This paper aims to explore and discuss the points found in published research articles addressing posttraumatic stress disorder in children following the Bosnian Genocide, the terrorist attacks of 9/11, and Hurricane Katrina. The articles vary in their emphasis, methods, and conclusions, but all focus in one way or another on how the occurrence of war, terrorism, and natural disaster have resulted in posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms in youth. Intervention following traumatic events, however, rarely focus on treating mental health needs, and instead, focus on resolving any primary needs of vulnerable populations. The recommended treatment strategies for PTSD in youth require high quality mental health care and great accessibility for victims of trauma. Considering the high prevalence of PTSD in children following traumatic experiences, treatment of PTSD symptoms is necessary to ensure that youth can fully function in their daily lives without a constant reminder of the trauma they experienced.

International criminal tribunals rely on international support. However, in the case of the ICTY and the ICTR, international support has been uneven. I argue that this uneven support is related to the post-atrocity status of the domestic governing authority. In cases where the governing authority retains the status of victim, as in Rwanda following the 1994 Tutsi genocide, the international community has been reluctant to back the ICTR in its attempts to prosecute all participants of the 1994 genocide. In cases where the governing authority retains the status of perpetrator, as in Serbia following the Bosnian genocide of the 1990s, the international community has been more supportive of the ICTY. In cases where the post-atrocity status is mixed, as in Croatia, the backing of the international community of the ICTY has been similarly mixed.

Approved for public release, distribution is unlimited / Europe in the twentieth century witnessed the large-scale displacement and mass murder of civilian populations because of their ethnic or national identity. Genocide is the ultimate expression of this form of integral nationalism. As a result of the Second World War, the term "genocide" was introduced to describe the victimization of nations, and became codified in international law and agreements. The end of the century saw the introduction of a new term: "ethnic cleansing". This term was used to signify something less than the total physical annihilation of a people in the Balkans wars, in contrast to the extermination campaign of the Nazis in World War Two, or the Turks following World War One. This work looks at both campaigns, the Nazis against the Jews and the Serbs against the Bosnians, to argue, however, that ethnic cleansing is genocide. While much of the debate of the 1990s focuses on body counts to justify the distinction between the two, a careful analysis of the original work on genocide and the UN Agreement which outlaws such phenomenon reveal that this "body count" notion is neither correct nor justifiable. Similarly, a look at these two cases reveals act of genocide developed gradually, rather than as part of pre-existing master plans. / Major, United States Army

In 1948 the international community in reaction to the horrors of the holocaust sought to eradicate genocide forever by creating the 'Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide'. This Convention criminalised the preparation and act of genocide by international law, making all individuals accountable irrelevant of status or sovereignty. But the Convention has not been enough to deter the act of genocide from occurring again, and again, and again. Worst, the international community has been slow to react to cases of genocide. The problem with preventing and punishing genocide is hindered by the power and right of veto held by permanent members of the UNSC. The UNSC has been given the responsibility to maintain international peace and security and is the only entity that can mandate an intervention that overrides the principle of non-intervention. The aim of this thesis is to show that the veto has been a crucial factor in stopping the prevention of genocide, thus it is imperative that the veto change. This study argues that to effectively prevent and punish genocide the veto needs to be barred from use in cases of genocide. It looks at different cases since the Armenian genocide during WWI through to the Darfur genocide which is still in process. The case of Armenia is significant because for the first time, members of the international community were prepared to hold leaders of another state accountable for their treatment of their own citizens. However the collective will to bring justice to those accountable waned coming to an abrupt end in 1923. The holocaust followed in WWII; six million Jews died, and numerous other groups were targeted under the Nazi's serial genocide. The shock of the holocaust led to the Genocide Convention. But thirty years later during the Cold War, Cambodia became embroiled in a genocide perpetrated by the Khmer Rouge. The international community silently stood by. The USSR, China, and the US all had their reasons to stay out of Cambodia, from supporting a regime with a likeminded political ideology to war weariness from Vietnam. In the 1990s, genocides in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia (Bosnia and Kosovo) followed. The former was neglected by the US's unwillingness to be involved in another peacekeeping disaster. The two genocides in the former Yugoslavia were affected by Russia and China's reluctance to use military force even after the clear failure of serial negotiations. Finally, in 2003 Darfur became the latest tragedy of genocide. Again, Russia and China have been timid of calling the conflict genocide thus avoiding any affirmative action to stop it. These cases all show that where one state is unwilling to be involved in stopping genocide, their right and power to the veto stops or delays the international community from preventing and punishing genocide, regardless of whether the veto is used or merely seen as a threat. Therefore, for future prevention of genocide, the veto needs to be changed to prevent its use in times of genocide.