Failure to Protect?: Applying the DRRI-2 Scales to Rwanda and Srebrenica
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article critically reanalyses the action, or lack of action, taken by UN peacekeepers in Rwanda and Srebrenica in the 1990's. The lack of action of UN peacekeepers in Rwanda and Bosnia has long been criticised as a conscious decision made by peacekeepers to not act in defence of those being targeted but instead to act as bystanders of genocide when they had the ability to prevent acts of genocide taking place. This article re-examines the actions of the UN command under Romeo Dallaire in Rwanda and Thom Karremans in Srebrenica, Bosnia in terms of the stress-related factors which influenced their decisions and actions. A modern risk assessment tool for Post- Traumatic Stress Disorder, the DRRI-2 Scales, developed by psychologists at the National Centre for PTSD in the United States, evaluates which stress-related factors make modern-day soldiers deployed to conflict zones susceptible or more resilient to developing PTSD. This article reveals that in four out of the six diagnostic categories analysed by the DRRI-2 Scales, that UN peacekeepers in Rwanda and Srebrenica would have answered affirmatively to being exposed to a significant number of stressors outlined in the DRRI-2 Scales. This article challenges the reader to critically rethink the judgements that have been placed on peacekeeper's actions in Rwanda and Srebrenica based on this close analysis of their deployment environment, operational limitations and perceived threat to life. Given the multi-layered and persistent stress which these circumstances placed on peacekeepers, I ask what behaviour could have been reasonably expected of UN peacekeepers in Rwanda and Bosnia?
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".