A / A / A

responsability to protect

The shared MSF / ICRC helicopter exchanging passengers in Gumuruk. In the rainy season helicopter is the only reliable way to move around Pibor County in South Sudan.
Article

Oases of Humanity and the Realities of War. Uses and Misuses of International Humanitarian Law and Humanitarian Principles

The rehabilitation of international humanitarian law (IHL) has become a priority for those who think that the horrors of contemporary wars are largely due to the blurring of the distinction between civilians and combatants and for those who think that campaigning for the respect of IHL could result in more civilised wars. Similarly, respect for humanitarian principles is still seen by many as the best tool available to protect the safety of aid workers. In this text, I argue that both assumptions are misled. The distinction between civilians and combatants, a cornerstone of IHL, has been blurred in practice since the late nineteenth century. In addition, humanitarian agencies claiming to be ‘principled’ have been victims of attacks as much as others. History and current practice tell us that neither IHL nor humanitarian principles provide safety or can guide our decisions. Accepting their symbolic value, rather than their unrealised potential to protect and solve operational dilemmas, would free humanitarian agencies from endless speculations.

Book

Humanitarian aid, genocide and mass killings. Médecins Sans Frontières, the Rwandan experience, 1982-97

Throughout the 1990s, Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) was forced to face the challenges posed by the genocide of Rwandan Tutsis and a succession of major outbreaks of political violence in Rwanda and its neighbouring countries.

A tank moves towards the frontlines as people are fleeing
Article

"Not in our name": Why Medecins sans frontières does not support the "responsability to protect"

Argued in the 1990s in the name of the "right or duty to intervene", the application of military might to rescue populations in danger is now debated with reference to the "Responsibility to Protect" paradigm (or "R2P" for those in the know). In this article Fabrice Weissman explains why MSF refuses to adhere to this doctrine of ‘just war', whose legalisation would effectively be legalising a new form of imperialism.

 

A MONUC APC passes over 25 000 people  who arrived after walking more than a day
Post de blog

R2P and the use of violence for humanitarian ends

Should military forces be dispatched to a foreign country to save its population from massacre, famine, epidemics, or oppression? Debated in the 1990s as the "right or duty to intervene", the application of military might to rescue populations in danger is today debated as the "responsibility to protect".