Search

Begin New Search Topic Humanitarian Intervention Political Geography Global Focus

11. Is Use of Cyber-Based Technology in Humanitarian Operations Leading to the Reduction of Humanitarian Independence?

Author:
Martin Stanley Searle
Publication Date:
06-2018
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Centre for Non-Traditional Security Studies (NTS)
Abstract:
Technologies of the Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR) are being tested and adopted at a significant rate in humanitarian emergency response. However, the crossing of physical, biological, and cyber domains that characterises these technologies threatens the independence of humanitarian organisations. This is occurring in an environment in which the value and purpose of independence is already seriously questioned, both in practice, and in principle. This paper argues that the loss of independence stems from two related trends. First, several 4IR technologies are improving the capacity of humanitarian organisations to gather, synthesise, and analyse data, resulting in the production of information of increasingly strategic, political or military value. Second, the cyber component of these technologies simultaneously renders that information more vulnerable to unauthorised access by third parties with relevant political, military or economic agendas. This parallels the “capability/ vulnerability paradox” identified in literature discussing cybersecurity in relation to the military or so-called “smart cities”. In conflict and disaster settings, this paradox increases the likelihood of humanitarian actors functioning as appendages of other organisations. This loss of independence potentially has operational implications relating to access, and material impact on the ongoing debate around the importance of independence in humanitarian work.
Topic:
Science and Technology, Cybersecurity, Humanitarian Intervention, and Independence
Political Geography:
Global Focus

12. Development Impact Bonds Targeting Health Outcomes

Author:
Lorcan Clarke, Kalipso Chalkidou, and Cassandra Nemzoff
Publication Date:
12-2018
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for Global Development
Abstract:
As of December 2018, seven development impact bonds (DIBs) have been launched across seven countries with nearly US$55million in cumulative outcome funding. DIBs fund public services through contracts where private investors provide upfront flexible funding to service providers and outcome funders repay these investors based on the outcomes achieved by people receiving services. Three DIBs specifically target health outcomes: the Humanitarian Impact Bond, the Utkrisht Impact Bond, and the Cameroon Cataract Bond. The three “health DIBs” involve US$26.5 million in upfront investment, US$38.1 million in outcome funding and aim to impact the health of at least 31,600 people. Using publicly available information, we describe all seven DIBs, and evaluate the three “health DIBs” in more detail, comparing their stakeholders, implementation, and outcome structures. Building on a scoping review of relevant literature, we outline health DIBs in the pipeline and note that the potential of DIBs as a funding structure is hindered by the lack of publicly available information on their estimated impact and value for money. We offer three recommendations to improve evaluation and inform development of DIBs in the future: (1) publish plans and evaluations, (2) create and use consistent reporting guidelines, and (3) allocate funding to evaluate impact and value for money.
Topic:
Development, Health, and Humanitarian Intervention
Political Geography:
Global Focus

13. Committing to Justice for Serious Human Rights Violations: Lessons from Hybrid Tribunals

Author:
Elena Naughton
Publication Date:
12-2018
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
The International Center for Transitional Justice (ICTJ)
Abstract:
Hybrid courts (or mixed tribunals combining international and national components) are no longer a novel approach to pursuing criminal accountability for egregious crimes of international concern (war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide). Created and implemented in diverse contexts around the globe for over a decade, they provide countries with an alternative to a fully domestic or international judicial process to hold perpetrators to account for mass atrocities. Over time, hybrid jurisdictions have proven themselves to be a viable model of justice in difficult circumstances. Although almost all have faced funding shortfalls at some time during their mandate and most have been met with strong opposition from those hostile to rigorous accountability efforts, each has investigated crimes and brought about justice where few if any other justice options existed. Their inherent strength rests, in part, on the flexibility they offer for responding to complex international crimes at the national level and on the opportunity they provide for promoting the exchange of information and expertise and for building capacity. There is no model hybrid tribunal. Rather, each hybrid court is established in response to the particular needs of the context and may be “internationalized” in varying ways and to different degrees. The degree of international involvement has almost always been negotiated to meet the needs of domestic authorities who were reluctant to cede sovereignty and to address the concerns of international actors who were uncertain about the adequacy of existing due process norms or wary of limitations in the state’s judicial, legal, and institutional capacity. As a result, a hybrid tribunal usually reflects the political compromises reached among the negotiating parties, most often the United Nations (UN) and the host state. The negotiation process itself can provide space for different factions to come together to build consensus around a common and sustainable approach to achieving accountability. They can also make accountability processes more responsive to the needs of victims and communities, including by giving victims the right to participate in the proceedings. Because of this process of give and take, hybrid tribunals offer the promise of independent justice within a mechanism that is capable of responding to complex international crimes at the domestic level.
Topic:
Human Rights, Humanitarian Intervention, Transitional Justice, and Humanitarian Crisis
Political Geography:
Global Focus

