Could a doctor working for a humanitarian organisation be sentenced to life imprisonment in the United States for having offered his “expert advice” to people linked to a “terrorist organisation”? That is what is feared by a number of civil rights’ organisations in the US since the Supreme Court declared on 21 June 2010 that the legislation known as the Material Support Statute was constitutional. The Supreme Court ruling recalls the Cold War era when the criminalisation of humanitarian assistance in rebel controlled areas was the norm rather than the exception. Following in the footsteps of the (primarily religious) pro-Biafran organisations in Nigeria, MSF and the “without borders” movement then decided to sidestep government prohibitions by clandestinely crossing the borders. Gaining clandestine access to populations living under the authority of “terrorist” organisations is now much more complicated than it was during the Cold War. Countering the rhetoric that criminalizs humanitarian assistance to the victims located on the “wrong side” of the front line requires new humanitarian policies.
- “No patients, no problems:” Exposure to risk of medical personnel working in MSF projects in Yemen’s governorate of Amran
- Without Precedent or Prejudice? UNSC Resolution 2098 and its potential implications for humanitarian space in Eastern Congo and beyond
- Losing Principles in the Search for Coherence? A Field-Based Viewpoint on the EU and Humanitarian Aid