![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Aug. 10th, 2011 08:39 pmInteresting PDF on protection operations by humanitarian agencies. Interesting set of techniques.
http://www.alnap.org/pool/files/alnap-protection-guide.pdf
One point emphasized again and again is the need for people to be involved in their own protection.
"4 -- Build on people’s own self-protection capacity"
"Humanitarian common sense affirms the value of people’s own knowledge, capacity, insight and innovation in any given situation that threatens them. As a result, good practice in humanitarian protection values close cooperation and participation in any relationship between humanitarian agencies and the people they are trying to help. People are seldom passive when they feel at risk: they engage in a range of finely judged actions to cope, respond, adapt and survive. This makes it essential that people are involved in, and often take the lead on, decisions concerning their own protection."
However I also note throughout unthinking support for the United Nations position that civilians, IDPs ("internally displaced persons") and refugees should be disarmed, that non-state combatants should be demobilized and disarmed, and that misbehavior by state actors should either be shamed or re-educated.
It seems like a slam-dunk to organize communities to protect themselves. However, the individual and collective right to self-defense gets short shrift in international law, despite a rich history in philosophy and law. (See also http://www.hrea.org/index.php?doc_id=427)
The UN position on denying people around the world the right to self-defense makes the UN participant in atrocity.
( details )
The UN would prefer to continue the 'legitimate' international trade in arms of all kinds and disarm only individuals and villagers.
http://www.alnap.org/pool/files/alnap-protection-guide.pdf
One point emphasized again and again is the need for people to be involved in their own protection.
"4 -- Build on people’s own self-protection capacity"
"Humanitarian common sense affirms the value of people’s own knowledge, capacity, insight and innovation in any given situation that threatens them. As a result, good practice in humanitarian protection values close cooperation and participation in any relationship between humanitarian agencies and the people they are trying to help. People are seldom passive when they feel at risk: they engage in a range of finely judged actions to cope, respond, adapt and survive. This makes it essential that people are involved in, and often take the lead on, decisions concerning their own protection."
However I also note throughout unthinking support for the United Nations position that civilians, IDPs ("internally displaced persons") and refugees should be disarmed, that non-state combatants should be demobilized and disarmed, and that misbehavior by state actors should either be shamed or re-educated.
It seems like a slam-dunk to organize communities to protect themselves. However, the individual and collective right to self-defense gets short shrift in international law, despite a rich history in philosophy and law. (See also http://www.hrea.org/index.php?doc_id=427)
The UN position on denying people around the world the right to self-defense makes the UN participant in atrocity.
( details )
The UN would prefer to continue the 'legitimate' international trade in arms of all kinds and disarm only individuals and villagers.
