Safety of Strangers: Understanding the Realities of Humanitarian Protection

为陌生人提供安全，使其免受当代冲突的残酷暴力的伤害，在道德和后勤上都是复杂的，特别是当暴力是由他们自己的政府造成的时候。联合国、红十字国际委员会和其他全球机构长期以来一直在讨论这些难题，并为解决1990年代相关做法的扩大问题，赋予了“人道主义保护”新的含义。然而，这一含义已被证明是复杂和有问题的。实际上，声称提供人道主义保护的人从事的活动千差万别，依靠的执法形式也各不相同，对冲突期间应该保护谁和如何保护人们的安全也有不同的想法。更重要的是，尽管扩大了人道主义保护，但人们往往没有得到安全，反而感到困惑。人们可能有非常不同的道德观念和不同的恐惧，不仅对身体伤害，而且对精神、社会和文化伤害。此外，在现实中，所有行为者在实践中的利他主义都有限度;甚至，人道主义保护本身在一定程度上也是为了保护人道主义者。此外，由于道德体系不是静态的，而是不断重新谈判的，权力动态对这些谈判以及随后对为什么以及如何保护陌生人安全的理解产生了影响。这些权力动态可能会嵌入男性和女性之间的等级制度，以及其他社会排斥模式。我们感兴趣的是人们在冲突期间在特定地点保护陌生人安全的日常实践中如何处理这些复杂的道德、后勤、精神和智力问题。我们的研究探讨了国家/国际人道主义保护行为者在当地工作时隐藏的道德焦虑。我们还探讨了其他行为者如何竞争或吸收这些人道主义思想，并提供不同形式的安全。我们的研究使用历史，人类学，策展，民族音乐学和神学来探索联合国和非政府组织（国际和国家）的实践，以及教会领袖，酋长和其他地方当局人物。我们关注南苏丹及其边境地区。40多年来，南苏丹一直是检验人道主义保护理念的重要场所。此外，南苏丹目前正在经历旷日持久的冲突，包括极端的人道主义侵犯行为。尽管国际社会试图提供大规模的人道主义保护，但南苏丹人并不安全，数百万人越过边界逃到邻国。南苏丹公共当局人士，包括酋长、“巫医”、治安维持者、主教、五旬节派教徒、努埃尔先知和妇女领袖，也使用了一系列战略，试图保护人民的安全。我们探讨这些有争议的保护理念，以及这些谈判中的权威。我们的团队是进行这项研究的独特位置。自20世纪90年代初以来，Leben摩罗博士和Tim艾伦教授就保护相关主题进行了开创性的研究。摩罗博士和内奥米·彭德尔博士也进行了一些最近唯一的关于南苏丹保护的研究。此外，我们的团队在南苏丹及其边境地区拥有近世纪的综合研究经验。我们还通过优先考虑非洲早期职业学者的研究和出版物，为讨论带来了新的想法。为此，我们提高了朱巴大学提供人道主义保护研究教学的能力。此外，我们还确保我们的研究对人道主义政策和实践产生积极影响。我们这样做的一种方式是与三个人道主义组织密切合作，即一个国际组织（挪威难民理事会）和两个南苏丹组织（尼罗河希望和CARD）。最后，我们有一个由其他组织的知名从业人员组成的咨询委员会。

Providing strangers with safety against the brutal violence of contemporary conflicts is morally and logistically complicated especially when that violence is inflicted by their own governments. The United Nations, the International Committee of the Red Cross and other global authorities have long debated these conundrums and, to address the expansion of related practices in the 1990s, gave a new meaning to 'humanitarian protection'. However, this meaning has proved to be complicated and problematic. In reality, people claiming to provide humanitarian protection do radically diverse activities, rely on different forms of enforcement and have different ideas about who and how people should be kept safe during conflict. Even more importantly, despite the expansion of humanitarian protection, people are often not kept safe but are instead left bewildered. People can have very different moral ideas and different fears, not only of physical harm, but also of spiritual, social and cultural harm. Plus, in reality, all actors have limits to their altruism in practice; even, humanitarian protection itself is partly about protecting humanitarians. In addition, as moral schemes are not static but are constantly renegotiated, power dynamics make a difference to these negotiations and subsequent understandings of why and how strangers should be kept safe. These power dynamics can embed hierarchies between men and women, as well as other patterns of social exclusion.We are interested in how people deal with these complex moral, logistical, spiritual and intellectual problems in their daily practices of keeping strangers safe in specific localities during conflict. Our research explores the hidden moral anxieties of national/international humanitarian protection actors as they work in local contexts. We also explore how other actors contest or co-opt these humanitarian ideas and provide different forms of safety. Our research uses history, anthropology, curation, ethnomusicology and theology to explore the practice of the UN and NGOs (both international and national), as well as church leaders, chiefs and other local authority figures. We focuse on South Sudan and its borderlands. For over forty years, South Sudan has been a seminal site for testing humanitarian protection ideas. Plus, South Sudan is currently experiencing a protracted conflict, including extreme kinds of humanitarian violations. Despite large-scale international attempts at humanitarian protection, South Sudanese have not been safe and millions of people have fled over borders and into neighbouring countries. South Sudanese public authority figures, including chiefs, 'witchdoctors', vigilantes, bishops, Pentecostals, Nuer prophets and women leaders have also used a range of strategies to try to keep people safe. We explore these contested ideas of protection, and the authority entangled within these negotiations.Our team is uniquely placed to carry out this research. Dr Leben Moro and Professor Tim Allen have produced ground-breaking research on protection related themes since the early 1990s. Dr Moro and Dr Naomi Pendle have also carried out some of the only recent research on protection in South Sudan. Plus, our team has nearly a century of combined experience researching in South Sudan and its borderlands. We also bring new ideas to the discussion by prioritising research and publication by African early career scholars. We do this by increasing the capacity of the University of Juba to offer teaching on research in humanitarian protection. We, additionally, make sure that our research has a positive impact on humanitarian policy and practice. One way we are doing this is by working closely with three humanitarian organisations, namely an international organisation (Norwegian Refugee Council) but also two South Sudanese organisations (Nile Hope and CARD). Finally, we have an advisory board of high-profile practitioners from other organisations.