Humanitarian Policy Group, Overseas Development Institute, 111 Westminster Bridge Road, London SE1 7JD, United Kingdom.
Disasters. 2010 Oct;34 Suppl 3:S275-96. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-7717.2010.01206.x.
This paper explores the evolution of international stabilisation agendas and their significance for humanitarian action. Stabilisation includes a combination of military, humanitarian, political and economic activities to control, contain and manage areas affected by armed conflict and complex emergencies. Encompassing narrow security objectives and broader peace-building efforts, stabilisation is both a conservative and potentially transformative, comprehensive and long-term agenda. The open-ended approach allows for widely varying interpretations and applications in different circumstances and by different actors with an assortment of implications for humanitarian action. The relationship between the two is highly uncertain and contentious, due not only to the controversies surrounding stabilisation policies, but also to deep-seated ambiguities at the heart of humanitarianism. While humanitarian actors are preoccupied with the growing involvement of the military in the humanitarian sphere, the paper argues that it is trends in the humanitarian-political interface that represent the more fundamental dilemma.
本文探讨了国际稳定议程的演变及其对人道主义行动的意义。稳定包括一系列军事、人道主义、政治和经济活动，旨在控制、遏制和管理受武装冲突和复杂紧急情况影响的地区。稳定涵盖了狭义的安全目标和更广泛的和平建设努力，既是保守的，也是潜在变革性的、全面的和长期的议程。这种开放式的方法允许在不同情况下和由不同的行为者进行广泛的解释和应用，这对人道主义行动产生了各种各样的影响。两者之间的关系高度不确定和有争议，不仅是因为稳定政策存在争议，还因为人道主义核心存在深层次的模糊性。虽然人道主义行为者专注于军队越来越多地参与人道主义领域，但本文认为，人道主义与政治的交叉趋势代表了更根本的困境。
