Stabilisation and humanitarian access in a collapsed state

The Somali case

Dados Bibliográficos

ID5084870
AutoresKen Menkhaus (Davidson College, autor correspondente)
Ano2010
Volume34
Fascículos3
PáginasS320-41
Data de publicação2010-10-01
Peer ReviewedSim
Open AccessSim
TipoARTICLE
PeriódicoDisasters (JOURNAL)
Identificadores do periódicoISSN: 0361-3666 • E-ISSN: 1467-7717
EditoraWiley (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1111/j.1467-7717.2010.01204.x
PMID20846348
OpenAlexW1964921310
IdiomaEN
Citações recebidas15
Referências citadas13

Somalia today is the site of three major threats: the world's worst humanitarian crisis; the longest-running instance of complete state collapse; and a robust jihadist movement with links to Al-Qa'ida. External state-building, counter-terrorism and humanitarian policies responding to these threats have worked at cross-purposes. State-building efforts that insist humanitarian relief be channelled through the nascent state in order to build its legitimacy and capacity undermine humanitarian neutrality when the state is a party to a civil war. Counter-terrorism policies that seek to ensure that no aid benefits terrorist groups have the net effect of criminalising relief operations in countries where poor security precludes effective accountability. This paper argues that tensions between stabilisation and humanitarian goals in contemporary Somalia reflect a long history of politicisation of humanitarian operations in the country

Accountability · Civil society · Human rights · Humanitarian aid · Humanitarian crisis · Humanitarian intervention · International humanitarian law · Legitimacy · Neutrality · Political economy · Political science · Politics · Refugee · Sociology · Somali · State (computer science · Terrorism · Global Security and Public Health · Law · Political Conflict and Governance · Politics and Conflicts in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Middle East · Public Administration