Andrew J Cunningham | King's College London (original) (raw)

Books by Andrew J Cunningham

This book examines the relationship between states and humanitarian international non-governmenta... more This book examines the relationship between states and humanitarian international non-governmental organisations (INGOs) against the background of civil war and political instability. This relationship is established as two sets of norms in tension: The moral as represented and made operational by humanitarian INGOs and the political as articulated and practised by states. The negotiation between the actors is informed by political considerations—the designation of friends and enemies, and in the prerogative of sovereign actors to determine that a state of exception exists, where action outside normal rules may be contemplated. A state will attempt to mitigate against these threats through a process of securitisation. Action must however be argued for and this is done through discourse. Securitised agents—INGOs, have several options to respond, also through discourse. This research investigates four cases studies. The case studies were chosen to provide a variety of civil conflicts, types of states, and geographical areas. The Sri Lanka case study examines the 2006 and 2008-2009 periods of the civil war, comparing experiences of those two periods and why the relationship changed over time between humanitarian actors and the government. This first case study forms the reference point for comparing and contrasting other experiences. The next three chapters explore other forms of discourse. The Chechnya study looks at fear as discourse, the Ethiopia case examines the law as discourse, and finally, the Sudan example elaborates on expulsion as discourse. Each context provides a different perspective on how the relationship between a state and a humanitarian INGO developed. A variety of INGOs are considered in the case studies. The research findings can be distilled into a discussion of politics, principles, and identity, the key themes which tie everything together. The conclusion points to further research needs and discusses the usefulness of the proposed theoretical framework.

Papers by Andrew J Cunningham

Civil society space is increasingly a key issue for humanitarian organisations. Independent resea... more Civil society space is increasingly a key issue for humanitarian organisations. Independent research carried out for ICVA in the summer of 2018 sought to identify civil society needs in this area and help define the potential role of ICVA in helping and supporting its membership to navigate, protect and expand civil society space. Civil society space in humanitarian contexts is understood to be the both metaphorical and practical ‘space’ within which civil society actors work. This space can be conducive to the provision of humanitarian assistance, disabling of such assistance or most probably somewhere in the middle.

International Humanitarian NGOs and State Relations, 2018

Academia Letters, 2021

Recent primary research into medical-humanitarian challenges faced by Russian society has uncover... more Recent primary research into medical-humanitarian challenges faced by Russian society has uncovered a process of local civil society resurgence under conditions of authoritarian pressure to politically align the periphery to the centre. There is a longstanding understanding that systems of political and socioeconomic alignment are utilised by authoritarian regimes to bring together what are perceived as aberrant parts of society into one unified political community under strong central guidance. Yet civil society adapts to conditions of pressure, and sometimes increased pressure results in a resurgence of civic action. This article presents an emerging view from Russia. Historically a variety of different processes have been utilised by political elites to bolster the role of the centre and bring the periphery into line with an accepted perspective on how society should develop. A system of 'coordination' was used by the Nazis, and fascism itself was a controlling mechanism which sought to bring all aspects of society into line with one political, cultural, and economic ideology. The Soviet Union is another historical example of a strong central political regime seeking to control a wide-expanse of territory along, literally, party lines. China, North Korea, Turkmenistan, and Cuba are other contemporary examples of regimes which have sought to order society in a certain ideologically acceptable fashion. Each has performed this task in a different way, and the ideologies have differed, but the point for all has been to actively bring civil society under control and create a single authorised political community acting in concert within a state ideology. But not every authoritarian system is a nascent totalitarian regime seeking complete coordination and control and few political regimes have deserved the totalitarian label. There is a spectrum of control types, and authoritarian regimes are more common than the archetypical totalitarian regimes of the 20th Century. Still, authoritarian regimes do seek to narrow politi

International Humanitarian NGOs and State Relations, 2018

First, I wish to acknowledge all of the input and support I received from colleagues at MSF-Holla... more First, I wish to acknowledge all of the input and support I received from colleagues at MSF-Holland and to thank the organisation for allowing me complete and unhindered access to its Sri Lanka archives. Needless to say, my interpretation of MSF's work in Sri Lanka is my own. Much appreciation of course goes to my thesis supervisor Prof Mats Berdal and my secondary advisor Dr Oisin Tansey. Thank you both for all of your kind comments, constructive input, and encouragement. I wish also to thank all of those who provided assistance with organising my aborted field research trip. Many people tried, but the government was stronger! The moral and practical support from the Sri Lanka Roundtable crowd was also invaluable. A mention should go to the Hackney library system for providing such wonderful spaces in which to work. Last, but certainly not least, a huge thank you to my wife, Clea Kahn, for her patience, understanding, and support.

The Humanitarian Leader, 2021

Core concepts in the humanitarian world are often used in ways that add to confusion rather than ... more Core concepts in the humanitarian world are often used in ways that add to confusion rather than provide clarity. Research reports discuss technical details, propose theoretical frameworks or engage in policy debates, but rarely engage directly with key concepts themselves—their meaning, how they are used and understood, and their limitations. Protection is one important concept which begs for unpacking. The objective of this commentary is to spur discussion and reflection, to help clarify thinking around how we understand and use the term ‘protection’. A particular example from the Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene (WASH) sector is used to propose a more nuanced way of thinking and speaking about protection. Dignity, wellbeing and safety are proposed as useful concepts to embed protection in humanitarian activities.

Journal of International Humanitarian Action, 2017

For many humanitarian agencies, acceptance-gaining the trust and protection of local communities-... more For many humanitarian agencies, acceptance-gaining the trust and protection of local communities-is the preferred security management tool for reasons of perception, ease of access and cost (both real and opportunity costs). Humanitarian agencies have long been uncomfortable with the contradiction of using deterrence mechanisms in humanitarian operations, although the increased use of armed guards has been a noticeable trend over the last decade or so. Protection-'bunkerisation'-has also become the norm in many highly insecure contexts, with similar contradictions and feelings of discomfort associated with this strategy. But in hyper-insecure contexts, is acceptance a viable option? This paper argues that in some contexts, the acceptance strategy no longer works. The primary cause of this is the increasing severity of the kidnapping risk which has overwhelmed the usefulness of 'normal', non-deterrence and non-protection-oriented security measures such as acceptance. The dangers of relying on deterrence measures for humanitarian organisations in such sensitive contexts will be reviewed. As a case study, the experience of one particular humanitarian organisation working in northern Nigeria and Syria in the 2012-2014 period is elaborated upon. A 'zone of exception' framework is proposed based on the work of Carl Schmitt. Issues for future reflection by organisations working in such contexts are introduced.

Journal of International Humanitarian Action, 2017

The operational environments for humanitarian international non-governmental organizations (INGOs... more The operational environments for humanitarian international non-governmental organizations (INGOs) are conflict zones and situations of natural and man-made disasters. To INGOs, these are defined as "humanitarian crises." Post-conflict situations present far less clear-cut choices for humanitarian INGOs. This article queries whether humanitarian crises continue into postconflict periods. Clearly, the question is not for humanitarian INGOs to answer on their own, as host governments have their own perspectives on the nature of crises, a perspective which generates political sensitivities for the relationship constructed between states and humanitarian INGOs. The nature of this relationship changes as a conflict transitions from active war to the early days of peace. This article researches the changing relationship between the humanitarian INGO Médecins Sans Frontières (Holland) (MSF-H) and the Government of Sri Lanka (GoSL) in the period 2009-2012. Many variables contributed to the decision-making on continued presence in post-conflict Sri Lanka by MSF-H against the security policies of the government of Sri Lanka. Priorities such as protection, witnessing, and medical aid were in tension with governmental policies related to the emerging peace and the changing context. A "war-immediate post war-post conflict" transitional framework based on Koselleck's definition of crisis is proposed to help organizations understand the war-to-peace transition and construct their relationships with states. This crisis analysis is set against the background of the literature on linking relief, rehabilitation, and development and Walter Benjamin's conception of peace. Throughout, the focus is on the concept of transition.

Journal of International Humanitarian Action

The World Humanitarian Summit of 2016 was an attempt to elevate humanitarian organisations more c... more The World Humanitarian Summit of 2016 was an attempt to elevate humanitarian organisations more completely into the international political domain. Humanitarian organisations are agencies which provide life-saving assistance to populations in times of conflict or man-made disasters and use the humanitarian principles of humanity, impartiality, neutrality, and independence to guide their work. However, humanitarian organisations have always been political entities which engage within the political arena that encompasses humanitarian activity and consists of component actors that include beneficiaries, host and donor governments, local communities, and humanitarian organisations themselves. How, and with whom, they engage contributes to their identity and consequently their ability to implement humanitarian activities. The appropriateness of their political engagement, and the impact of such engagement on their identity, is frequently a source of confusion and contention within humanitarian organisations, particularly when it comes to consideration of the neutrality principle. This commentary argues for the value of using the concept of constituency in analysing the political identity of a humanitarian organisation and its process of political engagement. Without proactively analysing their constituencies, humanitarians are not defining their own political identity and risk others defining it for them. It is often feared that by engaging politically, humanitarian organisations risk compromising their neutrality. This assertion, however, wrongly assumes that the principle of political neutrality must be associated with a state of political inactivity. Further, political neutrality, along with other dimensions of political identity, is not a concept that can be maintained passively but must be built and defined in every political context, both to implement the humanitarian agenda and to defend it from co-option. This process requires taking a clear stance aligned with beneficiaries and other allied constituents, building coalitions and constructive positions with them, and countering coercive constituents who act destructively towards humanitarian principles.

International Humanitarian NGOs and State Relations, 2018

Academia Letters, 2021

International Humanitarian NGOs and State Relations, 2018

The Humanitarian Leader, 2021

Journal of International Humanitarian Action, 2017

Journal of International Humanitarian Action

The Humanitarian Leader, 2021

This research examines the relationship between a humanitarian international non-governmental org... more This research examines the relationship between a humanitarian international non-governmental organisation (INGO) and a state against the background of civil war. This relationship is established as two sets of norms in tension: The moral as represented and made operational by humanitarian INGOs and the political as articulated and practised by states, mediated through the discourse of identity. Specifically the study investigates the constructed relationship between the humanitarian INGO Médecins Sans Frontières-Holland (MSF-H) and the Government of Sri Lanka (GoSL) during two periods of the Sri Lankan civil war (2006 and 2008-2009). A negotiation structure is proposed where an external actor—a humanitarian INGO—attempts to operate within the internal environment of a state. For a state, civil war is a ‘state of exception’, where a government’s prerogative to act outside ‘normal’ legal and moral boundaries may be taken up and where international actors are securitised. For a humanitarian organisation a civil war is defined as a humanitarian crisis which must be responded to using humanitarian principles in a non-political manner. This case study relationship is viewed from both MSF-Holland’s and the GoSL’s perspectives. On the side of the GoSL the study describes and analyses the government’s decision-making when faced by international criticism, a humanitarian crisis, and international organisations attempting to work on its territory. The background for the GoSL’s actions is extensively explored. MSF-Holland’s response to the thinking and actions by the GoSL is also closely examined, as is its internal discussions concerning its role in the context as a humanitarian actor. A discourse analysis methodology is used to analyse the primary source material. It was found that when securitised MSF-H had various options in responding: Accommodation to the demands of the GoSL; withdrawal from the country; counter-attacking the government; or concealment—hiding itself from attention. Rejecting these MSF-H chose desecuritisation. In the 2006 period engagement between the actors was possible albeit difficult; the securitisation process was manageable through desecuritisation. However, in the 2008-2009 period securitisation prohibited action and speech, and desecuritisation was not effective. The thesis proposes a theoretical framework—a negotiation structure, within which to understand these interactions, based on the case study findings. The conclusion points to further research needs and discusses the usefulness of the proposed negotiation structure to other contexts.