Suchergebnisse

Civil-military cooperation (CIMIC) has officially emerged as a coordinated strategy between the United Nations peacekeeping missions and humanitarian non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to enable access to people in need of assistance in complex emergencies. However, this integrated approach raises serious concerns regarding the respect of traditional principles of humanitarian action: humanity, impartiality, neutrality, and independence. While some humanitarian NGOs are opposed to any form of collaboration with the military, others believe this cooperation is very important to enable access and provide aid to civilians in needs. Using the case study of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), this article analyses the impact of the CIMIC integrated approach between the United Nations Peacekeeping and Stabilization Mission in the DRC (MONUSCO) and humanitarian NGOs on the afore-mentioned principles of humanitarian action. It argues that most humanitarian NGOs that are operating in the Eastern DRC are opposed to the CIMIC's integrated approach as it pushes them to violate the principles of neutrality, independence, and impartiality. Second, CIMIC increases the danger of humanitarian workers to be targeted by illegal armed groups. Third, despite their integrated approach, both MONUSCO and humanitarian actors have not been able to pacify the Eastern DRC, end the humanitarian needs of the population, or improve their effectiveness. Keywords: Humanitarian intervention, DR Congo, civil-military cooperation, peace-building, complex emergencies

Geopolitical challenges not only cause humanitarian crises; they can also be the source of failures in humanitarian action. Recent years have brought unique changes to the humanitarian landscape, from criminal and political threats, proliferation of actors in the international humanitarian sector, to professionalisation and accountability agendas imposed by international organisations and the humanitarian community itself.

Table of Contents; Acknowledgments; Foreword; Introduction; Part 1: Subsidiarity in Context; Chapter One; Chapter Two; Chapter Three; Chapter Four; Part 2: Humanitarian Subsidiarity; Chapter Five; Chapter Six; Chapter Seven; Chapter Eight; Chapter Nine; Chapter Ten; Chapter Eleven; Chapter Twelve; Chapter Thirteen; Chapter Fourteen; Conclusion; Bibliography

The tragedies of the past decade have led to an identity crisis among humanitarians. Respecting traditional principles of neutrality and impartiality and operating procedures based on consent has created as many problems as it has solved. A debate is raging between "classicists," who believe that humanitarian action can be insulated from politics, and various "political humanitarians," who are attempting to use politics to improve relief and delivery in war zonesThis essay examines the pros and cons of impartial versus political humanitarianism and differing approaches across a spectrum of actors, including the classicists, led by the International Committee of the Red Cross, who believe that humanitarian action can and should be completely insulated from politics; the "minimalists," who "aim to do no harm" in delivering relief; the "maximalists," who have a more ambitious agenda of employing humanitarian action as part of a comprehensive strategy to transform conflict; and the "solidarists," exemplified by Médecins Sans Frontières (Doctors without Borders), who choose sides and abandon neutrality and impartiality as well as reject consent as a prerequisite for intervention. The essay argues that there is no longer any need to ask whether politics and humanitarian action intersect. The real question is how this intersection can be managed to ensure more humanized politics and more effective humanitarian action.

AbstractIn the debate on how to improve efficiencies in the humanitarian sector and better meet people's needs, the argument for the use of artificial intelligence (AI) and automated decision-making (ADMs) systems has gained significant traction and ignited controversy for its ethical and human rights-related implications.Setting aside the implications of introducing unmanned and automated systems in warfare, we focus instead on the impact of the adoption of AI-based ADMs in humanitarian response. In order to maintain the status and protection conferred by the humanitarian mandate, aid organizations are called to abide by a broad set of rules condensed in the humanitarian principles and notably the principles of humanity, neutrality, impartiality, and independence. But how do these principles operate when decision-making is automated?This article opens with an overview of AI and ADMs in the humanitarian sector, with special attention to the concept of algorithmic opacity. It then explores the transformative potential of these systems on the complex power dynamics between humanitarians, principled assistance, and affected communities during acute crises. Our research confirms that the existing flaws in accountability and epistemic processes can be also found in the mathematical and statistical formulas and in the algorithms used for automation, artificial intelligence, predictive analytics, and other efficiency-gaining-related processes.In doing so, our analysis highlights the potential harm to people resulting from algorithmic opacity, either through removal or obfuscation of the causal connection between triggering events and humanitarian services through the so-called black box effect (algorithms are often described as black boxes, as their complexity and technical opacity hide and obfuscate their inner workings (Diakopoulos, Tow Center for Digital Journ, 2017). Recognizing the need for a humanitarian ethics dimension in the analysis of automation, AI, and ADMs used in humanitarian action, we endorse the concept of "explicability" as developed within the ethical framework of machine learning and human-computer interaction, together with a set of proxy metrics.Finally, we stress the need for developing auditable standards, as well as transparent guidelines and frameworks to rein in the risks of what has been defined as humanitarian experimentation (Sandvik, Jacobsen, and McDonald, Int. Rev. Red Cross 99(904), 319–344, 2017). This article concludes that accountability mechanisms for AI-based systems and ADMs used to respond to the needs of populations in situation of vulnerability should be an essential feature by default, in order to preserve the respect of the do no harm principle even in the digital dimension of aid.In conclusion, while we confirm existing concerns related to the adoption of AI-based systems and ADMs in humanitarian action, we also advocate for a roadmap towards humanitarian AI for the sector and introduce a tentative ethics framework as basis for future research.