重新考虑人道主义空间:叙利亚人道主义与和平谈判之间复杂的相互依存关系

IF 4 1区 社会学 Q1 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
Milena Dieckhoff
{"title":"重新考虑人道主义空间:叙利亚人道主义与和平谈判之间复杂的相互依存关系","authors":"Milena Dieckhoff","doi":"10.1080/13523260.2020.1773025","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Humanitarian agencies working in violent conflicts often insist on separating humanitarian negotiations from political mediation efforts. However, many academics and practitioners also wonder if humanitarian negotiations can really be apolitical and disentangled from peace negotiations. Using the case study of Syria, this article analyzes the interactions between humanitarian negotiations and international peace negotiations. By considering various actors involved in Syria and the different arenas of negotiations (mainly the Astana talks and the United Nations negotiations led by the Special Envoy), it demonstrates that humanitarian and peace negotiations are governed by a complex interdependence. A dual process of politicization of humanitarian action and “humanitarization” of political negotiations is at work, in a Syrian context characterized by a fragmented and controversial humanitarian space. This article is based on unique data from participant observation during four international meetings bringing together humanitarian practitioners from different organizations and political actors.","PeriodicalId":46729,"journal":{"name":"Contemporary Security Policy","volume":"41 1","pages":"564 - 586"},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-06-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/13523260.2020.1773025","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reconsidering the humanitarian space: Complex interdependence between humanitarian and peace negotiations in Syria\",\"authors\":\"Milena Dieckhoff\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/13523260.2020.1773025\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT Humanitarian agencies working in violent conflicts often insist on separating humanitarian negotiations from political mediation efforts. However, many academics and practitioners also wonder if humanitarian negotiations can really be apolitical and disentangled from peace negotiations. Using the case study of Syria, this article analyzes the interactions between humanitarian negotiations and international peace negotiations. By considering various actors involved in Syria and the different arenas of negotiations (mainly the Astana talks and the United Nations negotiations led by the Special Envoy), it demonstrates that humanitarian and peace negotiations are governed by a complex interdependence. A dual process of politicization of humanitarian action and “humanitarization” of political negotiations is at work, in a Syrian context characterized by a fragmented and controversial humanitarian space. This article is based on unique data from participant observation during four international meetings bringing together humanitarian practitioners from different organizations and political actors.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46729,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Contemporary Security Policy\",\"volume\":\"41 1\",\"pages\":\"564 - 586\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-06-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/13523260.2020.1773025\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Contemporary Security Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/13523260.2020.1773025\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Contemporary Security Policy","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13523260.2020.1773025","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

在暴力冲突中工作的人道主义机构经常坚持将人道主义谈判与政治调解努力分开。然而,许多学者和实践者也怀疑人道主义谈判是否真的能够与政治无关,与和平谈判分离开来。本文以叙利亚为例,分析了人道主义谈判与国际和平谈判的互动关系。通过考虑叙利亚问题中涉及的各种行为体和谈判的不同领域(主要是阿斯塔纳会谈和由特使领导的联合国谈判),该报告表明,人道主义与和平谈判受到复杂的相互依存关系的支配。人道主义行动政治化和政治谈判“人道主义化”的双重进程正在发挥作用,在叙利亚的背景下,其特点是一个支离破碎和有争议的人道主义空间。本文基于四次国际会议期间参与者观察的独特数据,这些会议汇集了来自不同组织和政治行动者的人道主义从业人员。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Reconsidering the humanitarian space: Complex interdependence between humanitarian and peace negotiations in Syria
ABSTRACT Humanitarian agencies working in violent conflicts often insist on separating humanitarian negotiations from political mediation efforts. However, many academics and practitioners also wonder if humanitarian negotiations can really be apolitical and disentangled from peace negotiations. Using the case study of Syria, this article analyzes the interactions between humanitarian negotiations and international peace negotiations. By considering various actors involved in Syria and the different arenas of negotiations (mainly the Astana talks and the United Nations negotiations led by the Special Envoy), it demonstrates that humanitarian and peace negotiations are governed by a complex interdependence. A dual process of politicization of humanitarian action and “humanitarization” of political negotiations is at work, in a Syrian context characterized by a fragmented and controversial humanitarian space. This article is based on unique data from participant observation during four international meetings bringing together humanitarian practitioners from different organizations and political actors.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
14.60
自引率
6.80%
发文量
22
期刊介绍: One of the oldest peer-reviewed journals in international conflict and security, Contemporary Security Policy promotes theoretically-based research on policy problems of armed conflict, intervention and conflict resolution. Since it first appeared in 1980, CSP has established its unique place as a meeting ground for research at the nexus of theory and policy. Spanning the gap between academic and policy approaches, CSP offers policy analysts a place to pursue fundamental issues, and academic writers a venue for addressing policy. Major fields of concern include: War and armed conflict Peacekeeping Conflict resolution Arms control and disarmament Defense policy Strategic culture International institutions. CSP is committed to a broad range of intellectual perspectives. Articles promote new analytical approaches, iconoclastic interpretations and previously overlooked perspectives. Its pages encourage novel contributions and outlooks, not particular methodologies or policy goals. Its geographical scope is worldwide and includes security challenges in Europe, Africa, the Middle-East and Asia. Authors are encouraged to examine established priorities in innovative ways and to apply traditional methods to new problems.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信