Author Archives: Maria Gabrielsen Jumbert

Call for papers: Citizen Humanitarianism – Refugee Aid and Borders in Europe

Call for contribution to edited volume, edited by Maria Gabrielsen Jumbert (PRIO) and Elisa Pascucci (University of Helsinki)

Synopsis: Immediately after the European Union (EU)-Turkey deal on refugees was negotiated in March 2016, as number of arrivals from Turkey dropped and the Balkan route was supposedly “closed”, the so-called “European refugee crisis” seemed to fade away from public attention. The summer of 2018, however, was again marked by a seemingly new escalation in the conflict between states and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) engaged in migrant search and rescue activities in the Mediterranean. The newly elected right-wing Italian government announced that it would “close off” the country’s harbours to search and rescue ships, and promised a crack-down on what was defined as the “welcoming business” of NGOs, charities, cooperatives and associations active in the field of asylum seekers reception.

This development, like many others across the continent, highlighted the struggle of the EU and its member states’ to govern the many emerging manifestations of compassion and solidarity towards migrants at Europe’s borders (Pallister-Wilkins, 2018). As such, it can be read as a manifestation of the European geographies of what scholar William Walters, already in 2011, defined as “humanitarian borders”: border spaces characterized by the confluence of security mandates of ‘control’ and humanitarian concerns of ‘rescue’ (see also Pallister-Wilkins, 2018). Characterized as they are by complexity, heterogeneity and polymorphism (Walters 2011, p. 153; see also Burridge et al., 2017), the humanitarian borders of contemporary Europe are not merely instruments for the control of mobile bodies. As recent research has highlighted, they are also sites of resistance, solidarity, aid and activism, and indeed spaces of discipline and repression of these forms of political agency (Kallio et al., 2019; Stierl, 2017; Pallister-Wilkins, 2018; Tazzioli, 2018). In recent years, humanitarian borders have become new sites of intervention for traditional humanitarian actors and governmental agencies, but also, increasingly, for volunteer and activist initiatives by ‘ordinary’ citizens.

In this project, we set out to explore these citizen-led forms of helping others emerging at the humanitarian borders of Europe. Our starting hypothesis is that whereas humanitarian regimes of intervention have historically responded to situations where the state is unable or unwilling to assist crisis-affected communities; the emergence of what we call citizen-humanitarian spaces at Europe’s borders unfolds as a result of an expanding security apparatus set up to ‘protect the borders’ (see Pallister-Wilkins, 2016). Theoretically, we set out to interrogate the shifting relation between humanitarianism, the securitization of border and migration regimes, and citizenship. In doing so, we are inspired by literature that has critically expanded notions of citizenship to include practices and subjects that are traditionally excluded from institutionalized representation and formally defined polities (Ehrkamp and Leitner, 2006; Isin, 2008; Staeheli et al. 2012; Kallio and Mitchell, 2016).

By using the term “citizen humanitarianism”, we thus refer to the dispersed actors that promote practices of refugee aid “from below”, autonomously from established humanitarian organizations. We are thus interested in critically examining the “do-it-yourself” character of refugee aid practices performed by non-professionals coming together to help in informal and spontaneous manners, often with limited and unsophisticated resources, and the trajectories these initiatives may have, be they NGO-ization and co-optation by institutional humanitarianism, politicization or disappearance. How, if at all, do these new humanitarian practices challenge established conceptualizations of membership, belonging and active citizenship? Is humanitarianism being politicized by its proximity to securitized border spaces, and how? We are notably interested in processes of criminalization of humanitarian aid in these European border spaces.

Our aim in this work is to advance empirical knowledge by bringing together rich, in-depth qualitative studies of a number of such actors operating in different European countries, across the North-South and East-West divide. We particularly welcome case studies focusing on the following three interrelated categories of humanitarian practices:

1. Activist humanitarianism, in which refugee aid constitutes a form of contestation of border regimes. 

2. Local and international volunteering for refugees, emerging spontaneously in emergency contexts, or building on pre-existing religious and civic charity traditions (e.g. sanctuary spaces etc.)

