Abstract
AbstractSafe areas for the protection of civilians remain a possible instrument in the foreign policy-making toolbox. Lately, this was highlighted by calls for a safe area in Syria by German chancellor Angela Merkel and defence minister Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer. Yet, the subsequent debates demonstrated that many policy-makers, pundits and scholars lack a detailed knowledge about the concept. They further showed that various different perspectives on the idea of safe areas exist. This article therefore provides a comprehensive and inclusive account of the academic engagement with the topic of safe areas. It demonstrates that some arguments focus on the (geo)political dynamics of safe areas, whereas others emphasise the potential to protect civilians. It further presents the legal codification of consent-based safe areas in the Geneva Conventions as well as debates about the legality of enforced, post-Cold War safe area cases. Regarding the research on displacement and safe areas, the majority tends to focus on the containment effects, although some highlight the capacity of safe areas as an alternative to flight. Overall, however, the article concludes that recent and conceptual academic engagement with safe areas remains rare and that a safe area perspective is missing in relevant current empirical cases. More research that contributes to the conceptual development of safe areas or to the assessment of current empirical examples, for instance in South Sudan, is necessary.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference82 articles.
1. Adar, Sinem. 2020. Repatriation to Turkey’s ‘Safe Zone’ in Northeast Syria. Berlin: SWP Comment.
2. Arulanantham, Ahilan T. 2000. Restructured safe havens. A proposal for reform of the refugee protection system. Human Rights Quarterly 22(1):1–56.
3. Atallah, Sami, and Dima Mahdi. 2017. Law and politics of ‘safe zones’ and forced return to Syria: Refugee politics in Lebanon. Beirut: The Lebanese Center for Policy Studies.
4. Baines, Erin, and Emily Paddon. 2012. ‘This is how we survived’: Civilian agency and humanitarian protection. Security Dialogue 43(3):231–247.
5. Beadle, William Alexander, and Stian Kjeksrud. 2014. “Military planning and assessment guide for the protection of civilians”, Norwegian Defence Research Establishment. publications.ffi.no/nb/item/asset/dspace:2428/14-00965.pdf. Accessed 20 May 2020.
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献