Journal Article > Commentary
PLOS Glob Public Health. 2022 December 30; Volume 2 (Issue 12); e0001431.; DOI:10.1371/journal.pgph.0001431
Martinez Garcia D, Amsalu R, Harkensee C, Janet S, Kadir A, et al.
PLOS Glob Public Health. 2022 December 30; Volume 2 (Issue 12); e0001431.; DOI:10.1371/journal.pgph.0001431
Journal Article > CommentaryFull Text
Intensive Care Med. 2023 April 12; Online ahead of print; 1-4.; DOI:10.1007/s00134-023-07042-7
Lee JS, Godard A
Intensive Care Med. 2023 April 12; Online ahead of print; 1-4.; DOI:10.1007/s00134-023-07042-7
Journal Article > CommentaryFull Text
Rev Int Croix Rouge. 2021 October 13; Volume First View; 1-16.; DOI:10.1017/S1816383121000266
Marin AP, Ali R
Rev Int Croix Rouge. 2021 October 13; Volume First View; 1-16.; DOI:10.1017/S1816383121000266
In certain contexts associated with counterterrorism, some governments and military forces have stigmatized civilians, not because of the acts they perform but rather from loose associations with groups perceived as “terrorists”, based on geographical proximity or common social, ethnic and religious backgrounds. Access to humanitarian assistance has been affected by this stigmatization, and in specific geographical areas it has been blocked, restricted, made conditional or undermined. This article draws on recent literature and examples to argue that certain counterterrorism frameworks and practices have inhibited the impartial delivery of aid to all affected populations.
MSF Ethics Review Board > Publications
PLOS Med. 2009 July 28; Volume 6 (Issue 7); e1000115.; DOI:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000115
Schopper D, Upshur R, Matthys F, Singh JA, Bandewar SS, et al.
PLOS Med. 2009 July 28; Volume 6 (Issue 7); e1000115.; DOI:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000115
Conference Material > Video (panel)
Tiller S, Krishnan A, Guevara M
MSF Scientific Days International 2020: Innovation. 2020 May 20
Journal Article > CommentaryFull Text
Public Health Action. 2013 September 21; Volume 3 (Issue 3); 253-4.; DOI:10.5588/pha.13.0029
Oladimeji O, Isaakidis P, Zachariah R, Hinderaker SG, Koghali M, et al.
Public Health Action. 2013 September 21; Volume 3 (Issue 3); 253-4.; DOI:10.5588/pha.13.0029
Ethics approval of research studies is essential for the protection and rights of study subjects, whether this is for prospective research or record reviews. This article shares a painful lesson learned from a field experience where the appropriate steps for obtaining ethics approval were not followed by a young researcher. This researcher had embarked on an operational research project, but had omitted to seek ethics approval from a local ethics committee. Young researchers, particularly from low- and middle-income countries, need to learn about the importance and value of ethics.
Journal Article > CommentaryFull Text
J Clim Chang Health. 2023 September 9; Online ahead of print; 100270.; DOI:10.1016/j.joclim.2023.100270
Schwerdtle PN, Devine C, Guevara M, Cornish S, Christou C, et al.
J Clim Chang Health. 2023 September 9; Online ahead of print; 100270.; DOI:10.1016/j.joclim.2023.100270
Journal Article > ReviewFull Text
Rev Int Croix Rouge. 2024 March 25; Online ahead of print; 1-30.; DOI:10.1017/S1816383124000092
DuBois M, Healy S
Rev Int Croix Rouge. 2024 March 25; Online ahead of print; 1-30.; DOI:10.1017/S1816383124000092
One of the four core humanitarian principles, impartiality's substantive ethical and deeply operational nature directs aid agencies to seek and deliver aid on the basis of non-discrimination and in proportion to the needs of crisis-affected people. Designed to operationalize the principle of humanity, impartiality is challenged by a plethora of external factors, such as the instrumentalization of aid, bureaucratic restriction, obstruction by States or non-State armed groups, and insecurity. Less visible and less examined are factors internal to aid agencies or the sector as a whole. Based on a desk review of the literature and the authors’ experience working with Médecins Sans Frontières, this article explores shortcomings in how the humanitarian sector understands and operationalizes impartiality, placing the focus on these internal factors.
Beginning with the definition of impartiality, the article focuses on inadequacies in the practice of impartiality's twin pillars: non-discrimination and proportionality in the delivery of aid. Key conclusions include the necessity of an active rather than passive approach to non-discrimination, and the need for greater commitment to proportionality. In extending this analysis, the article looks more deeply at how aid organizations approach the humanitarian principles, identifying shortcomings in the way that the sector operationalizes, engages with and evaluates those principles. Given the sector's limited inclusion of or accountability towards people in crisis, its exercise of impartiality seems particularly problematic in relation to its power to decide the who and what of aid delivery, and to define the needs which it will consider humanitarian.
The objective of this article is to reset humanitarians’ conceptual and operational understanding of impartiality in order to better reflect and protect humanity in humanitarian praxis, and to help humanitarians navigate the emergent challenges and critical discussions on humanitarian action's position in respect to climate change, triple-nexus programming, or simply a future where staggering levels of urgent needs vastly outstrip humanitarian resources.
Beginning with the definition of impartiality, the article focuses on inadequacies in the practice of impartiality's twin pillars: non-discrimination and proportionality in the delivery of aid. Key conclusions include the necessity of an active rather than passive approach to non-discrimination, and the need for greater commitment to proportionality. In extending this analysis, the article looks more deeply at how aid organizations approach the humanitarian principles, identifying shortcomings in the way that the sector operationalizes, engages with and evaluates those principles. Given the sector's limited inclusion of or accountability towards people in crisis, its exercise of impartiality seems particularly problematic in relation to its power to decide the who and what of aid delivery, and to define the needs which it will consider humanitarian.
The objective of this article is to reset humanitarians’ conceptual and operational understanding of impartiality in order to better reflect and protect humanity in humanitarian praxis, and to help humanitarians navigate the emergent challenges and critical discussions on humanitarian action's position in respect to climate change, triple-nexus programming, or simply a future where staggering levels of urgent needs vastly outstrip humanitarian resources.
Journal Article > CommentaryFull Text
Lancet Healthy Longev
Healthy longevity. 2024 January 1; Volume 5 (Issue 1); e76-e82.; DOI:10.1016/S2666-7568(23)00244-1
van Boetzelaer E, van de Kamp J, Keating P, Sharma SK, Pellecchia U, et al.
Lancet Healthy Longev
Healthy longevity. 2024 January 1; Volume 5 (Issue 1); e76-e82.; DOI:10.1016/S2666-7568(23)00244-1
Journal Article > LetterFull Text
Lancet. 2017 March 11; Volume 389 (Issue 10073); 1007-1008.; DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(17)30660-8
Smith JS, Aloudat T
Lancet. 2017 March 11; Volume 389 (Issue 10073); 1007-1008.; DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(17)30660-8