3. Diaspora and migrant humanitarianism, encompassing not only networks of mutuality and solidarity among refugees and migrants, but also new engagements with activism, volunteering, and no-border political mobilization by diaspora groups.

For each of these emerging forms of humanitarianisms, we seek contributions that focus on two main aspects: their relation with states and European governmental agencies, including the tensions evidenced by the recent trends towards the criminalization of humanitarian aid, and conflict, cooperation and co-optation by established, professionalised humanitarian actors.

Timeline:

Deadline for submitting paper abstracts (300 words): 10 May 2019

Response from editors: 29 May 2019

Full papers to be submitted by 30 August

Send paper abstracts to margab@prio.org and elisa.pascucci@helsiniki.fi

Understanding the internal protection alternative (Part I)

This is the first post in a two-part series on the internal protection alternative (IPA) based on Jessica Schultz ’s new book on the topic. The two blog posts were first posted on “The EU Immigration and Asylum Law and Policy” blog, and are re-posted here. It starts with a case study on Norway and follows up with a post reflecting on refugee law’s ‘surrogate’ role which states use to justify IPA practice.

By: Jessica Schultz, Researcher and Senior Adviser, CMI

A post mortem on the demise of the reasonableness requirement: The IPA in Norway

It might surprise some readers that Norway, normally viewed as a human rights stalwart, is at the forefront of efforts to push the boundaries of refugee law in a restrictive direction. Like other European States, Norway responded to the influx of refugee claims in 2015 with a barrage of policies intended to deter and divert refugee flows. Border controls, safe third country transfers, time limits on residence, and restricted family reunification were among the measures adopted to ensure that Norway’s policies at a minimum were not more generous than those of its neighbors.  

In one area, however, Norway’s restrictions surpassed those of other states: it lowered the threshold for applying the ‘internal protection alternative’ (IPA) as a basis for denying refugee claims. IPA practice is premised on the view that refugee law comes into play when the claimant’s country of origin cannot or will not provide protection itself. If a domestic alternative to asylum abroad is accessible, safe, and reasonable, UNHCR and many states accept that a refugee claim may be refused.

Following amendments to the Immigration Act passed in 2016, this last condition, that relocation is ‘reasonable’, no longer applies. In the government’s view, the principle of non-refoulement only requires that protection against persecution is available in a return area. If it is, refugee status need not be recognized – no matter how harsh the consequences may be. Only one other jurisdiction – Australia – excludes reasonableness from the IPA assessment.

For reasons described here, ‘reasonableness’ (or proportionality) is widely-recognized as a legal requirement for application of the IPA limit. So what explains Norway’s outlier position? This post reviews the historical and political roots of Norway’s current IPA practice, including the claim that the right to refugee status is subject to a degree of state discretion. I will also discuss, as an example, the consequence of Norway’s position for unaccompanied Afghan minors and implications for other areas of refugee law.

Roots of the reasonableness test in Norway

As with other states in Northern Europe, IPA practice in Norway gained momentum in the 1990s, and evolved largely in response to claims of persecution by non-state actors. Consideration of the IPA in these early years was exceptional and informal in nature, and justified with reference to paragraph 91 of UNHCR’s 1979 Handbook. Although the 1988 Immigration Act made no mention of an IPA limit, the Ministry of Justice’s Asylum Guidelines in 1998 formally addressed, for the first time, the concept’s relation to refugee status:

In cases where the applicant will be threatened by non-state groups or individuals in certain areas of the home country, protection in Norway (either in the form of asylum or a residence permit) is normally refused if he or she will be secured protection in other (for example government-controlled) areas of the home country.

The Guidelines offered an exception when, ‘after a holistic assessment of all aspects (health issues, impact on children, links to Norway), there may be cases in which the claimant should not be compelled to relocate elsewhere in the home country despite the possibility of securing protection there.’ Notably, the ‘aspects’ mentioned depart from the ‘reasonableness’ criteria set out by UNHCR. Instead, they refer back to a separate provision of the Immigration Act concerning residence on humanitarian grounds.

