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.  

Peut-on compter sur les principes humanitaires pour protéger les acteurs de l'aide en zone de guerre ? Dans cet épisode, Rony Brauman et Hakim Khaldi dénoncent les illusions de l’“acceptance” et plaident pour une approche politique de la sécurité humanitaire fondée sur des équilibres instables entre intérêts humanitaires, politiques et militaires. 

The reasons why we are accepted, tolerated or sometimes rejected in the contexts where we work are often obscure. Caroline Abu-Sada and her team of sociology student shed some light on these issues.