In vowing to prevent mass atrocities with “never again,” what are we really saying? In using the phrase as a call to prevent harm, are we perhaps helping to enable it?

These are the questions before Adrian Gallagher, Richard Illingworth, Euan Raffle, and Ben Willis in their paper, “The permanency of mass atrocities: the fallacy of ‘never again’?,” recently published in The British Journal of Politics and International Relations.

The authors, believing that the term had been insufficiently studied in international relations, even though it’s an everyday term for relevant parties ranging from political elites to academic to NGO workers. The phrase itself has what the authors dub “expanding parameters,” which is to say that it means different things at different times when coming from different people: some take the phrase to mean no more genocides, while others mean no more mass killing or “mass atrocities.”

The authors thus decided to analyze 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.” In looking at the quantitative problem, they consider an increase of mass atrocities in the world over time, and the reality that “even if we accept the claim that international human protection has become more common in the 21st century, the sheer number of mass atrocities outstrips our capacity to prevent them.”

The nuclear problem leads the authors to conclude that if a nuclear state perpetuates atrocities against their own people and is determined to do so, it is difficult to envision how stopping it from doing so is possible. They look at how regime change, if it is a consequence for perpetuating atrocities, can itself lead to negative consequences, which in turn has “catalyzed an unwillingness of states to use force in the name of atrocity prevention.”

The ability to fulfill the promise of “never again” is further complicated by by weak states and the fact that P5 countries have veto power (which is to say, the international community’s ability to prevent atrocities is limited to the extent to which these five powers all agree).

Ultimately, the authors “find the blanket call of ‘never again’ oversimplifies the complexity of mass atrocity prevention and creates an unrealistic goal.” Moving forward, they encourage those using the phrase to be specific about what they actually mean by invoking it. The authors do not, however, believe that the scope of “never again” should be reduced, even if such a thing were possible. In a move that may strike some as cynical, the authors end by asserting, “Rather than uphold the commitment of ‘never again’, we conclude that it would be better to acknowledge and adapt to the permanency of mass atrocities in IR.”

Sofia Guerra and Carla Montilla argued that the United States and China are putting the wider world at risk from both nuclear weapons and the climate crisis. They wrote that they believe the United States needs to turn to diplomacy to avert both disasters. “Rather than hurtling toward an arms race that could rapidly plunge the world into an even darker climate reality, these global challenges demand a paradigm shift,” they argued, adding that China, too, must hold itself accountable: “As China ascends to superpower status, it bears the responsibility of taking a lead in critical issues such as climate change and nuclear security.”

Daniel Ofman spoke to a Ukrainian family living in Lviv — and missing their hometown of Kharkiv. The couple, Igor Krolevets and Tatiana Krolevets, are both dentists, and own a clinic in Kharkiv, which, they stressed to Ofman, will always be the city they are from. But Russian forces have recently captured some of the Kharkiv region and increased their bombardment of the city itself. They still maintain the clinic in Kharkiv, despite it being more dangerous than Lviv, though now Igor returns to visit with less frequency. His wife, for her part, said they would both return if the war were to end tomorrow. 

Orla Barry wrote about how some Dutch residents are turning to new, different methods to find homes during a housing shortage. The Netherlands is currently dealing with one of Europe’s worst housing crises. Housing prices in the country have doubled on average since 2013. The current governing coalition, led by the far-right Freedom Party, has promised construction, but many are skeptical as to whether it will be sufficient. Some — a group of 30 that has so far raised $10 million — are instead trying to build their own sustainable housing collective. Construction of the building is expected to to cost about $13 million in total. When it’s finished in 2025 or 2026 (provided construction goes according to plan), a third of the building will be set aside for social housing and housing for vulnerable groups.

Someone call Poland’s tourism board.

Post post-Soviet.

She thanked Jesus.

She’s a bee-liever.

Pi and lie.

He was evading taxes.