Clearer legal obligations on the British government to prevent genocides, and to determine if one is occurring rather than leaving such judgments to international courts, are to be considered by a cross-party group of lawyers, politicians and academics under the chairmanship of Helena Kennedy.

The new group, known as the standing group on atrocity crimes, says its genesis does not derive from a specific conflict such as Gaza or Xinjiang, but a wider concern that such crime is spreading as international law loses its purchase.

The move will also be seen as part of a wider drive to push back against those trying to downgrade the status of international law in the UK, often using criticism of the attorney general, Richard Hermer, as a lever.

The aim is also to encourage the government to make atrocity prevention a clearer priority for the Foreign Office. The Foreign Office has established an atrocity prevention unit but its profile and funding are small.

At present, ministers say it is not for the UK government to determine if a genocide is occurring, but a matter for the international court of justice or the international criminal court.

Yet in practice, the recent UK arms export licensing case confirms that ministers have been given private legal advice by civil servants as to whether a genocide is occurring, including officials saying no genocide was under way in Gaza last year.

Other countries such as the US unilaterally declare if they believe a genocide is occurring, as the US state department recently did in the case of Sudan.

Similarly, there are sometimes legal disputes about the obligations placed on ministers by the duty to prevent genocide as set out in the genocide convention, part of the international law that emerged from the second world war.

At some points, UK government lawyers have come close to arguing that the duty to prevent only applies once a genocide has started, and has been determined by the international court, an often lengthy process that can provide a convenient excuse for ministers to avoid making any politically charged accusation.

A new duty on government to prevent crimes against humanity is being considered by the UN general assembly, making the issue of the duty to prevent more urgent.

In a launch statement, Lady Kennedy described the government approach as “partisan, piecemeal and protracted”. She added: “We are witnesses to harrowing and destructive images daily of atrocity crimes despite the apparent commitment of states to the international rule of law.

“The rationale for why the standing group’s key issues list focuses on preventing genocide is that there is a binding and enforceable legal obligation under a treaty, the genocide convention, on all states to prevent genocide the ‘instant it learns of the serious risk’ and which requires it to use ‘all means reasonably available to it’ in order to prevent or stop ongoing harm.

“A similar obligation to prevent exists under the torture convention. Over the coming years, such an obligation may be introduced in relation to crimes against humanity.”

The standing group will consider the relevance of the genocide determination bill, the first of its kind, which would provide a concrete and tangible mechanism to prevent genocide.

The independent peer David Alton introduced a version of this bill in the Lords in 2022, with the aim of setting up an independent UK parliamentary committee empowered to recommend to a domestic court that a genocide was occurring if a UK foreign secretary refused to make a determination.

Should the UK court affirm the occurrence or risk of genocide, the foreign secretary would then be required to outline the reasonable steps that the government intends to take and specify the referral mechanisms, such as international courts, that it plans to use.

The paradox facing policymakers is that international courts can assess wrongful actions only after they have occurred, yet political, economic, and legal interventions by the global community are necessary well before any harm is inflicted.

In a sign of the breadth of cross-party support for the initiative, and its heterodox origins, the standing group’s advisory committee includes Alton, Alfred Dubs, , Arminka Helić, Fiona Hodgson, MPs Richard Foord, Blair McDougall and Brendan O’Hara and Liz Sugg.

The committee is anxious that despite the growing allegations of a genocide in Gaza, it is not seen as a product solely of that crisis.

McDougall argued: “Eighty years ago, the world came together to design institutions which sought to deter the crime of aggression, protect civilians and guarantee human rights. As we prepare to mark that anniversary, we must acknowledge that that system has too often failed to prevent or punish atrocities.

“Our generation of leadership must bring the same determination as shown by those after the second world war that atrocity crimes should be banished to history.”

A joint human rights select committee report said the government’s approach to atrocity prevention and other international crimes was inconsistent.