The term “acceptance” became part of the humanitarian vocabulary in the late 1990s, with the publication of the first manuals and training programs dedicated to the security management of aid operations. It refers to one of three strategies proposed to humanitarian actors to reduce risks in violent environments: using passive protection measures (helmets, bulletproof vests, armoured vehicles, fortified compounds, etc.), deterring potential attackers through local or international armed forces, or eliminating threats by earning everyone’s appreciation (acceptance). But how does one become appreciated, tolerated, and accepted? Two approaches coexist: one, political, emphasises the importance of caring for one’s friends; the other, marketing-oriented, emphasises the need to cultivate an image as a “principled organization”—neutral, independent, and impartial.  

The notion of resilience, which originated in materials science, is now used in a wide range of fields, including psychology, ecology, physics, and the social sciences. It denotes the ability of individuals, groups, and systems to resist shocks, adapt, and rebuild themselves; its definition varies between a return to normal, adaptation, and transformation. Its use has become so common in so many fields that Time magazine named it the  "Environmental Buzzword of 2013". With its vague contours, the term “resilience” is readily criticized for its contradictory interpretations, how difficult it is to operationalize, and how often it is manipulated, for political purposes, to justify or deny funding.

In this article, Marc Le Pape examines a variety of situations where applying the concept of culture can prove problematic. To explore how this concept is applied in a humanitarian aid context, the author asks numerous questions: During a crisis, is it appropriate for humanitarian workers to call on anthropologists in an emergency to eventually gain a better understanding of the communities involved? Who are the informants and interpreters employed by humanitarian workers for their networks and knowledge of local social dynamics? How much of a challenge is translation in the caregiver-patient relationship? Why take rumours about the medical field seriously? 

Caught between humanitarian commitment to vulnerable populations and security concerns, the issue of the use of armed escorts by humanitarian organisations raises some fraught questions. Médecins Sans Frontières has adopted this practice, controversial as it is, in a number of contexts throughout its history. Can we resort to this type of protection without compromising our neutrality? Are MSF's image and the very safety of its teams threatened by being so close to armed actors?

Frequently portrayed as tools to enable access in wartime, humanitarian corridors in fact reveal the ambiguities and limits of contemporary humanitarian action. Through a critical analysis this article questions the effectiveness, neutrality, and political implications of such mechanisms, which, under the guise of protection, may also serve military or diplomatic agendas.

For governments, relief actors and international organizations, the classification of famine is a source of tension, due to the political, media-related, humanitarian, financial and emotional stakes involved. But what is famine, what criteria and data are used to define it, and by whom? Who declares it, and what are the public and political uses of such declarations? These are some of the questions examined in this article by Michaël Neuman.

As deconfliction has become a central tool in civil-military relations within conflict zones, this concept — rooted in military jargon — raises serious questions about its actual effectiveness. Michaël Neuman examines the origins, uses, and ambiguities of these mechanisms meant to protect humanitarian actors, while highlighting the risks of replacing legal guarantees with limited contractual arrangements.

A central concept in humanitarian discourse, international solidarity has established itself as a hallmark of emergency and development interventions. But what does this widely used term truly encompass? This article explores the various dimensions of solidarity, its political and symbolic stakes, and examines the concrete practices it generates within humanitarian organizations, particularly Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF).