War crimes and genocide are usually the result of extreme escalation, polarization, and dehumanization. Opponents' images of the enemy can become so distorted that they do not see the other side as human at all, only as villains whose very existence is a threat to one's own way of life. Once people are seen in this way, their destruction becomes not only acceptable, but apparently essential for one's own group. Traditional social norms and mores that would prevent extreme acts of violence and destruction aimed toward one's own group dissolve when the victim is a member of the opposing group. Such acts of violence can even be viewed as heroic by one's own people, who see them as valiant efforts to preserve their own identity and way of life.
Several factors make such situations very difficult to deal with.
First is the traditional concept of sovereignty. This concept is generally taken to mean that nation states control their own internal affairs, including decisions about appropriate ways of defining and dealing with crimes, and ways of treating minority populations. When both sides feel this way, it can become very difficult to redefine the conflict or re-frame it in a more positive way, or to start building up trust and mutual understandings between the groups. The second challenge arises once the war has ended or the perpetrator of the human rights abuses has been removed from power and societies are struggling to come to terms with the tragedy. New regimes are faced with a difficult decision about whether to prosecute criminals for their acts or to grant amnesty in an effort to forgive, forget, and move on.