From the beginning, then, the reasonableness test was deemed a matter of state discretion, to be linked to whatever criteria domestic authorities deemed to be most compelling.  The consequence was an overly narrow reasonableness assessment (excluding issues like the right to education, freedom of religion and past persecution) and a lower standard of judicial review.

Drafters of the 2008 Immigration Act aimed to realign the reasonableness test with UNHCR’s Guidelines. The Immigration Regulations that followed, however, reasserted the link between the reasonableness assessment and criteria for residence on strong humanitarian grounds. Jurisprudence remained split on the proper reference point until the issue was finally brought to the Norwegian Supreme Court in 2015.

The Supreme Court’s Internal Flight judgment

The Internal Flight case involved an Afghan family refused asylum on the basis of an IPA in Kabul. The parents were originally from Ghazni province, but had spent many years in Iran where their two daughters were born. The Board of Immigration Appeals (UNE) had concluded that their claim for asylum under the Refugee Convention was not credible, but that the family was nonetheless protected on grounds of the security situation from return to their area of origin.  

The question was then: could the family safely and reasonably relocate to another part of Afghanistan? The claimants argued that the IPA test should be interpreted in line with UNCHR´s guidance, in accordance with the intention of lawmakers. By linking the reasonableness criteria with discretionary factors instead, the Immigration Regulations overstepped their statutory basis. The Court, however, declined to rule directly on this issue. Instead, it simply confirmed that the Immigration Regulations, and the specific interpretation they codify, have a legal basis in the Immigration Act.

The Court’s refusal to address the actual criteria reflects a belief that reasonableness is not integral to the IPA concept. Why? One clue is found in Judge Utgård’s opinion, where he harkened back to the Supreme Court’s Abdi judgment from 1991. In that case, involving a sur place claim arising from the person’s voluntary activities in Norway, the Court distinguished between core areas covered by the Convention and periphery issues belonging to a state’s discretion. The subjective sur place problem occupied this peripheral zone: although Abdi was protected from refoulement, he could still be refused refugee status.

Referring to the Abdi judgment, Utgård wrote that the state has ‘broad liberty’ to regulate who has the right to refugee status in Norway. In Utgård’s view, the parameters of non-refoulement regulated by Article 33 (1) of the Geneva Convention only require that the ‘return area is accessible and safe.’ Considerations of reasonableness, on the other hand, occupy a peripheral space that can be regulated as the State sees fit. Even though Utgård’s position was obiter dictum, it was picked up by the Ministry of Justice and Security in its proposal not long afterwards to remove the reasonable conditions from the IPA test: ‘(t)he assessment here is linked to a core area for the Convention, which is protection against return to an area where the foreigner has a well-founded fear of persecution’ (emphasis added).

The ‘refugee crisis’ and removal of the reasonableness requirement in IPA practice

This proposal came as part of a package of measures announced in December 2015. According to the Ministry, the reasonableness test was essentially problematic: it had unclear scope and content; it opened for discretionary assessments that were difficult to structure; and it lead to unequal treatment of similar cases. Furthermore, the Ministry curiously claimed, ‘it is undisputed that international law does not require states to operate with the reasonableness criteria.’ In support of this statement it referred to Utgård’s minority opinion and incorrectly cited Professor Zimmermann´s well-known Commentary on the Refugee Convention. The Ministry also wrote that the ‘reasonableness’ requirement in the IPA provision of the EU Qualification Directive (Article 8) referred only to the extreme humanitarian conditions which have anyway been read into Article 3 ECHR by the ECtHR. In reality, Article 3 jurisprudence doesn’t even capture the requirements of ‘effective protection’ much less reasonableness for IPA purposes.  

