What is the primary focus of the ICHRGMV - 26?

The conference focuses on human rights, genocide, and mass violence, providing a platform for academic discourse and collaboration.

What kind of format will the conference follow?

The conference is structured as an academic event, featuring presentations, discussions, and networking opportunities for researchers and practitioners.

International Conference on Human Rights, Genocide, and Mass Violence (ICHRGMV - 26)

Name: International Conference on Human Rights, Genocide, and Mass Violence (ICHRGMV - 26)
Start: 2026-08-20T00:00:00Z
End: 2026-08-21T00:00:00Z
Location: Kampala

Aug 20–21, 2026Kampala, UgandaIn-person

Starts in 12 daysRegistration open

The International Conference on Human Rights, Genocide, and Mass Violence (ICHRGMV - 26) is set to convene in Kampala, Uganda. This event offers a critical platform for academics, researchers, and practitioners to engage with pressing issues surrounding human rights, the prevention of genocide, and the understanding of mass violence. Participants will have the opportunity to present their work, exchange ideas, and foster collaborations aimed at advancing scholarship and practical solutions in these crucial fields.

Committees & topics

Topics
The Global Human Rights Regime · Genocide and the Responsibility to Prevent · Mass Violence and Atrocity Crimes · Conflict Resolution and International Mediation · Patterns and Drivers of Political Violence · The Evolution of Human Rights Norms · Genocide Prevention Strategies · Transitional Justice Mechanisms

Why it matters

The conference's focus on human rights, genocide, and mass violence is particularly pertinent in the current global climate. These issues continue to challenge international peace and security, demanding rigorous academic inquiry and robust policy responses. By bringing together diverse perspectives, the ICHRGMV - 26 aims to deepen our collective understanding of the root causes, dynamics, and consequences of such atrocities.

Furthermore, the event's location in Kampala, UGA, provides a unique geographical context. Africa has experienced its share of conflicts and human rights challenges, making it a relevant setting for discussions on prevention, intervention, and post-conflict justice. The insights shared at this conference can contribute significantly to ongoing efforts to protect vulnerable populations and uphold human dignity worldwide.

How to prepare

Delegates preparing for the ICHRGMV - 26 should focus on developing a comprehensive understanding of historical and contemporary instances of human rights abuses, genocide, and mass violence. Familiarity with various theoretical frameworks for analyzing these phenomena will be beneficial. Consider how different international legal instruments and mechanisms apply to these situations, and be prepared to discuss their effectiveness and limitations.

Effective participation will also require strong presentation and communication skills. Attendees should be ready to articulate their research findings clearly, engage in constructive debate, and contribute to a collaborative environment. Reviewing relevant academic literature and policy reports will ensure that contributions are well-informed and contribute meaningfully to the conference's objectives. Consider exploring lessons such as "Engagement Strategies" or "Dynamic Analysis" to refine your approach to complex topics.

Country perspectives

Where the most-relevant 5 countries stand on the core issues in play. Click through for the full country profile.

Uganda

As the host nation, UGA plays a crucial role in facilitating discussions on human rights and conflict prevention within an African context.

Role in topic

UGA provides the geographical and historical backdrop for the conference, offering a regional perspective on issues of human rights, conflict, and post-conflict recovery. Its experiences and ongoing efforts in peacebuilding and justice will be central to many discussions.

United States

The USA often champions human rights globally and has a significant role in international interventions and justice mechanisms.

Role in topic

The USA is a major actor in international human rights advocacy and has historically been involved in responses to genocide and mass violence. Its perspective often centers on international law, humanitarian intervention, and accountability mechanisms.

China

CHN's perspective on human rights often emphasizes state sovereignty and non-interference, presenting a different approach to international intervention.

Role in topic

CHN's growing global influence means its stance on human rights and state sovereignty is increasingly relevant. Its approach to international relations often prioritizes non-interference, which can impact discussions on intervention in cases of mass violence.

Russia

RUS often emphasizes national security and state interests in its human rights discourse, frequently clashing with Western perspectives.

Role in topic

RUS's foreign policy often prioritizes national security and a multi-polar world order, which can lead to different interpretations of international human rights norms and the legitimacy of interventions in situations of mass violence.

Germany

DEU is a strong proponent of international human rights law and has a historical commitment to addressing past atrocities.

Role in topic

With its historical context, DEU is a leading voice in advocating for international human rights, justice, and the prevention of genocide. Its experience informs its strong commitment to multilateralism and accountability.

