The research project aims to investigate the under-theorized concept of silence within the realm of foreign policy analysis, particularly concerning the silencing of mass atrocities. This project seeks to address the gap in social-constructivist foreign policy research by examining how silence operates and its implications for foreign policy decisions and discourse. The research is motivated by the observation that, despite the widespread acceptance of silence as a significant factor in political science and related social sciences, it has not been adequately explored within foreign policy analysis. The project posits that foreign policy silence does not merely equate to the absence of speech but includes the strategic omission or downplaying of critical issues. This form of silence can shape perceptions and policies in profound ways, often leaving significant matters unaddressed. The project's theoretical framework challenges the prevailing logocentric focus on articulated language in foreign policy studies. By incorporating silence into the analysis, the studies aim to provide a more holistic understanding of foreign policy. This approach will involve the conceptualization of silence, distinguishing between different types of silence such as imposed silence (resulting from violence or institutional constraints) and purposive silence (intentional non-communication). Empirically, the project will focus on the foreign policies of Germany, France, the United Kingdom, and the United States. This comparative case study will explore how these democracies, which theoretically should engage in open discourse on such severe crimes, often remain silent. By analyzing this silence, patterns and motivations behind the lack of articulation in foreign policy regarding mass atrocities will be uncovered.