Parliament approved the proposed amendment, which came into effect on October 1, 2016. The current IPA provision states that:

“[t]he right to be recognized as a refugee according to paragraph 1 does not pertain if the foreigner can receive effective protection in other parts of the country of origin than that area from which the claimant has fled”.

Consequences for refugee claimants: the case of Afghan minors

It is hard to measure the impact of the change in IPA practice on rates of recognition in Norway. One reason is that the IPA is often used as a subsidiary reason for refusing refugee status, when other aspects of the claim are unclear. Decisions typically reason that ‘even if’ the claimant is telling the truth, or the risk of persecution indeed exists, he or she could still safely relocate to a city or region within their country of origin. Therefore, statistics on the formal grounds for rejection do not capture the influence of IPA reasoning.

We do know, however, that changes to IPA practice has affected the rates of refugee status for some vulnerable groups. Families with children, single women, persons with serious illnesses and others are no longer recognised as refugees  because return to internal displacement would be unreasonable. Instead, if they are lucky, they receive a more contingent leave to remain for humanitarian reasons. The IPA rules have also affected recognition rates for unaccompanied minors (UAMs), most of whom come from Afghanistan.  Before 2016, UAMs were exempt from IPA practice since the absence of a caregiver would automatically render return ‘unreasonable’. This is no longer the case. Removal of the reasonableness requirement has resulted in the expanded use of temporary residence visas that expire at the age of 18. At that point these youths may be returned to a city (Kabul) increasingly recognized as profoundly unsafe and to a country those born in Iran or Pakistan have never even lived in.

Following a regulation change earlier in 2018 aimed at softening these harsh effects, decision-makers were instructed to review these cases to consider, among other things, whether the minor would have a network and/or resources to get along in Kabul.  These vulnerability criteria covered only a fraction of the factors relevant to a reasonableness analysis. Even so, the Immigration Directorate determined that less than half of the youths who applied met them. Many others, living precariously in Paris and elsewhere, did not meet the deadline for having their claim reconsidered.

Consequences for other dimensions of refugee law: cessation of refugee status

The concept of a refugee set out in the 1951 Refugee Convention is being squeezed not only in terms of its spatial dimension, but also its temporal one. As the Ministry of Justice reminds us, ‘international protection is subsidiary to protection in one’s own country’. In the next post, I will unpack this claim. For the time being, however, it begs the question: if refugee status can be refused on the basis of an IPA, can it also be revoked when an IPA becomes available?  In Norwegian practice, the answer appears to be positive.

In the view of the Ministry of Justice, the need for protection no longer exists when some area of the home country is safe. It has argued that implementing the IPA in these cessation cases ensures ‘equal treatment’ for all refugees from the same country, no matter what part they come from. This position not only conflates return to one’s previous residence with prolonged (domestic) displacement, but it diverges from requirements under the Refugee Convention. Article 1C (5) permits states to withdraw refugee status if, among other things, circumstances that gave rise to that status no longer exist. As the  UNHCR explains, “the changed situation must address the causes of displacement. Further, changes must be fundamental in nature, so that the refugee ‘can no longer…continue to refuse’ home state protection”. Referral to an IPA undermines both these guarantees.

Conclusion

In Norwegian practice, the focus of asylum authorities is not on the risk of persecution but on the possibility of protection somewhere, no matter how unreasonable the consequences are for the claimant. Even the threshold of  ‘effective protection’ is undermined by narrow interpretations of who can provide it, how long it may last and how big the area in which it exists needs to  be. The dynamics set in motion in 2015 create a dangerous precedent in a region where national authorities are anxious to exploit all possible arguments for refusing claims to refugee status.

Do you speak humanitarian?

By Simon Reid-Henry, Associate Professor in the School of Geography at Queen Mary, University of London & PRIO affiliate

I’m delighted to be invited to the launch of round two of the Norwegian Centre for Humanitarian Studies today in Oslo, with the establishment of a new network on humanitarian efforts.