Topics & background

The background behind each topic and the actors that shape it.

The Global Human Rights Regime

The modern human rights regime traces its origins to the aftermath of World War II, when the scale of Nazi atrocities prompted the international community to codify a set of universal protections. The 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the UN General Assembly, established for the first time that the treatment of individuals by their own governments was a matter of legitimate international concern. The two subsequent covenants — the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), both opened for signature in 1966 — gave the Declaration binding legal form and together constitute the International Bill of Human Rights. Over the following decades, the regime expanded through thematic conventions on torture, racial discrimination, women's rights, children's rights, and the rights of persons with disabilities, supported by treaty bodies, special rapporteurs, and regional courts in Europe, the Americas, and Africa. The 1993 Vienna Declaration reaffirmed the universality and indivisibility of rights, and in 2006 the UN Human Rights Council replaced the discredited Commission on Human Rights, introducing the Universal Periodic Review. Today the system faces sustained pressure. Authoritarian governments and some democratic states contest the universality of rights as Western or interventionist, civil society space is shrinking in dozens of countries, and the rise of generative AI, mass surveillance, and climate displacement is testing whether existing instruments are adequate. Debates over selectivity in enforcement, double standards in Council membership, and the politicization of country-specific resolutions continue to shape the regime's credibility.

Key players

Genocide and the Responsibility to Prevent

The crime of genocide was defined in the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, drafted in response to the Holocaust and largely shaped by Polish jurist Raphael Lemkin, who coined the term. The Convention defines genocide as specific acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group, and obligates state parties to prevent and punish such acts. Despite the Convention's adoption, the Cold War paralyzed enforcement, and genocides in Cambodia (1975-79), Iraqi Kurdistan (1988), Rwanda (1994), and Srebrenica (1995) unfolded with limited or belated international response. The Rwandan and Bosnian tragedies catalyzed the creation of the ICTR and ICTY, whose jurisprudence clarified the legal elements of genocide, and contributed to the establishment of the International Criminal Court in 2002. The 2005 World Summit endorsed the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine, affirming that states have a duty to protect their populations from genocide and that the international community must act when they fail. Yet the application of R2P has been uneven, with the 2011 Libya intervention later cited by Russia and China as a cautionary example. Contemporary debates focus on ongoing situations — including South Africa's case against Israel at the ICJ over Gaza, allegations against Myanmar regarding the Rohingya, and characterizations of atrocities in Sudan's Darfur region, Xinjiang, and Tigray. Questions about evidentiary thresholds for proving genocidal intent, the politicization of the label, and the gap between recognition and prevention remain central.

Key players

Mass Violence and Atrocity Crimes

Mass violence encompasses a broader category than genocide, including war crimes, crimes against humanity, ethnic cleansing, and large-scale political violence that may not meet the strict legal definition of genocide but nonetheless involve systematic attacks on civilian populations. The legal framework grew from the Nuremberg and Tokyo tribunals after 1945, the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their 1977 Additional Protocols, and the Rome Statute of 1998, which gave the International Criminal Court jurisdiction over the four core international crimes. The post-Cold War period saw both the proliferation of internal armed conflicts and the development of international and hybrid tribunals to address mass atrocities in the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Cambodia, and Lebanon. The UN Office on Genocide Prevention and the Responsibility to Protect, established in 2004 and expanded in 2007, developed an analytical framework of risk factors for atrocity crimes. Civil society groups such as the Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect and academic monitors track early warning indicators including dehumanizing rhetoric, militia mobilization, and discriminatory legal measures. Current flashpoints include Sudan's RSF-SAF war with documented ethnic targeting in Darfur, the war in Ukraine with widespread reports of war crimes, the conflict in Gaza, ongoing violence in Myanmar, the Sahel insurgencies, and cartel-driven violence in parts of Latin America. Debates center on the limits of UN Security Council action when permanent members are implicated, the role of universal jurisdiction prosecutions in national courts, and how to address non-state armed groups.

