House of Lords Debate: Role of Government Policy in Combating Atrocity Crimes, Crimes against Humanity and Genocide

On 4 June 2026, the UK House of Lords debated the role of government policy in combating atrocity crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. The motion, moved by Lord Alton of Liverpool, has seen engagement from cross-party Parliamentarians raising several situations of atrocity crimes and important initiatives to address them, including the Genocide Determination Bill, universal jurisdiction reports, and the Preventing Sexual Violence Initiative, among others.

During the debate, Lord Alton emphasised:

Atrocity crimes come at great cost. They are linked to identity-based persecution, collective punishment, sexual violence, a culture of impunity, endless repetition and a deficit of accountability, playing into security and humanitarian challenges, including the mass displacement of over 120 million people. Instead of obfuscation about the future of the hub, we need clarity and transparency, and we must have JACS assessments that are not kept secret but published, so that we know why and what action is being taken.

What is not acceptable is a continuation of the illusion that we have a clear and effective strategy for combating atrocity crimes. In so many respects, today’s debate puts atrocity crimes back on to the House of Lords’ agenda, and I am incredibly grateful to all noble Lords who are ensuring that that will happen. I thank all noble Lords who are going to speak. I beg to move.

Baroness Kennedy of the Shaws commented:

As conflicts are multiplying and international norms are under strain, institutional capacity for atrocity prevention is being reduced. In the long term, the price we will pay for this is much higher than anything that can be saved in the short term.

Baroness Sugg, when discussing the failures of the international community to address the dire situation in Sudan and elsewhere, said:

International mechanisms have failed to respond with the urgency required, and the international system remains paralysed. Sudan is not simply a humanitarian crisis; it is an atrocity crime crisis and an impunity crisis. It is precisely the kind of crisis our policies are meant to anticipate and prevent. We often hear and say, “never again”, but this is becoming an eerie refrain, and the evidence suggests otherwise. The International Development Committee has shown that, between 2000 and 2020, at least 37 countries experienced mass atrocities or were at serious risk of them.

Baroness D'Souza raised:

We do not yet have a clear national strategy for the prevention of atrocities, which we desperately need. Such a strategy might include strengthening FCDO capacity to detect early warning indicators and to develop mechanisms for interventions. Among these must be the willingness to confront authoritarian states and anti-democratic statecraft as a national security priority. The goal must be to embed clear and transparent thresholds of threat and the triggers for action, and, in so doing, provide a lead for other departments—for example, the department for trade—in considering its own policies and action.

Lord Wigley, while discussing important avenues for justice and accountability for international crimes, brought the conversation back home, explaining how UK law fails British victims of international crimes:

There is one particular case on which I wish to focus—a case which I have previously raised in this Chamber—relating to the tragic death of Ryan Evans of Wrexham, who was working for Reuters in Ukraine in August 2024, covering alleged atrocities committed by the Russians in Ukraine. The hotel in which the Reuters team was staying was hit by a Russian missile. Ryan was killed and nine others were injured. (...) [During a debate] in February, I was told that the UK Government are already doing a lot to support justice and accountability in Ukraine, such as providing training for lawyers, judges and others. However, even now I have received no response as to what the Government are doing to provide justice and accountability for Ryan’s family. So what have the present UK Government done to support Ryan’s family in their pursuit of justice and accountability for his premature and unlawful death?

As it is, the families of such victims are left powerless. This is totally at odds with the victim/survivor-centric approach that the Government have always stressed. In all seriousness, what do the Government expect the family of Ryan Evans to do? Seek justice in Ukraine? There must surely be an easier way. The UK Government may be aware that, while the law in this country does not allow it, other countries have managed to find a way to ensure that their citizens, as victims and survivors of international crimes abroad, can seek justice through their domestic courts. This is called a passive personality jurisdiction and it allows a state to prosecute foreign nationals for crimes committed abroad when the victim is a citizen of that prosecuting state. It is the citizenship of the victims/survivors that is the critical factor.

Such laws exist in France, Germany, Spain, Canada and Lithuania among others. Indeed, Lithuania is investigating the killing of its own citizen, Mantas Kvedaravičius, who was killed by the Russian military in Mariupol. In February 2024, the prosecutor-general of Lithuania announced that three soldiers had been identified as suspects and charged with the killing of Mantas. Why would we not want to help our citizens seek justice before our domestic courts? Why can other countries find a more humane solution than we can? If a small country such as Lithuania—the size of Wales—can do it, surely it is not beyond the capability of the UK to do likewise. Is it just a matter of not having the political commitment to deliver justice for UK citizens caught in such tragic circumstances?

You can read the Hansard from the debate here.