There are now over half a million humanitarian professionals and between 2,500 and 4,500 organisations. This according to the event plenary – “Unravelling Humanitarian Concepts” –  delivered by Doris Schopper, the director of CERAH in Geneva. Over the past few years, Schopper has been leading an initiative to develop an online “humanitarian encyclopaedia” to try and bring some coherence to this congeries of actors (you can read more about their work here). But does the humanitarian sector actually need more ‘coordinating’ and more uniformity, as we are often told? Well, yes and no. As Schopper points out, there is today more than ever before an almost unmanageable diversity of cultural, disciplinary and organisational backgrounds within the humanitarian sector (just compare the leviathan like ICRC with the niche ‘pop up’ outfits that have arisen in response to the refugee crisis). Her point is that humanitarianism lacks a common “language” by which means these actors might more usefully “communicate”. 

But diversity is key too. In a way that is what the humanitarian sector best does: it fills in the cracks. And to ensure that this effort to find a common humanitarian language doesn’t ultimately descend into the usual tropes of global ‘governance’ I think also this felt need for unification and professionalisation needs resisting to some degree. For example, Schopper points out that there are 63 different definitions of resilience. This is a problem, she suggests. Arguably the greater problem here, however, is that resilience, as a meta concept, is so broad and influential that it can sustain 63 overlapping definitions (John Rawls and Martha Nussbaum be warned). 

For my money, one of the more interesting things to come from Schopper’s talk was the way to which (a) disciplinary and institutional backgrounds shape the extent to which people agree on basic concepts (anyone who has done interdisciplinary research will confirm that!); and (b) that the sources of people’s conceptual knowledge are worryingly – and conversely – very similar. Over 35 per cent of respondents in the surveys that Schopper and her colleagues undertook in the process of building their encyclopedia, for example, took their understanding of the word “humanity” from Wikipedia (Humanity Journal’s editorial collective also be warned). That’s another away goal for Wikipedia contra the academy. 

Surely the more salient point here is that this conceptual confusion – a “lack of coherence” and “blurred messages” as Schopper puts it, or “boundary work” as those schooled in Science Studies would more likely say – is precisely what the humanitarian sector does want. It allows them to get on with their own work as they see fit, not as others see fit: least of all those they seek to assist. Interestingly, in a section on ‘salient concepts’ used by humanitarian actors there was no mention at all of concepts like ‘care’ or ‘assistance’ in the category of most frequently used concepts. Rather, everything was about organisational good practice and ‘accountability’. No surprises there, perhaps – but this is revealing all the same.

As one of the audience members observed at this point, this is also a powerful reminder of the power of institutions to shape the way that knowledge is used – a point my earlier work on institutions and innovation has emphasised. And it raises, in turn, the problem of intellectual language. An example of this, and it also cropped up in the discussion, is the following: is what we are after in humanitarianism more “convergence” or more “understanding”? The former is corporate prattle mostly; the latter is more socially-enframed – and stronger for it. In other words, the question is less ‘who speaks humanitarian?’ but ‘what they are speaking when they do so?’: what is the humanitarian agenda in other words? This was apparent from another question, which raised the point that the emergence and contestation of concepts is not always an intellectual but frequently an ideological process. Both practical issues (one’s institutional standing, the political associations of certain terms) and political matters (e.g. neoliberal demands for ‘efficiency’ or even geo-strategy) play a role. As the audience member added, you can define “civil society” however you want, but a Russian state interlocutor will still likely frown on the term from the get-go. 

Nonetheless these are some important findings here and I think this work is going to be a touchstone reference for debates over humanitarianism going forward (it certainly adds to recent scholarly discussions like those in Past & Present on the matter of humanitarian historiography). If you want to find out more you can do so here. The work is based on content analysis of an impressive 478 Strategy and general document publications between 2005 and 2017. One of the things they hope to come out of it is a Humanitarian Encyclopaedia. I can see how that sort of intellectual “field guide” could be extremely useful. Then again, the politics of conceptual knowledge goes somewhat beyond this. The fuller work is available here: at HumanitarianEncyclopedia.org and you can follow updates at @HumanEncyclo.

