Predictive and preventative models have been incorporated into international law but suffer from dogmatic criteria that excludes various instances of genocides. Dr. Barbara Harff, a leading political scientist, created a six-stage risk assessment model for genocide in 2002 that could accurately distinguish the beginnings of genocide from internal conflict. Dr. Gregory Stanton, a prominent genocide studies scholar, originally created an eight-stage predictive model whose goal was to actualize the stages described by Dr. Harff in her risk assessment model. Dr. Stanton has since refined his model, creating the leading 10-stage predictive model that is used by the UN. The purpose of this research paper is to test and further define Gregory Stanton’s 10 Stages of Genocide preventative model in order to more accurately predict and prevent genocide.
This research paper will be utilizing four case studies to test the accuracy of Dr. Stanton’s predictive model: genocide against indigenous populations in California, the Holocaust, the Rwandan genocide, and the Japanese conflict with the Chinese. These case studies will be used to illustrate the ten stages in Stanton’s predictive model and to identify potential discrepancies. The conclusion will be determined based on a wholistic qualitive analysis of the findings in the case studies as compared to the progression of the stages.
It is expected that Dr. Stanton’s predictive model will not comprehensively describe the progression of the 10 stages of genocide, thus making it difficult to predict and prevent future genocides. Furthermore, this paper will identify two additional stages that are missing from Dr. Stanton’s predictive model. This will lead to the development of a new predictive severity model that is building on the findings of Dr. Stanton and Dr. Harff. This new model will allow for more effective policies by better reflecting the stages and processes of genocide.