This is a start-of-the-art consideration of the European Union’s crisis response mechanisms. It brings together scholars from a range of disciplinary backgrounds to examine how and why the EU responds to crises on its borders and further afield. The work is based on extensive fieldwork in among another places, Afghanistan, Libya, Mali and Iraq.
The book considers the construction of crises and how some issues are deemed crises and others not. A major finding from this comparative study is that EU crisis response interventions have been placing increasing emphasis on security and stabilisation and less emphasis on human rights and democratisation. This changes – quite fundamentally – the EU’s stance as an international actor and leads to questions about the nature of the EU and how it perceives itself and is perceived by others.
The volume is able to bring together scholars from EU Studies and Peace and Conflict Studies. The result showcases concept and theory-building alongside case study research.
features of world politics condition its political behaviour, we concentrate on the Union’s foreign policy repertoires and how these impacts the implementation of EU’s external crisis response. Such a study will also allow us to conclude on whether the Union’s approach can be understood as crisis management, crisis resolution or crisis transformation (see Chapter 2 , this volume). The empirical focus is
). In this chapter we use the substance of all these data to conceptualise the obstacles that EU crisis response currently is facing through five paradoxes that permeate these operations. While all five paradoxes are not equally present in all cases, they characterise EU crisis response efforts and demand more attention from research and policy. These paradoxes are (1) that the EU strives for local ownership
Introduction How effective is the EU’s crisis response policy in terms of its CSDP missions in Afghanistan, Iraq and Mali, that is, in the EU’s self-defined extended neighbourhood? Are the crisis responses conservative and constrained (crisis management) or emancipatory and ambitious (crisis transformation)? These are pertinent questions guiding the social
leads to divergences in the practical implementation of comprehensiveness. In theory, a comprehensive and integrated approach should be able to span a wide repertoire of policy responses to crises and emergent crises. This could span crisis management, crisis resolution and crisis transformation, and even suggests the possibility of flexible or calibrated crisis responses whereby a ‘mix and match
Language and its translation are important operational concerns in humanitarian crisis response. Information sharing, coordination, collaboration and relationship-building all revolve around the ability to communicate effectively. However, doing so is hampered in many humanitarian crises by linguistic differences and a lack of access to adequate translation. Various innovative practices and products are being developed and deployed with the goal of addressing these concerns. In this theoretical paper, we critically appraise the ethical terrain of crisis translation and humanitarian innovation. We identify ethical issues related to three broad themes. First, we foreground questions of justice in access to translation and its prioritisation in contexts of widespread and pressing needs. Second, we consider the relationship between humanitarian ethics and the ethics of crisis translation. We argue for the importance of attending to epistemic justice in humanitarian crisis response, and consider how Ricoeur’s conception of linguistic hospitality provides insights into how relationships in humanitarian settings can be understood through the lens of an ethics of exchange while also acknowledging the steep asymmetries that often exist in these contexts. Finally, we identify issues related to how translation innovations intersect with humanitarian values and humanitarians’ ethical commitments.
since there were no legal frameworks governing the sector, the Ministry of Social Affairs (MoSA) excluded refugees from participating in DST as of 2019. MoSA is empowered to enforce such decisions as GoL’s designee to negotiate humanitarian aid strategies and sign the annual Lebanon Crisis Response Plan, 7 prepared in collaboration with the UN Resident/Humanitarian Coordinator. The DST curriculum was shared with MoSA, and together with WFP explained
Media ). Lafrenière , J. , Sweetman , C. and Thylin , T. ( 2019 ), ‘Introduction: Gender, Humanitarian Action and Crisis Response’ , Gender and Development , 27 : 2 , 187 – 202 , doi: 10.1080/13552074.2019.1634332 . Lake , M. , Muthaka , I. and Walker , G. ( 2016 ), ‘Gendering Justice in Humanitarian Spaces: Opportunity and (Dis)Empowerment through Gender-Based Legal Development Outreach in the Eastern Democratic Republic of Congo’ , Law & Society Review , 50 : 3 , 539 – 74 , doi: 10.1111/lasr.12215
successfully applied all over the world. For example, the American Red Cross established fire-detection sensors in informal settlements in Nairobi ( American Red Cross, 2016 ) and Digital Democracy (2014) partnered with the Indigenous Wapichana people of Guyana to build and operate drones to monitor environmental degradation. UNICEF designed and delivered a crisis-response trauma programme to train Rwandese ‘trauma advisors’, ‘who in turn trained 6193
, 2015 : 14). While the EU has been involved in a series of continuously morphing and deepening internal crises ( Habermas, 2012 ; Giddens, 2014 ; Offe, 2015 ), this book focuses on the Union’s capacity to respond to crises outside of the internal market. The EU’s recent development of a distinct interventionary practice for external crisis responses ( Bátora et al ., 2016 ) inspired this