14. The Responsibility to Protect beyond Borders in the Law of Nature and Nations

Author:
Luke Glanville
Publication Date:
10-2017
Content Type:
Journal Article
Abstract:
While histories of human rights have proliferated in recent decades, little attention has been given to the history of thinking about duties to protect these rights beyond sovereign borders. We have a good understanding of the history of duties of sovereign states to ensure the safety and well-being of their own citizens and of the right of other states to forcefully intervene when these duties are violated. But the story of the development of thinking about duties to assist and protect the vulnerable beyond borders remains to be told. This article defends the importance of excavating and examining past thinking about these duties. It then sketches key aspects of Western natural law thinking about such duties, from Francisco de Vitoria through to Immanuel Kant, claiming that such study holds the promise of exposing from where ideas that prevail in international law and politics have come and retrieving alternative ideas that have been long forgotten but that may reward renewed consideration. It concludes by briefly outlining how three such retrieved ideas might be of particular use for those seeking to push international law and politics in a more just direction today.
Topic:
Human Rights, International Law, Sovereignty, History, Humanitarian Intervention, and Philosophy
Political Geography:
Europe and Global Focus

15. State Responsibility for Non-State Actors That Detain In The Course of a NIAC

Author:
Emily Chertoff, Lara Dominguez, Zak Manfriedi, and Peter Tzeng
Publication Date:
12-2015
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for Global Legal Challenges, Yale Law School
Abstract:
This white paper addresses three questions that arise when a non-state actor that is receiving assistance from a state actor in a non-international armed conflict engages in detention activities: (1) Under international law, when does a non-state actor have the authority to detain individuals captured in the course of a non-international armed conflict? (2) When does a state providing assistance to a non-state actor become responsible under international law for the non- state actor’s actions? (3) Assuming such responsibility exists, what actions must the state take if it believes the non-state actor may engage in human rights abuses or violations of the law of armed conflict? In response to the first question, neither the Geneva Conventions nor customary international humanitarian law provides a legal basis for non-state actors to detain captured individuals in non-international armed conflicts. However, international humanitarian law also does not expressly prohibit non-state actors from detaining individuals. Instead, it regulates the conditions of detention. If non-state actors comply with Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions and relevant provisions of the Second Additional Protocol, detention by armed groups in non-international armed conflict does not violate an explicit provision of international humanitarian law. As long as detention is not arbitrary, internment by non-state actors is also unlikely to constitute the war crime of unlawful confinement. In response to the second question, under agency-based theories of the state responsibility doctrine, actions of non-state actors may be directly attributed to the state if (1) the state exercises either strict or overall control over the non-state actor such that the group operates as a de jure or de facto state organ or (2) the state exercises effective control over a specific operation undertaken by the non-state actor. Additionally, to the extent Common Article 1 requires states to ensure that all parties to an armed conflict respect the Geneva Conventions, it may create an alternative and additional source of state liability for the actions of non-state actors. Finally, in response to the third question, this white paper recommends a series of ex ante and ex post measures states can adopt when engaging with a non-state actor. These include, vetting, training, acquiring written agreements, providing punishment frameworks, and ceasing support when actors commit violations of IHL. Since existing jurisprudence does not contemplate mitigation of state responsibility for the conduct of non-state actors, it is difficult to assess to what extent any of the proposed measures would limit the state’s liability. Nevertheless, states adopting these recommendations will both make violations less likely and be more likely to discharge their duties under international humanitarian and human rights law. By taking ex ante measures designed to prevent violations and creating ex post incentives for non-state partners to comply with IHL norms, states reduce the risk armed groups will engage in detention practices that violate international law.
Topic:
International Law, Non State Actors, Humanitarian Intervention, and Armed Conflict
Political Geography:
Global Focus