2015Digital Commons-DePaul (DePaul University)Open access

Principled Humanitarian Organizations and the Use of Force: Is There Space to Speak Out?

Scott D. Paul, Elizabeth Holland

Open full text 0 citations

Abstract

Humanitarian organizations are fundamentally concerned with addressing the suffering of civilians. The decision by an armed actor to resort to force can result in greater protection or greater harm, and has at least as significant an impact on civilian lives as any decision made during the conduct of hostilities. Yet, humanitarian organizations rarely publicly advocate for or against the use of force. This article explores the perceived and actual limitations that humanitarian principles place on the public advocacy of humanitarian organizations regarding the recourse to force. It begins with a discussion of the relevant legal framework and explication of the fundamental humanitarian principles. It then goes on to discuss the political and operational implications for humanitarian organizations that choose to speak out, and outlines the issues that these organizations may consider when choosing to adopt a public position on the use of force.

Open-access reader

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Humanitarian organizations are fundamentally concerned with addressing the suffering of civilians. The decision by an armed actor to resort to force can result in greater protection or greater harm, and has at least as significant an impact on civilian lives as any decision made during the conduct of hostilities. Yet, humanitarian organizations rarely publicly advocate for or against the use of force. This article explores the perceived and actual limitations that humanitarian principles place on the public advocacy of humanitarian organizations regarding the recourse to force. It begins with a discussion of the relevant legal framework and explication of the fundamental humanitarian principles. It then goes on to discuss the political and operational implications for humanitarian organizations that choose to speak out, and outlines the issues that these organizations may consider when choosing to adopt a public position on the use of force.

Why it matters

A significance statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

Humanitarian organizations are fundamentally concerned with addressing the suffering of civilians. The decision by an armed actor to resort to force can result in greater protection or greater harm, and has at least as significant an impact on civilian lives as any decision made during the conduct of hostilities. Yet, humanitarian organizations rarely publicly advocate for or against the use of force. This article explores the perceived and actual limitations that humanitarian principles place on the public advocacy of humanitarian organizations regarding the recourse to force. It begins with a discussion of the relevant legal framework and explication of the fundamental humanitarian principles. It then goes on to discuss the political and operational implications for humanitarian organizations that choose to speak out, and outlines the issues that these organizations may consider when choosing to adopt a public position on the use of force.

Key concepts: Explication, Humanitarian aid, Harm, Political science, International humanitarian law, Use of force, Politics, Position (finance)

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source