Civilian protection and humanitarian organisations: Rationality or culture?

This dissertation theoretically explains the behaviour of international humanitarian organisations vis-à-vis protection of civilians in armed conflicts. Empirically, it is nested within global efforts to \u27mainstream\u27 protection into the day-to-day activities of intergovernmental and international non-governmental humanitarian organisations over the past 15 years. The real world puzzle motivating this study is the variation in space and time of the proactiveness of different humanitarian organisations towards civilian protection. The research question that is the central point of investigation for the dissertation is whether international organisations respond to \u27Power\u27 or to \u27Ideas\u27. These two concepts are extrapolated from the \u27Third Debate\u27 of International Relations theory between rationalism and culturalism. The study tests the two competing explanations for the behaviour of international organisations offered by the \u27Third Debate\u27 through structured-focussed comparisons of 10 humanitarian organisations in two protracted internal war theatres- the North and East of Sri Lanka and south-western Philippines. On the basis of over three years of field research and peacekeeping experience in these two war zones, the author finds that \u27Power\u27 and \u27Ideas\u27 combine to cause humanitarian behaviour towards civilian protection. While each of these two can cause IO behaviour on its own very rarely, chemical , combinatorial or multiple causation makes IOs respond frequently to both Power and Ideas and set priorities when the two interact. The study also finds that rationality and culture are second order causes of humanitarian behaviour. They combine because of common ancestry in structures of oppression and violence, viz. patriarchy and the capitalist world-system. Therefore, it is argued that the \u27Third Debate\u27 has to transcend the obsession with rationalism and culturalism and begin exploring the roots of political behaviour in flexible structures. For practitioners, this dissertation conveys that tinkering at the margins with international humanitarian organisations is unproductive as long as they are structurally colonised to collaborate with or facilitate the interests of violent capitalist donors, host states and rebels. For \u27mainstreaming\u27 to succeed, it is recommended that humanitarian organisations shed attachments to liberal imperialist values, free themselves from the military-humanitarian complex, and open doors to radical local civil society

The EU–India strategic partnership: neither very strategic, nor much of a partnership

While formally labelled as ‘strategic’, the European Union (EU)–India partnership is more often than not described as ‘lukewarm’ and ‘reluctant’. Thus, by process-tracing the EU–India relationship, this article reveals the significance of 1999 as a crucial point that has urged both Brussels and New Delhi to significantly alter both their outlook on global life and on each other. The bilateral relationship will be shown to be a story of two actors aspiring to global prominence, who—to their mutual frustration—find themselves consigned and constrained to play a leading role only in their respective neighbourhoods. The bilateral relationship seems only to reinforce this marginalization in global affairs, as neither of the strategic partners considers the other significant enough to develop meaningful relations with them. The European community is, in fact … object of literary curiosity; the means are defective, the guides incompetent, the same difficulties obstruct the eager progress of the student, and they are only to be overcome by a like display of energy and perseverance