Reimagining protection: Dignity, wellbeing and safety

Andrew Cunningham

doi:10.21153/thl2021volno0art1147

Authors

Andrew Cunningham

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.21153/thl2021volno0art1147

Keywords:

protection, digital, wellbeing, safety, water, hygiene

Abstract

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.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biography

Andrew Cunningham

Andrew Cunningham has 25 years’ experience in the development and humanitarian sector, including 14 years with Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF). Andrew has a PhD in war studies from King’s College London, researching the relationship between states and international humanitarian organisations in the context of conflict, and has published the research with Routledge. Andrew has served as a member of the Board of MSF International and is currently a board member of the International Humanitarian Studies Association. He works as an operational researcher and governance advisor for various humanitarian organisations.

References

Baines, E. and Paddon, E. (2012). ‘This is how we survived’: Civilian agency and humanitarian protection. Security Dialogue, 43(3), 231–247

Berry, K. & Reddy, S. (2010). Safety with dignity: Integrating community-based protection into humanitarian programming. Overseas Development Institute (ODI).

Bruderlein, C. & Leaning, J. (1999, August 14). New challenges for humanitarian protection, BMJ, 319:430.

DG ECHO (2016, May 16). Humanitarian protection: Improving protection outcomes to reduce risks for people in humanitarian crises [Thematic Policy Document No. 8]. European Commission.

DuBois, M. (2009, September 22–24). Protection: The new humanitarian fig-leaf. Protecting People in Conflict and Crisis Conference 2009, Refugee Studies Centre, Oxford University. Retrieved from https://globalprotectioncluster.org/_assets/files/aors/protection_mainstreaming/Protection_Fig-Leaf_DuBois_2010_EN.pdf

Global Protection Cluster (2012). Think protection! A quick guide to integrating protection into disaster response in the pacific region. Retrieved from https://www.globalprotectioncluster.org/_assets/files/aors/protection_mainstreaming/Country%20Examples/Pacific/Pacific_PC_Think_Protection_Quick_Guide_EN.pdf

Heintze, H. J. (2004). On the relationship between human rights law protection and international humanitarian law. International Review of the Red Cross, 86(856), 789–814

I’Anson, C., & Pfeifer, G. (2013). A critique of humanitarian reason: Agency, power, and privilege. Journal of Global Ethics, 9(1), 49–63