This book examines authoritarian practices in relation to humanitarian negotiations. Utilising a wide variety of perspectives and examining a range of contexts, the book considers how humanitarians assess and engage with authoritarian practices and negotiate access to populations in danger. Chapters provide insights at the macro, meso, and micro levels through case studies on the international and domestic legal and political framing of humanitarian contexts (Xinjiang, Afghanistan, Venezuela, Russia, and Syria), as well as the actual practice of negotiating with authoritarian regimes (Ethiopia). A theoretical grounding is provided through chapters elaborating on the ethics and trust-building dimensions of humanitarian negotiations, and an overview chapter provides a theoretical framework through which to analyse humanitarian negotiations against the backdrop of different types of authoritarian practices. This book provides a wide-ranging view which broadens the frame of reference when considering how humanitarians view and engage with authoritarian practices. The objective is to both put these contexts into conceptual order and provide a firm theoretical basis for understanding the politics of humanitarian negotiations in such difficult contexts. This book is useful for those studying international politics and humanitarian studies, as well as for practitioners seeking to better systematise their humanitarian negotiations.

Humanitarian Futures: Challenges and Opportunities explores the increasing types, dimensions and dynamics of crises threatening the world in the twenty-first century, and argues that those with humanitarian roles and responsibilities can only meet such challenges if their approaches to strategic and operational planning undergo fundamental paradigmatic shifts. Strategically and operationally, such shifts must begin by planning from the future, for the future. Author Randolph C. Kent, the UN’s first Humanitarian Coordinator, with experience in some of the most complex crises of modern times, including Rwanda, Ethiopia, Kosovo, Sudan and Somalia, provides a blueprint for dealing with ever greater complexity on planet Earth and beyond. That blueprint is not about upgrading existing tools or relying upon tried precedence. Rather, it points to a new paradigm for meeting crises. It begins by looking at the changing nature of humanness and governance, and then turns to plausible future crises based on such changes, before concluding with practical steps for dealing with ever more complex humanitarian threats, now and in the future. This book will be an essential read for humanitarian policymakers and practitioners as well as for humanitarian and global studies researchers and students who are and want to be engaged in understanding and preparing for ever more complex and unpredictable humanitarian challenges.

Is it ever possible to separate humanitarian action from politics? Drawing on the experience of both practitioners and researchers, this book is an essential guide to the thorny interplay between what are too often considered as separate worlds. The humanitarian sector aims to separate its work from politics, arguing that independence and neutrality are essential in order to gain entry into disaster and conflict settings. Yet, humanitarian claims of non-involvement in politics have also been dismissed as misleading, naive, or counter-productive. In practice, humanitarians find themselves working within political settings on a daily basis. This book investigates the theory behind depoliticisation, the political background and context behind humanitarian action, and the daily dilemmas faced by practitioners walking that fine line between principles and pragmatism. Finally, this book considers the importance of decolonising mainstream understandings of humanitarianism and politics, and of placing understandings from the Global South at the heart of the discussion. Balancing theoretical insights with empirical grounding, field examples, and recommendations for policy and practice, this book is perfect for researchers and students in humanitarian studies, political science, international relations, human rights, development studies, disaster studies, and peace and conflict studies, as well as humanitarian practitioners and policy makers.

The Syrian war has been an example of the abuse and insufficient delivery of humanitarian assistance. According to international practice, humanitarian aid should be channelled through a state government that bears a particular responsibility for its population. Yet in Syria, the bulk of relief went through Damascus while the regime caused the vast majority of civilian deaths. Should the UN have severed its cooperation with the government and neglected its humanitarian duty to help all people in need? Decision-makers face these tough policy dilemmas, and often the “neutrality trap” snaps shut. This book discusses the political and moral considerations of how to respond to a brutal and complex crisis while adhering to international law and practice. The author, a scholar and senior diplomat involved in the UN peace talks in Geneva, draws from first-hand diplomatic, practitioner and UN sources. He sheds light on the UN's credibility crisis and the wider implications for the development of international humanitarian and human rights law. This includes covering the key questions asked by Western diplomats, NGOs and international organizations, such as: Why did the UN not confront the Syrian government more boldly? Was it not only legally correct but also morally justifiable to deliver humanitarian aid to regime areas where rockets were launched and warplanes started? Why was it so difficult to render cross-border aid possible where it was badly needed? The meticulous account of current international practice is both insightful and disturbing. It tackles the painful lessons learnt and provides recommendations for future challenges where politics fails and humanitarians fill the moral void.

A theoretically-informed, critical account of the making of the international legal rules governing civil war.

From international NGOs to UN agencies, from donors to observers of humanitarianism, opinion is unanimous: in a context of the alleged "clash of civilizations", our "humanitarian space" is shrinking. Put another way, the freedom of action and of speech of humanitarians is being eroded due to the radicalisation of conflicts and the reaffirmation of state sovereignty over aid actors and policies. The purpose of this book is to challenge this assumption through an analysis of the events that have marked MSF's history since 2003 (when MSF published its first general work on humanitarian action and its relationships with governments). It addresses the evolution of humanitarian goals, the resistance to these goals and the political arrangements that overcame this resistance (or that failed to do so). The contributors seek to analyse the political transactions and balances of power and interests that allow aid activities to move forward, but that are usually masked by the lofty rhetoric of "humanitarian principles". They focus on one key question: what is an acceptable compromise for MSF? This book seeks to puncture a number of the myths that have grown up over the forty years since MSF was founded and describes in detail how the ideals of humanitarian principles and "humanitarian space" operating in conflict zones are in reality illusory. How, in fact, it is the grubby negotiations with varying parties, each of whom have their own vested interests, that may allow organisations such as MSF to operate in a given crisis situation - or not.