Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Read the Room: Legal and Emotional Literacy in Frontline Humanitarian Negotiations

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law, Volume 24 (2021)

Part of the book series: Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law ((YIHL))

Abstract

This chapter engages with law and emotions in frontline humanitarian negotiations with armed groups, illustrating how international humanitarian law (IHL) functions in the hands of different actors. Drawing on fieldwork from the Central African Republic and Southeast Asia, as well as practitioner-oriented negotiations literature, the chapter explores the legal and emotional literacy of humanitarian negotiators. Showcasing (and critiquing) the objective/subjective divide that pervades the literature, the discussion takes law and emotions in turn. The first part establishes that law is treated mainly as a tool, yet few clues are given as to how and why law might be deployed. A tension also materialises around whether IHL is itself ‘negotiable’, leaving humanitarian negotiators to navigate this conundrum—and law’s indeterminacy more generally—with little guidance. The second part demonstrates that emotions are overlooked and misunderstood in the literature. Emotions are presented as reason’s opposite, making it easy to side-line them and to call for their suppression. The thin and largely ambivalent treatment of emotions is of little help to humanitarian negotiators who, in practice, must contend with emotions at every turn. The central claim advanced is that, even as the legal and affective dimensions of humanitarian negotiations remain undertheorised, a heavy burden is imposed on humanitarians to discern what each negotiation encounter demands of law and of human feelings. This matters for IHL and it also has material consequences: those humanitarian negotiators who are unable to ‘read the room’ may find their attempts to persuade armed groups thwarted.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    Terry and McQuinn 2018, pp. 29–30.

  2. 2.

    Grace and Wilkinson 2016, p. 6.

  3. 3.

    Verlinden 2018; Modirzadeh 2020; Sutton 2021a.

  4. 4.

    On the need for humanitarians to engage armed groups, see: MacLeod et al. 2016; Carter and Haver 2016; Jackson 2014.

  5. 5.

    Mancini-Griffoli and Picot 2004, pp. 25–26 (Humanitarian Dialogue (HD) Handbook).

  6. 6.

    Ibid.

  7. 7.

    Ratner 2011.

  8. 8.

    Sutton 2019.

  9. 9.

    In CAR, I engaged 71 respondents through semi-structured interviews and focus group discussions in Bangui, Bria, and the ‘PK3’ Internally Displaced Persons site in April–May 2019. Respondents included: 29 humanitarians (ICRC, UN, local and international NGOs); 18 MINUSCA and UNPOL staff; 19 IDPs; 5 members of armed groups. In Thailand, I engaged 20 respondents through semi-structured interviews and focus group discussions in Bangkok in January 2020. These discussions mainly took place around a Professionals in Humanitarian Assistance and Protection (P-HAP) training on IHL and humanitarian negotiation (for which I engaged in participant-observation). In Indonesia, I interviewed and conducted focus groups with 11 respondents in Jakarta. In both Thailand and Indonesia, all interviews focused on frontline humanitarian negotiations; in CAR, it was mainly the humanitarian and MINUSCA staff interviews that addressed the topic. Field research in CAR received funding from the European Research Council under the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP/2007-2013)/ERC Grant Agreement n. [340956—IOW]. Field research in Thailand and Indonesia was supported by a Leverhulme Trust Early Career Fellowship and the University of Edinburgh.

  10. 10.

    With the excellent research assistance of Chris Kreutzner, I coded the main guidance manuals on frontline humanitarian negotiation (e.g. CCHN, UN-OCHA, Mercy Corps, Humanitarian Dialogue). The coding frame tracked every explicit and implicit mention of (i) law and ‘objective’ elements; (ii) emotions and ‘subjective’ elements; (ii) the interplay of law and emotions. Claims in this chapter that a particular source is relatively strong or weak on law and/or emotions are based on this coding exercise.

  11. 11.

    Breslawski 2022; Jackson 2014, 2021; Grace 2020a, b; Grace and Wilkinson 2016; Clements 2020 (noting lack of scholarly engagement with the HD Handbook specifically, p. 113); Belliveau 2015; MacLeod et al. 2016; Carter and Haver 2016.

  12. 12.

    This expands on my earlier work on the legibility of humanitarian actors as civilians; Sutton 2021b.

  13. 13.

    Following Matthews 2006. In using the term ‘emotional literacy’ I also hope to avoid some of the baggage associated with the ‘emotional intelligence’ concept popularised in Goleman 2020. For a critique of same, see Emre 2021.

  14. 14.

    Mancini-Griffoli and Picot 2004, p. 11.

  15. 15.

    Grace 2020b, pp. 21–22.

  16. 16.

    For a general definition of humanitarian negotiation see Clements 2020, p. 4 (‘a process through which humanitarian actors seek to secure agreement from parties to a conflict for the safe and principled provision of protection and assistance for civilians facing humanitarian needs’).

