Huser, Catherine Helen Anne (2016) ‘We Don’T Know If We Have a Right to Live’ : the Impact of Global Protection Norms in the Micro Spaces of Armed Conflict
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Huser, Catherine Helen Anne (2016) ‘We don’t know if we have a right to live’ : the impact of global protection norms in the micro spaces of armed conflict. PhD Thesis. SOAS, University of London http://eprints.soas.ac.uk/23645 Copyright © and Moral Rights for this thesis are retained by the author and/or other copyright owners. A copy can be downloaded for personal non‐commercial research or study, without prior permission or charge. This thesis cannot be reproduced or quoted extensively from without first obtaining permission in writing from the copyright holder/s. The content must not be changed in any way or sold commercially in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders. When referring to this thesis, full bibliographic details including the author, title, awarding institution and date of the thesis must be given e.g. AUTHOR (year of submission) "Full thesis title", name of the School or Department, PhD Thesis, pagination. ‘We don’t know if we have a right to live’ The Impact of Global Protection Norms in the Micro Spaces of Armed Conflict. Catherine Helen Anne Huser Thesis submitted for the degree of PhD/MPhil 2016 Department of Politics and International Studies SOAS, University of London 1 Declaration for SOAS PhD thesis I have read and understood regulation 17.9 of the Regulations for students of the SOAS, University of London concerning plagiarism. I undertake that all the material presented for examination is my own work and has not been written for me, in whole or in part, by any other person. I also undertake that any quotation or paraphrase from the published or unpublished work of another person has been duly acknowledged in the work which I present for examination. Signed: ____________________________ Date: _________________ 2 Abstract Using South Sudan and the Central African Republic as examples of some of the worst protection contexts in the world, this research asks if global protection norms make a difference for people who are at grave risk and most need them to deliver on their promise. Positioned within the tension between so-called ‘advancing norms’ and ‘worsening realities’, it argues that globally articulated protection norms should be judged according to the concrete impact they generate in the lives of the most vulnerable. Drawing from the empirical data of some 970 interviews with some 2390 individuals, it juxtaposes insights into the micro level lived experiences of violence and protection, with macro level assumptions of how protection works. Taking IR constructivism’s norm diffusion theory as an articulation of this macro view, it unpacks the assumptions underpinning this model and contrasts these with the micro level accounts of how reality unfolds. With the global vision of protection assuming a top- down deliver of protection, it traces the likely global to local trajectories through which ‘advancing norms’ are presumed to be translated into a concrete impact in local spaces. A meso level lens spotlights the utter disconnects and/or the dramatic distortions that occur at the interface between these two perspectives. This lens reveals that ‘advancing norms’ and their global promise to protect largely fail to penetrate into the micro spaces of these ‘worsening realities’. People at grave risk in these ‘worsening realities’ are left to manage their own protection needs while literally staring down the barrel of the gun of the perpetrator. This generates a distinctly different politics of protection than the constructivists presume. 3 Acronyms AU – African Union CAR – Central African Republic CdQ – Chef de Quartier CPA – Comprehensive Peace Agreement DFID – Department for International Development (UK Government) DRC – Danish Refugee Council DRC – Democratic Republic of Congo ECHO – European Commission’s Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection Office FACA – Forces Armées Central Africain (National military forces of CAR) FIDH – International Federation for Human Rights FOMAC – Force Multinationale de l'Afrique Centrale (Multinational Force of Central Africa) GBV – Gender Based Violence GoSS – Government of South Sudan GoCAR – Government of Central African Republic HRW – Human Rights Watch HSBA – Human Security Baseline Assessment ICC – International Criminal Court ICG – International Crisis Group ICHRP – International Council on Human Rights Policy ICISS – International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty ICRC – International Committee of the Red Cross ICTY – International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia IDP – Internally Displaced Persons IFRC – International Federation of the Red Cross ICHRP – International Council on Human Rights Policy INGO – International Non-Governmental Organization LRA – Lord’s Resistance Army MISCA – Mission internationale de soutien à la Centrafrique sous conduite africaine (African-led International Support Mission to the Central African Republic) MINUSCA – Mission multidimensionnelle intégrée des Nations unies pour la stabilisation en Centrafrique (United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in the Central African Republic) MSF – Médecins Sans Frontières (Doctors Without Borders) OCHA – Office for the Coordination of the Humanitarian Affairs ODI – Overseas Development Institute OHCHR – Office of the High Commission for Human Rights PoC – Protection of Civilians R2P – Responsibility to Protect SPLA – Sudan People’s Liberation Army SPLM – Sudan People’s Liberation Movement SRSG – Special Representative of the Secretary-General SSLS – South Sudan Law Society UDHR – Universal Declaration of Human Rights UNDP – United Nations Development Programme UNHCR – United Nations High Commission for Refugees UNMISS – United Nations Mission in South Sudan UNSC – United Nations Security Council UNSG – United Nations Secretary General 4 Acknowledgements This research project has been an important personal journey and it would not have been realised without the support I received throughout the process. I am extremely grateful for the invaluable insight and guidance provided by my supervisor Dr. Stephen Hopgood. While his steadfast and responsive support gave me the confidence to keep moving forward, he equally allowed me the space to make the journey be what I needed it to be for my own growth. Moreover, this project would obviously not have been possible without the almost 2400 individuals who participated in my field research. Although the pain and suffering for many continues today, I hope that I have managed to transmit at least some of their experiences, observations and insights in this work. I also acknowledge the institutional support provided by Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) and Danish Refugee Council (DRC) in Central African Republic; and PACT and Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC) in South Sudan which made accessing my research areas feasible. Personally, extend a warm thanks to Najia Mukhtar, Amanda Weisbaum, Karen Cooper, Julie Broome and my family for willingly engaging in the multiple debates and reflections that helped me find my way through my ideas. I dedicate this work to my parents who have worked throughout their lives to make the world a better place. 5 Table of Contents CHAPTER 1 : Introduction.................................................................................................................8 1.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 12 1.2 Sketching the global protection vision ......................................................................................... 15 1.3 Sketching the politics of protection in “fragile protection zones” ................................................. 20 1.4 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................. 49 Chapter 2 : The Global Protection Regime ................................................................................... 51 2.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 51 2.2 The Protection Regime ............................................................................................................... 55 2.3 Analysis & Methodology .............................................................................................................. 71 2.4 Structure of the Thesis ................................................................................................................ 84 CHAPTER 3 : Protection as Law .................................................................................................... 86 3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 86 3.2 State as Duty-Bearer – The institutional expression ................................................................... 89 3.3 Protection as International Humanitarian Law .......................................................................... 108 3.4 Protection as Accountability – Tackling impunity ...................................................................... 114 3.5 Protection as External Solutions ............................................................................................... 117 3.6 Conclusions ............................................................................................................................... 119 CHAPTER