Search results

Staff Security and Civilian Protection in the Humanitarian Sector

protection’ and ‘staff security’ – and each designates a distinct set of policies and practices. Starting from the perspective that the reasons for such a distinction are not self-evident, the current article seeks to draw attention to the differences between staff-security and civilian-protection strategies, and to stimulate a conversation about the extent to which the differences are justified. The aim is not to argue for or against particular strategies for the safety of aid workers or the wider civilian population, or even to argue that the distinction between these

Journal of Humanitarian Affairs

(from 2010) – have been the epicentres of international peacebuilding in the DRC. Although the UN declared the DRC a threat to international peace and security in order to justify its intervention, a late and controversial arms embargo and a lack of response to a war of aggression against a member state were evidence that the image of Zaire/DRC as a failed state had become the guidance for action (UN Security Council 1996; 1999; 2003).21 The UN’s actions have been contradictory. Its main priorities of civilian protection and the reconstruction of state authority have

in Everyday resistance, peacebuilding and state-making

, which changed MONUC to MONUSCO, established its priorities as: civilian protection, peace stabilisation and consolidation, and restoration of state authority (UN Security Council 2010). More than ever before, Resolution 1925 put the responsibility for peace and order on the Congolese Government, while defining the UN mission as an external supportive actor, primarily concerned with civilian protection and political oversight. The success in civilian protection nevertheless remains limited. As seen in the previous chapter, the same peace agreements that have brought

in Everyday resistance, peacebuilding and state-making

–8. 33 C. Stahn, ‘Responsibility to Protect: Political Rhetoric or Emerging Legal Norm?’, American Journal of International Law , 101:1 (2007), 102. 34 A. J. Bellamy, ‘Whither the Responsibility to Protect? Humanitarian Intervention and the 2005 World Summit’, Ethics and International Affairs , 20:2 (2006), 146–7, 151–2, 167. 35 J. Welsh, ‘Civilian Protection in

in Humanitarian intervention in the long nineteenth century

claim to legitimacy and symbolic capital allows for these practices to be carried out under the premise of necessity and civilian protection. The context of power relations in which multiple statebuilding projects coalesce impinges on resistance. Plural forms of domination give rise to a series of resistance strategies that make resistance heterogeneous. The internationally led programmes under which government and NGOs operate do not reproduce a different structure of authority or a different type of resistance. Zürcher (2011) sees this as ‘the local’ being imposed

in Everyday resistance, peacebuilding and state-making

population, represent patterns of resistance in a context where state-making and peacebuilding agendas neglect civilian protection. This becomes more clearly visible when explored alongside the aspirations embedded in Mai Mai ideology. 137 Everyday resistance, peacebuilding and state-making Aspirations and agenda advancing Rejection of, and protection from, government agendas, war and state-making do not stand alone; rather, they are embedded in a broader system of ideology, religious beliefs and political aspirations. These include the reaffirmation of forms of local

in Everyday resistance, peacebuilding and state-making