“We Continue to Monitor the Human Rights Situation” : A Review of the State of Finland’s Reaction to Instances of Genocide During 2014-2024

Abstract

The international community systematically fails to prevent and intervene in genocides. Even when significant evidence exists of genocides taking place, foreign powers, including Finland, remain paralysed in the face of addressing them. Simultaneously, existing research largely focuses on analysing where major players have gone wrong in their reactions and why foreign powers remain hesitant to respond. What is missing is a more concrete understanding of the approaches smaller states have utilised, and how well these actions have worked. Addressing this research gap, this thesis focuses on Finland, a smaller state, to illuminate how its distinct approaches can contribute to a broader understanding of international responses to genocide. The thesis analyses Finland’s reactions to three instances of genocide during 2014-2024: the Yazidi genocide, the Xinjiang genocide, and the Rohingya genocide. The thesis provides a thematic analysis of Finnish state documents and attempts to understand the approaches the Finnish state has used in genocide response. It also looks into how active a stance Finland has taken in responding to genocide, as well as analysing the patterns and differences in reactions across the three cases. Through this analysis, this study concludes that across all three instances of genocide, Finland has implemented four different kinds of measures: humanitarian aid, monitoring the human rights situation, highlighting genocidal violence, and sanctions. Overall, this thesis argues that Finland has remained relatively inactive in its response. The found patterns support this inactivity and conservative approach, while differences show that Finland still has a customised and original approach to each instance of genocide. With these results in mind, this thesis attempts to shed light on how foreign states react to genocides and broaden the understanding of what measures could have been implemented, offering lessons on how Finland’s strategies could inform international strategies in genocide response.