Key players

Conflict Resolution and International Mediation

Modern conflict resolution practice emerged from the failures of the League of Nations and was institutionalized in Chapter VI of the UN Charter, which obliges parties to seek pacific settlement of disputes through negotiation, mediation, arbitration, and judicial settlement. The Cold War constrained UN mediation, but the 1990s saw an expansion of peacemaking through the UN Department of Political Affairs (now DPPA), regional organizations, and track-two diplomacy. Landmark processes such as the Oslo Accords, the Dayton Agreement, the Good Friday Agreement, and the Comprehensive Peace Agreement in Sudan illustrated both the possibilities and limits of negotiated settlements. Research since the 1990s, including by the Uppsala Conflict Data Program and the Human Security Report, has shown that mediated settlements have a higher chance of durability when they include inclusive participation, security guarantees, power-sharing arrangements, and transitional justice components. The 2015 UN review of peace operations (HIPPO) and the Sustaining Peace agenda of 2016 reframed prevention as a core UN function, while regional bodies such as the African Union, ECOWAS, ASEAN, and the OSCE took on increasing mediation responsibility. The current landscape is more difficult. Major-power rivalry has paralyzed parts of the Security Council, the average duration of armed conflicts has lengthened, and the share of conflicts ending in negotiated settlement has declined relative to the 1990s. Active mediation tracks include Sudan (Jeddah and AU-IGAD processes), Yemen, the Horn of Africa, the South Caucasus, and various Sahel conflicts, with growing involvement from Gulf states, Turkey, and China as alternative mediators.

Key players

Patterns and Drivers of Political Violence

Political violence — encompassing armed conflict, terrorism, communal violence, state repression, and one-sided violence against civilians — has been studied systematically since the 1960s, with quantitative datasets such as the Correlates of War project and later the Uppsala Conflict Data Program providing the empirical basis for the field. After a sustained decline in battle deaths from the end of the Cold War through the mid-2000s, organized violence has risen sharply since 2011, driven by the Syrian war, the expansion of jihadist insurgencies in the Sahel and Lake Chad basin, and the return of high-intensity interstate war with Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2022. Research has identified recurring risk factors including weak state capacity, horizontal inequalities between identity groups, contested elections, natural resource shocks, and spillovers from neighboring conflicts. The proliferation of non-state armed groups, the use of private military companies such as Wagner and its successors, and the weaponization of digital platforms to spread incitement have complicated both prevention and response. Sexual and gender-based violence in conflict, captured in UN Security Council Resolution 1820 and subsequent resolutions, remains a persistent feature. Debates today center on whether the international system is entering a sustained period of higher conflict intensity, how to address violence in 'grey zone' situations short of war, the role of climate stress as a threat multiplier, and the adequacy of counter-terrorism frameworks that often coexist uneasily with human rights obligations.

Key players

The Evolution of Human Rights Norms

The evolution of international human rights norms has unfolded in successive waves. The first generation, rooted in Enlightenment liberalism and codified after 1945, centered on civil and political rights — life, liberty, due process, expression, and political participation — as expressed in the UDHR and the ICCPR. A second generation emphasized economic, social, and cultural rights, reflecting both social-democratic European traditions and the priorities of newly independent post-colonial states, and was codified in the ICESCR. A third generation, including rights to development, self-determination, and a healthy environment, emerged from Global South advocacy in the 1970s and 1980s. The end of the Cold War accelerated normative innovation: the 1993 Vienna Conference affirmed indivisibility and universality, the ad hoc tribunals advanced individual criminal accountability, and the 2005 endorsement of R2P reframed sovereignty as responsibility. Subsequent decades produced new instruments on disability rights, enforced disappearances, indigenous peoples, and business and human rights, alongside the recognition by the UN General Assembly in 2022 (Resolution 76/300) of the right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment. The field now faces contestation over the scope of rights in the digital age, including privacy, freedom of expression online, and algorithmic accountability following the 2024 OHCHR report on AI and human rights. Authoritarian states promote alternative framings centered on sovereignty and development, while debates over whether rights should extend explicitly to future generations, non-human entities, or specific vulnerable groups continue to drive normative change.

