Suchergebnisse

Abstract
The notion of solidarity, although not new to the humanitarian sector, has re-emerged in recent discussions about effective and ethical humanitarian action, particularly in contexts such as Ukraine and Myanmar where the traditional humanitarian principles have been facing certain pressures. Because solidarity appears as a good but can also involve selectivity and privilege, and because it risks continued militarism and normalization of civilians participating within that militarism, the notion of solidarity merits rich and rigorous thinking. This article explores how the notion of solidarity is being utilized by those currently re-emphasizing its importance and what it might mean in practice in today's humanitarian contexts. The article argues that if solidary action involves not only a political stance but solidary working methods, the recent calls for solidarity demand respect for the variety of principles and practices within the humanitarian ecosystem, while nevertheless upholding mutual obligations owed within that professional community – that is, within careful limits as to what is considered humanitarian action.

Abstract
Through ethnographic observations from international humanitarian work and interviews with humanitarian professionals, Joe Cropp's The Humanitarian Fix: Navigating Civilian Protection in Contemporary Wars engagingly describes the daily practice of humanitarian negotiation and persuasion. The book illustrates how the international humanitarian has morphed from the more classical neutral intermediary to emerge as a broker and translator with a toolbox of more official and less official reframings of international law and policy to grapple with local problems and persuade different actors. In this review essay, I highlight the hidden insight for international lawyers in Cropp's book regarding questions of universality and pluralism in international humanitarian law and the double-bind practitioners face: while these practices of translation look like an openness to pluralism in humanitarian law, within the current international framework, any translation by necessity re-emphasises how these reframings are not the law, and ultimately work as techniques to reinforce the authority and claimed universality of the central system.

This paper takes as its starting point the question of whether and to what extent States may have an international legal obligation towards other States to seek to prevent those within their jurisdiction from travelling abroad to fight with a non-State armed group in a foreign armed conflict. While there is a strong basis for such due diligence obligations regarding the prevention of terrorist activity, including Security Council Resolution 2178 (2014) on 'foreign terrorist fighters', the scope of responsibility is less clear regarding broader categories of foreigners participating in civil war, despite a long history of foreign volunteers in armed conflict. In this paper, I present a reading of two possible resolutions in international law to the question posed by this 'other' foreign fighting and explore the tensions between them. The first is based on State responsibility, sovereign equality, and diligent prevention of harm; the second on a more contextual reading of human rights considerations and global justice. The tensions surrounding 'other' foreign fighters provide a practical example of the oscillation between a reliance on the consent of States and a notion of the collective good in international legal argument. Acknowledging the practical reliance of States on these interlacing perspectives in different times and contexts, I suggest the importance of stepping back and slowing down to look beyond today's predominant but narrower and rushed, focus on counter-terrorism approaches to take account of the key themes that have shaped the legal discourse and practice regarding a broader historical range of foreign volunteering in armed conflict.