Military Provision of Humanitarian Assistance and Disaster Relief in Non-Conflict Crises

2017 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Deon V. Canyon ◽  
Benjamin J. Ryan ◽  
Frederick M. Burkle
Keyword(s):  
Disaster Relief ◽  
Active Role ◽  
Humanitarian Assistance ◽  
Asia Pacific ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Military Policy ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Military Involvement ◽  
Response And Recovery

AbstractThere is an upward trend in the use of military personnel and assets to provide domestic and international humanitarian assistance and disaster relief. International humanitarian law has constrained military involvement by imposing particular obligations when it comes to providing assistance. In nonconflict situations, however, these constraints are becoming increasingly unreasonable given that the priority is to fill the gap between global humanitarian capacity and actual community need. Militaries in the Indo-Asia-Pacific region have been proactively assessing their performance in humanitarian missions, and some have made significant progress in advancing civilian-military coordination. Future efforts must focus on improving the integration of military modes of operation and assets into emerging frameworks for disaster management and humanitarian efforts. Military policy makers need to assume a more active role in expanding their focus beyond response to all phases of disasters: prevention, preparedness, response, and recovery.

Using humanitarian aid to ‘win hearts and minds’: a costly failure?

2011 ◽  
Vol 93 (884) ◽  
pp. 1035-1061 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jamie A. Williamson
Keyword(s):  
Humanitarian Aid ◽  
The United States ◽  
Humanitarian Assistance ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Military Operations ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Costly Failure ◽  
The Military ◽  
Hearts And Minds

AbstractThis article contends that the integration of humanitarian assistance in efforts to ‘win hearts and minds’ in counter-insurgencies has not been successful, and that the costs, both operational and legal, clearly outweigh any benefits. It demonstrates how such manipulation of humanitarian assistance runs counter to fundamental principles of international humanitarian law. In addition, a growing body of research suggests that the use of short-term aid and relief programmes as part of counter-insurgency has been ineffectual, and that, in places such as Afghanistan, it may even have undermined the overall military goal of defeating insurgents. With the United States and NATO military operations winding down in Afghanistan, it is time for the military and policy-makers reviewing ‘winning hearts and minds’ as a counter-insurgency strategy to draw the lessons and recognize the importance of a neutral and independent space for humanitarian aid.

Military Involvement in Disaster Preparedness, Organisation, and Disaster Relief — Civilian Military Co-Operation (CIMIC)

2002 ◽  
Vol 17 (S2) ◽  
pp. S25
Author(s):  
Rannveig Bremer Fjær ◽  
Knut Ole Sundnes
Keyword(s):  
Disaster Management ◽  
Disaster Preparedness ◽  
Disaster Relief ◽  
Humanitarian Assistance ◽  
Humanitarian Emergencies ◽  
Military Involvement ◽  
Military Forces

In frequent humanitarian emergencies during the last decades, military forces increasingly have been engaged through provision of equipment and humanitarian assistance, and through peace-support operations. The objective of this study was to evaluate how military resources could be used in disaster preparedness as well as in disaster management and relief.

International Humanitarian Law and International Criminal Law

2019 ◽  
pp. 141-169 ◽  
Author(s):  
Suzannah Linton
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
Asia Pacific ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
External Threats ◽  
Regional Trends

This chapter assesses the approaches of Asia-Pacific states to international humanitarian law (IHL) and international criminal law (ICL), within the context of the international legal framework. It first addresses influential approaches in the region, including how states present themselves in relation to IHL and ICL issues. Next, it considers how regional states engage with the issue of responsibility in international law, with an emphasis on IHL and ICL. The chapter then examines acceptance of these two bodies of law, arguing that there is no hostility to the basic norms of IHL, but a more unsettled approach to ICL. There is a definite chill in respect of aspects that potentially encroach on independence, sovereignty, and territorial integrity, or that smack of Western neo-colonialism. These are of course subjectively evaluated by each state. In practical terms, this frostiness can be seen in the responses to external threats of accountability against political leaders, the exercise of universal jurisdiction, Security Council referrals to the International Criminal Court, Pillar Three of the R2P doctrine, the crime of aggression, and certain formulations of other international crimes (for example, war crimes in non-international armed conflict). However, even within these broad regional trends, there is no uniformity. There is decidedly no collective ‘Asia-Pacific approach’ that emerges from the present chapter.

INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW AND COUNTER-TERRORISM: FUNDAMENTAL VALUES, CONFLICTING OBLIGATIONS

2019 ◽  
Vol 69 (1) ◽  
pp. 43-78
Author(s):  
David McKeever
Keyword(s):  
Security Council ◽  
Humanitarian Assistance ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Legal Regime ◽  
Counter Terrorism ◽  
Insufficient Attention ◽  
Legal Obligations ◽  
Fundamental Values

AbstractThe interaction of international counter-terrorism laws with IHL is an area of renewed focus, amid widespread concern that the former are being (mis)applied to criminalise the provision of humanitarian assistance envisaged under the latter. The Security Council has begun to consider this issue in resolutions adopted in March and July 2019, but difficult questions of law and fact remain. These questions have significant practical consequences—for humanitarian agencies and those they seek to assist, as well as for States that must weigh different, and possibly conflicting, legal obligations. Much of the analysis to date and the solutions proposed, pay insufficient attention to the specifics of each legal regime.

Common Article 1: A Minimum Yardstick for Regulating Private Military and Security Companies

2009 ◽  
Vol 22 (4) ◽  
pp. 779-799 ◽  
Author(s):  
HANNAH TONKIN
Keyword(s):  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Armed Forces ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Military Policy ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Geneva Conventions ◽  
Security Companies

AbstractTens of thousands of contractors work for private military and security companies (PMSCs) during armed conflict and occupation, often hired by states to perform activities that were once the exclusive domain of the armed forces. Many of the obligations and standards that guide states in regulating their armed forces are lacking in relation to PMSCs, raising concerns that states might simply outsource their military policy to PMSCs without taking adequate measures to promote compliance with international humanitarian law (IHL). This article argues that the universally applicable obligation ‘to ensure respect’ for IHL in Common Article 1 of the Geneva Conventions can provide a key mechanism for addressing these concerns.

scholarly journals Assistance to the victims of armed conflicts

1988 ◽  
Vol 28 (267) ◽  
pp. 551-554
Author(s):  
Frits Kalshoven
Keyword(s):  
The Netherlands ◽  
Humanitarian Assistance ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
Red Cross ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Collège De France ◽  
Keynote Speech ◽  
Save The Children ◽  
The University

From 22 to 24 June 1988, an international conference was held in The Hague, Netherlands, on “Humanitarian Assistance in Armed Conflict”. It was organized by the University of Leiden's Red Cross Chair of International Humanitarian Law, together with the National Red Cross Societies of Belgium (Flemish Community) and The Netherlands.The conference, which was attended by some 180 participants (with Her Royal Highness, Princess Margriet of The Netherlands, as the most distinguished among them) was opened by the Dutch Minister for Development Co-operation, Mr. Pieter Bukman. Professor René Jean Dupuy, professor of International Law at the College de France, Paris, gave the keynote speech at the opening session. Speakers during the three working sessions of the conference included representatives of the ICRC, the League, UNHCR, Médecins sans Frontières, Médecins du Monde, CEBEMO (the Dutch Catholic Organization for Joint Financing of Development Programmes), Save the Children Fund, Oxfam UK, and the academic world.

Disaster Militarism? Military Humanitarian Assistance and Disaster Relief

2019 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 347-375
Author(s):  
Gabrielle Simm
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Disaster Relief ◽  
Humanitarian Assistance ◽  
Asia Pacific ◽  
Military Deployments ◽  
Military Aid ◽  
Apparent Conflict

Military assets, which include personnel, make an important contribution to disaster relief. However, military deployments can be politically sensitive, and the relevant international law is contested and not binding. This article compares two sets of UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UN OCHA) Guidelines on this issue. The 2007 Oslo Guidelines1 state that military assets should be used in disaster relief only as a last resort, while the 2014 Asia-Pacific Regional Guidelines2 acknowledge that military assets are often the first to respond to disasters in the region. Drawing on examples primarily from Asia, this article explores the apparent conflict between these two UN Guidelines and asks two questions about the deployment of foreign military assets in disaster relief. First, to what extent does international law authorize or limit the deployment of foreign military assets in disaster relief? Second, what are the politics of deploying military assets in disaster relief? This article argues that, rather than representing a global standard, the Oslo Guidelines better reflect European practice within Europe, while the Asia-Pacific Regional Guidelines are more representative of practice worldwide. It concludes that the type of military aid provided is key to its compliance with international law and its political acceptance.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document