Description
The consistent failures of the UN System to effectively respond to and address the challenge of mass atrocity prevention has generated significant academic debate surrounding the need for substantial institutional reform within the UN. Much of this scholarship has placed its focus on the need to dramatically reimagine the composition of members and roles within existing institutions such as the UN Security Council. However, what this analysis has often failed to correctly identify is the larger causes of institutional dysfunction when it comes to mass atrocity prevention which exist beyond the problems of representation or the challenge of political will. Drawing on research into agenda setting within international institutions and case study examples, this paper traces the processes through which competing institutional agendas work to undermine the potential for greater cooperation and information sharing when it comes to addressing mass atrocity crimes. Through analysing the hierarchical nature of the UN System’s approach to prioritisation, it challenges claims of an increasingly embedded human rights focus in the UN’s work and further highlights the contrasting drivers of state decision making within the institution. Consequently, the paper argues that tensions over how best to respond to evolving human protection situations are significantly undermining the potential for more holistic and joined up approaches to the prevention of mass atrocity crimes.