This blogpost was first posted on the authors’ own blog:
https://www.simonreidhenry.com/blog/

Open Position as Coordinator of the Norwegian Centre for Humanitarian Studies

 

PRIO and NCHS invites applications for a 50% part-time position as Coordinator of the Norwegian Centre for Humanitarian Studies (NCHS).

The NCHS is creating a network connecting relevant ongoing research on humanitarian efforts, in Norway and internationally. In this connection, the centre will form a platform for exchange among researchers and establish stronger and more tailored mechanisms for mutual exchanges with policy makers and practitioners, as well as the broader public, thus improving the quality of research and better analysing challenges raised in the humanitarian sector. The NCHS started in 2012 as a collaboration between CMI, NUPI and PRIO. The new NCHS Research network on humanitarian efforts is funded by a grant from the Research Council of Norway.

The successful candidate will join a vibrant team of researchers across the three institutes and work closely with the NCHS Director in the development, planning and management of Centre activities.

Further information about the position, required qualifications and how to apply (including link to online form, by which applications should be submitted), can be found here.

Deadline for applications: 25 February 2019.

For further information, please contact NCHS Director Maria Gabrielsen Jumbert (margab@prio.org), tel. +47 41 02 27 76. For further information about the recruitment process or the submission of your application, please contact Institute Adviser Cathrine Bye (cathrine@prio.org), tel. +47 22 54 77 15.

New funding to establish Research network on humanitarian efforts

 

The Norwegian Centre for Humanitarian Studies (NCHS) has received funding from the Norwegian Research Council’s NORGLOBAL program, to create a network connecting relevant ongoing research on humanitarian efforts, in Norway and internationally.

It will create a platform for exchange among researchers, and establish exchanges with policy makers and practitioners, as well as the broader public, improving the quality of research and better addressing current challenges raised in the humanitarian sector.

The NCHS network will bridge practical and analytical knowledge, by connecting research conducted on specific crises with practitioners’ own experiences. Facts and findings from research projects will be brought to bear on concrete, and evolving, policy challenges. The focus will be on five pillars: the humanitarian-security-development nexus; the humanitarian system; humanitarianism and health; humanitarianism and refugee protection; and humanitarianism and gender.

The network will have its first kick-off meeting on 7-8 March 2019 at PRIO, gathering researchers from the three partners institutes, CMI, PRIO and NUPI, as well as international partners and other Norway-based researchers interested in humanitarian issues.

Follow here or on our social media channels for further updates.

International Humanitarian Studies Association: Conference call for papers

Deadline extended: 30 June 2018

The 5th bi-annual IHSA conference, entitled “(Re-)Shaping Boundaries in Crisis and Crisis Response”, will take place in The Hague, The Netherlands from 27 to 29 August 2018.

Crisis and humanitarianism has always been about boundaries. The classic view of a crisis is an exceptional moment, bounded in time and space. Humanitarian action was therefore seen as a necessarily limited endeavor which has a narrow but principled focus on saving lives and alleviating suffering. Setting clear boundaries around crisis were meant to distinguish crisis from normality and legitimate extraordinary measures to accommodate its effects.

The full call and information about how to submit a paper proposal can be found here: https://conference.ihsa.info

See also the call for papers for the panel on Media and Humanitarianism, organised by Maria Gabrielsen Jumbert and Timothy Wolfer: https://conference.ihsa.info/call-for-panels/view/613

Deadline extended until 30 June 2018.

New article: Digital communication technologies in humanitarian and pandemic response

In their newly published article, The new informatics of pandemic response: humanitarian technology, efficiency, and the subtle retreat of national agency, in the Journal of International Humanitarian Action, Christopher Wilson and Maria Gabrielsen Jumbert, review empirical uses of communications technology in humanitarian and pandemic response, and the 2014 Ebola response in particular, and propose a three-part conceptual model for the new informatics of pandemic response.