Key players

Genocide Prevention Strategies

Genocide prevention as a distinct policy field crystallized after the failures of Rwanda and Srebrenica in the 1990s. The 2004 Stockholm International Forum on the Prevention of Genocide and the creation of the UN Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide that same year marked the institutional turning point, followed by the 2005 World Summit endorsement of the Responsibility to Protect. The UN's analytical Framework of Analysis for Atrocity Crimes, published in 2014, identified eight common risk factors and six specific to each atrocity crime, providing a structured tool for early warning. Prevention strategies are typically grouped into three tiers: upstream prevention addressing structural drivers such as discrimination, exclusion, and weak rule of law; midstream prevention targeting acute risk through diplomacy, sanctions, and mediation; and downstream measures including peace operations, humanitarian access, and, in extreme cases, coercive intervention. National mechanisms, such as the U.S. Atrocity Prevention Task Force established under the 2018 Elie Wiesel Act, and regional efforts including the African Union's Continental Early Warning System, complement UN tools. The Global Action Against Mass Atrocity Crimes (GAAMAC) network links states with national prevention architectures. Key contemporary debates concern how to act in cases where Security Council permanent members are implicated or veto action, how to balance prevention with respect for sovereignty, the role of social media monitoring and AI in early warning, and whether the R2P doctrine has been weakened by post-2011 backlash. Cases including Myanmar, Sudan, Xinjiang, and Ethiopia have tested the gap between sophisticated early warning and effective response.

Key players

Transitional Justice Mechanisms

Transitional justice refers to the set of judicial and non-judicial measures societies use to address legacies of mass human rights abuse, typically during or after transitions from authoritarianism or armed conflict. Its modern practice emerged from the post-1945 Nuremberg and Tokyo tribunals but was reshaped by the wave of democratic transitions in Latin America in the 1980s, in Eastern Europe after 1989, and in post-apartheid South Africa, whose 1995 Truth and Reconciliation Commission became a global reference point. The UN Secretary-General's 2004 report on the rule of law and transitional justice consolidated the field's four pillars: truth-seeking, criminal accountability, reparations, and institutional reform, with guarantees of non-recurrence as a unifying objective. Mechanisms have proliferated and diversified: international tribunals (ICTY, ICTR, ICC), hybrid courts (Sierra Leone, Cambodia, Kosovo), truth commissions in over forty countries, reparations programs, vetting and lustration processes, and memorialization initiatives. The Colombian Special Jurisdiction for Peace, established after the 2016 FARC agreement, represents one of the most ambitious recent designs, combining restorative and retributive elements. Universal jurisdiction prosecutions in European national courts, including landmark cases on Syria in Germany and Sweden, have opened additional pathways. Contemporary debates focus on sequencing — whether peace and justice must be traded off — the role of victim participation, the integration of gender perspectives, the limits of amnesty under international law, and how to address economic crimes and corruption alongside violations of physical integrity. Pending or active processes in Ukraine, Syria, The Gambia, Ethiopia, and Sri Lanka illustrate both innovation and the persistent obstacles of political will and resourcing.

Key players

Resources

News, lessons, and country profiles to prep for International Conference on Human Rights, Genocide, and Mass Violence (ICHRGMV - 26).

Recent reporting to ground your prep

Supreme Court's Voting Rights Impact on 2026

Trump's Federal Election Strategy

Supreme Court VRA Ruling Empowers GOP 2026

Namassivayam's Delhi Visit: BJP's Power Play

Lessons

Bite-sized lessons to build the basics

Engagement Strategies

Hidden Stakeholders

Dynamic Analysis

Stakeholder Mapping Workshop

Courses

Guided courses that go deeper on the topic

Conflict Resolution

Advanced Negotiation

Multilateral Negotiation

Policy Brief Writing

Uganda August 2026

By committee

Frequently asked questions

International Conference on Human Rights, Genocide, and Mass Violence (ICHRGMV - 26)

Aug 20–21, 2026Kampala, UgandaIn-person

Starts in 12 daysRegistration open

Committees & topics

Topics
The Global Human Rights Regime · Genocide and the Responsibility to Prevent · Mass Violence and Atrocity Crimes · Conflict Resolution and International Mediation · Patterns and Drivers of Political Violence · The Evolution of Human Rights Norms · Genocide Prevention Strategies · Transitional Justice Mechanisms

Why it matters

How to prepare

Country perspectives

Where the most-relevant 5 countries stand on the core issues in play. Click through for the full country profile.

Uganda

As the host nation, UGA plays a crucial role in facilitating discussions on human rights and conflict prevention within an African context.

Role in topic

United States

The USA often champions human rights globally and has a significant role in international interventions and justice mechanisms.

Role in topic

China

CHN's perspective on human rights often emphasizes state sovereignty and non-interference, presenting a different approach to international intervention.

Role in topic

Russia

RUS often emphasizes national security and state interests in its human rights discourse, frequently clashing with Western perspectives.

Role in topic

Germany

DEU is a strong proponent of international human rights law and has a historical commitment to addressing past atrocities.

Role in topic