Stabilisation and humanitarian access in a collapsed state

The Somali case

Datos Bibliográficos

ID5084870
AutoresKen Menkhaus (Davidson College, autor de correspondencia)
Año2010
Volumen34
Números3
PáginasS320-41
Fecha de publicación2010-10-01
Peer ReviewedSí
Open AccessSí
TipoARTICLE
RevistaDisasters (JOURNAL)
Identificadores de la revistaISSN: 0361-3666 • E-ISSN: 1467-7717
EditorialWiley (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1111/j.1467-7717.2010.01204.x
PMID20846348
OpenAlexW1964921310
IdiomaEN
Citas recibidas15
Referencias 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