Digital communication technologies play an increasingly prominent role in humanitarian operations and in response to international pandemics specifically. A burgeoning body of scholarship on the topic displays high expectations for such tools to increase the efficiency of pandemic response. The model proposed in this article distinguishes between the use of digital communication tools for diagnostic, risk communication, and coordination activities and highlights how the influx of novel actors and tendencies towards digital and operational convergence risks focusing humanitarian action and decision-making outside national authorities’ spheres of influence in pandemic response. This risk exacerbates a fundamental tension between the humanitarian promise of new technologies and the fundamental norm that international humanitarian response should complement and give primacy to the role of national authorities when possible. The article closes with recommendations for ensuring the inclusion of roles and agency for national authorities in technology-supported communication processes for pandemic response.

The article can be read here: https://jhumanitarianaction.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s41018-018-0036-5

Aid Agencies Can’t Police Themselves. It’s Time for a Change

Written by

The spreading “Oxfam scandal” will affect the entire humanitarian sector painfully. It brings into plain sight what observers of the internal workings of NGOs have known for a long time: NGOs have an organisational reflex of banning outsiders from their kitchen, and keeping their potentially dangerous secrets hidden.

Abuses of power are common in any situation where vulnerable people depend on powerful service providers. But the key question that still haunts this sector is how organisations should deal with the rotten apples – the abusers of power. Even though Oxfam has taken earlier abuses and misconduct seriously, the organisation has acted alone and resorted to internal measures in dealing with the problem.

The case of the Oxfam country director hosting sex parties in the staff house in Haiti after the 2010 earthquake – perhaps it is only the tip of a rapidly expanding iceberg.

What matters is how organisations respond to such incidents. Have trespassers been sanctioned, and was the harm done redressed? Were the disciplinary procedures transparent, and have efforts been made to avoid the repetition of these events?

New book series on Humanitarianism and Security: submissions welcome

Kabul, Afghanistan. © Antonio de Lauri

Submissions are welcome for the new Berghahn Books’ series “Humanitarianism and Security”: http://berghahnbooks.com/series/humanitarianism-and-security

Amid the growing convergence between the politics of aid and policing, emergency and military governance, securitization and the production of collective fear, this series examines humanitarianism and security as both ideology and practice. To this end, it offers ethnographic and theoretical analyses that contribute to the development of critical approaches at the intersection of anthropology, sociology, geography, international relations, and other disciplines.

 

Submissions

Formal submissions should be sent directly to Berghahn Books:

http://berghahnbooks.com/authors/

However, initial enquiries are encouraged and should be sent to Antonio De Lauri, Senior Researcher at CMI and affiliated with NCHS (antonio.delauri@cmi.no), who will be able to advise and help you through the formal procedure.

General Editor:

Antonio De Lauri, Chr. Michelsen Institute

Editorial Board:

Reece Jones, University of Hawai’i at Manoa

Chowra Makaremi, CNRS, Paris

Mark Maguire, National University of Ireland, Maynooth

Vanessa Pupavac, University of Nottingham

Peter Redfield, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

Tazreena Sajjad, American University, Washington D.C.

PRIO Research Featured at Conference on Development Research

Presenting a newly funded research project on refugee education

23 January, Research Director and Professor Cindy Horst presented the newly-funded REBuilD project to an audience of government representatives and NGOs invited by the Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation (NORAD) and the Research Council of Norway (RCN). The aim of the conference, launching the new projects funded under the NORGLOBAL-2 program, was to improve the communication between researchers and practitioners, in order to guarantee that research results are better informing development policy and practice. The REBuilD project asks how we can best support refugee children and their communities to build durable futures, when it is unclear where those futures will be. The project focuses on two of the largest populations of refugees: Somalis and Syrians, and involves fieldwork in cities and refugee camps in Kenya and Lebanon, as well as in Somalia with returnees from Kenya.

Horst’s presentation can be found here:
NORAD Jan 2018 (Horst)