But should one of those two sets of killings be classified as a government-involved “atrocity” and the other not? The answer may not be as simple as you think, and it revolves around how you classify atrocities.
While dictionaries tend to describe an “atrocity” as a horrific or wicked act, there is no one agreed-upon definition in either scholarship on the issue or under international human rights law.
Using widely relied-upon annual human rights reports, we apply the same rules to every country when assessing whether governments have committed what we describe as a “brutality-based atrocity.”
Our data goes back 40 years and identifies patterns of governmental behavior that can predict if an atrocity will take place. Our hope is that the research will make atrocity research more transparent and useful for prevention.
But atrocities should be viewed on a scale from less intense to more intense. In fact, our approach measures the severity of an atrocity by also looking at the number of widespread physical integrity rights violations involved.
Our findings show that most atrocities do not erupt suddenly. Instead, they grow out of recognizable sequences of abuse. Widespread torture, political imprisonment, attacks on collective worker rights and restrictions on basic liberties often appear long before large-scale killings begin.
When we apply our “brutality-based” method to the 1981-2022 period, a troubling trend emerges: Atrocities have become more common.
In 2022 — the latest year in our study — we identified 47 cases, the highest annual number recorded.
Some of this increase reflects better reporting, but much of it appears to be a real rise in state-led violence. Either way, it raises serious concerns about the effectiveness of global prevention efforts.
Qualitative, field-based research remains essential for understanding how violence unfolds on the ground. But without clear definitions and consistent measurements, even experts often disagree about whether an atrocity occurred, when it happened or how severe it was.
Inconsistencies over how it is applied also make it difficult to compare cases or design policies that prevent escalation.
A standardized, data-driven approach such as ours does not replace deep local knowledge. But it does, we believe, provide a common baseline for debate.
The politics surrounding mass atrocity accusations — genocide, crimes against humanity, ethnic cleansing and war crimes — complicate matters further.
Some of the nations at the top of our list of perpetrators of atrocities are those that many would suspect of being there. The top offenders over the four-decade period are India and Iran, both of which were found to have committed atrocities in 38 years between 1981 and 2022. They were followed by Colombia and Iraq, both of which were found to have carried out atrocities in 36 years.
But in some years, our method identifies large-scale killings of noncombatants by government agents in places that often get left off such lists — including the U.S., Brazil and Israel.
For Israel and Brazil, the assessment is straightforward. The human rights reports used to score other countries are public in both Israel and Brazil, and the scoring is transparent.
For the U.S., the picture is more complicated. U.S. government agencies write some of the reports we rely on, but do not report on its own government’s abuses.
Although our data suggests atrocities are becoming more common, it isn’t impossible to change course. Every government can improve its human rights and hold state agents who violate human rights accountable.
Courts, civil society, elections, local governments, protests, boycotts and independent media can constrain leaders and prevent escalation.
But warning signs should not be dismissed – and physical rights violations are a clear flag. Prevention requires recognizing these risks before violence escalates.
