Disaster Militarism? Military Humanitarian Assistance and Disaster Relief

G. Simm
{"title":"Disaster Militarism? Military Humanitarian Assistance and Disaster Relief","authors":"G. Simm","doi":"10.1163/18757413_022001014","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Military assets, which include personnel, make an important contribution to disaster relief. However, military deployments can be politically sensitive, and the relevant international law is contested and not binding. This article compares two sets of UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UN OCHA) Guidelines on this issue. The 2007 Oslo Guidelines1 state that military assets should be used in disaster relief only as a last resort, while the 2014 Asia-Pacific Regional Guidelines2 acknowledge that military assets are often the first to respond to disasters in the region. Drawing on examples primarily from Asia, this article explores the apparent conflict between these two UN Guidelines and asks two questions about the deployment of foreign military assets in disaster relief. First, to what extent does international law authorize or limit the deployment of foreign military assets in disaster relief? Second, what are the politics of deploying military assets in disaster relief? This article argues that, rather than representing a global standard, the Oslo Guidelines better reflect European practice within Europe, while the Asia-Pacific Regional Guidelines are more representative of practice worldwide. It concludes that the type of military aid provided is key to its compliance with international law and its political acceptance.","PeriodicalId":167092,"journal":{"name":"Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law Online","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-10-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law Online","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18757413_022001014","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

Military assets, which include personnel, make an important contribution to disaster relief. However, military deployments can be politically sensitive, and the relevant international law is contested and not binding. This article compares two sets of UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UN OCHA) Guidelines on this issue. The 2007 Oslo Guidelines1 state that military assets should be used in disaster relief only as a last resort, while the 2014 Asia-Pacific Regional Guidelines2 acknowledge that military assets are often the first to respond to disasters in the region. Drawing on examples primarily from Asia, this article explores the apparent conflict between these two UN Guidelines and asks two questions about the deployment of foreign military assets in disaster relief. First, to what extent does international law authorize or limit the deployment of foreign military assets in disaster relief? Second, what are the politics of deploying military assets in disaster relief? This article argues that, rather than representing a global standard, the Oslo Guidelines better reflect European practice within Europe, while the Asia-Pacific Regional Guidelines are more representative of practice worldwide. It concludes that the type of military aid provided is key to its compliance with international law and its political acceptance.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
灾难军国主义?军事人道主义援助和救灾
包括人员在内的军事资产为救灾作出了重要贡献。然而,军事部署在政治上可能是敏感的,相关的国际法是有争议的,没有约束力。本文比较了联合国人道主义事务协调厅(UN OCHA)关于这一问题的两套准则。2007年的《奥斯陆指导方针》指出,军事资产只应作为最后手段用于救灾,而2014年的《亚太地区指导方针》承认,军事资产往往是该地区对灾害作出反应的第一步。本文主要以亚洲为例,探讨了这两项联合国准则之间的明显冲突,并就在救灾中部署外国军事资产提出了两个问题。第一,国际法在多大程度上授权或限制外国军事资产在救灾中的部署?第二,在救灾中部署军事资产的政治是什么?本文认为,奥斯陆指南并没有代表一个全球标准,而是更好地反映了欧洲内部的欧洲实践,而亚太地区指南则更能代表全球的实践。报告的结论是,所提供军事援助的类型是其遵守国际法和在政治上被接受的关键。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The Application of Teachings by the International Court of Justice, 2016–2022 Revisiting the Standard of Proof for Charges of Exceptional Gravity before the International Court of Justice The Legitimacy of the International Court of Justice from the Vantage Point of UN Members The International Court of Justice and Territorial Disputes: an Updated Systematization The ILC’s First Reading Draft Articles on ‘Immunity of State Officials from Foreign Criminal Jurisdiction’ (2022)
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1