Practices and critiques of international humanitarian law
The development of contemporary humanitarian action has historically been associated with international humanitarian law. Viewed as a framework and scope for humanitarian action by certain players and as ambiguous (necro)ethics to be used as a political resource whenever necessary by others, humanitarian law has played a pivotal role in various controversies roiling MSF and the aid community. The studies contained in this volume explore these controversies, delving into the relationships between humanitarian organisations, international criminal justice, the right to intervene, the law-making process and the various ways the law is used.
Abstaining from participation in a meeting taking place this coming Thursday, MSF feels that "government officials have listened politely at best and shown condescension and contempt at worst in response to positions expressed in meetings, op-ed pieces published in the press and questions asked in meetings by NGOs" and do not hide "a policy that is sliding into harsh repression".
This op-ed article was published on 27 October 2017 in the French weekly Marianne. He writes it in the backdrop of a controversy around a "Que Sais-Je" book on Rwanda published by the Belgian researcher, Filip Reyntjens and the accusations against him that he rewrites history and seeks to minor the genocide of the Tutsis in 1994.
How can anyone write about Rwanda without being called a denialist? Marc Le Pape tries to craft an answer in this article, published on the website The Conversation on 19 October 2017.
In this post, published in Border Criminologies, Michaël Neuman and Corinne Torre speak out against the inhuman conditions imposed on migrants and refugees in Calais by the French state. This piece was originally published in French in Le Monde.
Could a doctor working for a humanitarian organisation be sentenced to life imprisonment in the United States for having offered his “expert advice” to people linked to a “terrorist organisation”? That is what is feared by a number of civil rights’ organisations in the US since the Supreme Court declared on 21 June that the legislation known as the Material Support Statute was constitutional.
Rony Brauman criticises the International Criminal Court's indictment of the Sudanese president for genocide. If the prosecutor's argument is followed, humanitarian organisations working in the displaced people's camps should be charged with complicity in genocide.
Argued in the 1990s in the name of the "right or duty to intervene", the application of military might to rescue populations in danger is now debated with reference to the "Responsibility to Protect" paradigm (or "R2P" for those in the know). In this article Fabrice Weissman explains why MSF refuses to adhere to this doctrine of ‘just war', whose legalisation would effectively be legalising a new form of imperialism.