
  • Advocate for and assist in institutionalizing “controversial dialogue” in multilateral diplomacy by introducing dialogue mechanisms in the UN and the concerned international and regional institutions which will support and help prepare decisions touching upon fundamental values, human rights and cultural particularities. This instrument will operate as the entry hall/back door room of interstate negotiations where experts free of any governmental mandate explore the cores, motivations and backgrounds of controversial views, design shared visions and prepare recommendations for the decisionmakers.
  • Advocate for and assist in building up decision making mechanisms at national level which include the institution of “controversial dialogue” to help address complex challenges, manage societal transformations, counter conflictual attitudes and adverse trends, and facilitate building up shared and cohesive societies.
  • Advocate for including the culture of dialogue, practicing of “soft skills” (listening to each other, encouraging understanding, respect, appreciation for others etc.) in national curricula of education.
  • Establish an international network which will promote the culture of dialogue and dialogic controversy by sharing knowledge, expertise, experience, enhance the interaction between dialogue facilitators and pool the available resources in the field of dialogue.
The “Alliance” will start acting on voluntary basis as an open-process movement composed of individuals and civil organizations dedicated to the culture of dialogue, working with controversies. Over time, pending on the outcomes, political will and resources, the movement would be transformed into a legal entity.
This initiative seeks to contribute to and complement the implementation of the concept of “Shared Society” supported by the OECD and Club de Madrid and the initiative “Intercultural Dialogue” launched by UNESCO. 


ROADMAP

The core team of the “Alliance” prepares a draft statement to raise awareness of the need for institutionalizing “controversial dialogue” and enhancing its dissemination.
The statement will be presented during the webinar to be organized as a follow up of the webinar last January (https://www.genocideprevention.eu/en/events/476-stop-hatred-by-dialogue) and a reflection period will be launched; 

Mid-July
Activists and dialogue practitioners will be invited to support the movement and make inputs;

End September
The finalized statement will be submitted by the core team to the Secretariat of the UN Secretary General;

End October
The statement will be presented/sent to the relevant regional organizations;

November onwards
The next steps will be decided on the basis of the outcomes of the steps indicated above in the framework of a webinar.

Details
Category: E-Youth Library
Atrocity alert No. 354: Children and Armed Conflict, and Mali
Publication of the Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect. Click here.

Atrocity Alert No. 353: Syria, India and Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territory
Publication of the Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect. Click here.

PODCAST - practical skills
The art of creating safe spaces for difficult conversations. 
Click here to access this episode from the Oslo Forum with Annette Weber

ZOOMING on ten conflicts shaking the world this year.
VIDEO 

PUBLICATION - The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum is deeply concerned about the dire risk of genocide in Darfur, Sudan. Check here.
More information about the recent developments in Sudan here and here.

PUBLICATION - In this article, Marco Respinti sheds light on the mass atrocities which took in Bangladesh at the beginning of the 1970s, which remain to this day, unacknowledged. Click here. 

Details
Category: Events

Prominent practitioners shared experiences on the significance and methodologies of dialogue as well as the challenges of dialogue facilitation in the Middle East, Western Balkans, Cyprus, and Germany.

The examples highlighted dialogue as an effective tool for preventing extremism and transforming hostile and complex conflict situations into sustainable peaceful processes.

Check out the programme here!

Watch the recording of the event here

Details
Category: Allience for Dialogue
Dialogue Forum. Series of Interviews with Experts
This series of interviews aims at shedding a light on the contemporary challenges to implement the Responsibility to Protect.
By that we continue our effort to provide space for scholars and practitioners to express their views on even controversial issues which impede the translation of the RtoP into action. Ultimately here, our goal is to provide space for the views of scholars and practitioners on the role of dialogue in bridging the conflict between universal human rights values and cultural relativism from the perspective of mass atrocity prevention.
 

The Budapest Centre for Dialogue and Mass Atrocities Prevention shares herewith an interview with researcher Dr. Thomas Peak on the contemporary challenges in mobilizing actors of the Global South to implement the Responsibility to Protect.
This interview was made by Dr. Gyorgy Tatar, President of BCDMAP, and Dr. Gary Uzonyi, the senior faculty research fellow of BCDMAP.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPWdJGfuWRw



In this second episode of the series of interviews, we had the opportunity to exchange with Dr. Karen Smith, the UN Special Adviser on the Responsibility to Protect between 2019-2021
This interview was made by Dr. Gyorgy Tatar, President of BCDMAP, and Dr. Gary Uzonyi, the senior faculty research fellow of BCDMAP.
We elaborate on topics such as; the influence of the changing global world order on the implementation of RtoP, contemporary challenges of RtoP,
the role of dialogue in advancing consensus on RtoP between Global North and South and the skepticism of the Global South on the activities of the International Criminal Court.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3BuFmXogLw