  17. 17.

    This discussion treats negotiation as a specific type of endeavour that is narrower than persuasion. On this relationship see also Slim 2003; Clements 2020, p. 114; Jackson 2021, Chapter 1.

  18. 18.

    Note that local civilians also negotiate with armed groups, sometimes in collaboration with humanitarian actors. See Minear and Smith 2007; Jackson 2021; Cismas and Heffes 2020; Breslawski 2022.

  19. 19.

    Terry 2011. Geneva Call is one exception here, defining itself as a neutral and impartial organization. See Geneva Call 2021.

  20. 20.

    Wenger-Trayner and Wenger-Trayner 2015 (Communities of practice are ‘formed by people who engage in a process of collective learning in a shared domain of human endeavour’); Wenger 1998. The parameters of the humanitarian negotiator community of practice are open to debate and I employ the concept loosely here. Note that the CCHN uses this terminology to refer to negotiators affiliated with it. See CCHN 2021.

  21. 21.

    Ratner 2011.

  22. 22.

    Ibid.

  23. 23.

    Ibid.

  24. 24.

    Ibid., p. 461.

  25. 25.

    Findings from CAR are also discussed in Sutton 2019.

  26. 26.

    See Sect. 4.2.1.1 and Breslawski 2022, pp. 2–3; Clements 2020; Stoddard 2020.

  27. 27.

    Ratner 2011, p. 478.

  28. 28.

    Ibid.

  29. 29.

    Maroney 2006.

  30. 30.

    Bandes 2015 Bandes and Blumenthal 2012.

  31. 31.

    Salerno 2021.

  32. 32.

    The tool motif appears in scholarship as well. See Breslawski 2022, p. 3 (IHL ‘is an important tool in any negotiator’s toolbox’).

  33. 33.

    This point is also made in Grace 2020a.

  34. 34.

    Interview with humanitarian negotiator in Bangkok, 21 January 2020. The Bangkok P-HAP training includes a ‘Core Professional Training on Humanitarian Law and Policy’ and an advanced ‘Thematic Workshop on Engaging Non-State Armed Groups for Humanitarian Protection’.

  35. 35.

    Interview with humanitarian negotiator in Bangkok, 21 January 2020.

  36. 36.

    See also Jackson 2016.

  37. 37.

    Interview with humanitarian negotiator in Bangkok, 21 January 2020.

  38. 38.

    See generally Pictet 1979.

  39. 39.

    But see Breslawski 2022 for an argument that IHL receives too much attention in connection with armed group behaviour (suggesting ‘community acceptance’ strategies might yield better humanitarian access).

  40. 40.

    OCHA 2006.

  41. 41.

    Ibid., p. 25.

  42. 42.

    Mancini-Griffoli and Picot 2004, p. 103.

  43. 43.

    Mercy Corps 2018, p. 6.

  44. 44.

    Ibid.

  45. 45.

    Ibid., p. 23.

  46. 46.

    Clements 2020.

  47. 47.

    Ibid., p. 5. Conflicting views on the legitimacy question are examined below and in Sect. 4.3.1.

  48. 48.

    Jackson and Weigand2020.

  49. 49.

    CCHN 2019, p. 347.

  50. 50.

    Ibid., pp. 347 and 367.

  51. 51.

    Ibid., p. 347. Referring also to domestic laws relating to customs, taxation and tariffs on humanitarian relief items and staff.

  52. 52.

    Ibid.

  53. 53.

    Ibid., p. 240.

  54. 54.

    Ibid., p. 97.

  55. 55.

    This implicates larger debates about humanitarian neutrality which are beyond the scope of the discussion.

  56. 56.

    Neuman and Leduc 2011, p. 92.

  57. 57.

    Ibid.

  58. 58.

    Ibid.

  59. 59.

    Mercy Corps 2018, pp. 6, 15, 23.

  60. 60.

    Petrasek 2000, p. 40.

  61. 61.

    Ibid., p. 63.

  62. 62.

    Ibid.

  63. 63.

    OCHA 2006, p. 39.

  64. 64.

    Ibid. On the relationship between humanitarian action and ICL, see Akande and Gillard 2017.

  65. 65.

    Ibid.

  66. 66.

    Ibid. See also Grace and Wilkinson 2016, p. 16 (when they reach an impasse, humanitarians could potentially threaten to curtail their services or get donor governments to exert pressure).

  67. 67.

    CCHN 2019, p. 240.

  68. 68.

    Ibid.

  69. 69.

    Some human rights groups have condemned armed group violations in CAR. See Human Rights Watch 2019.

  70. 70.

    Discussed in Sutton 2019.

  71. 71.

    Interview with humanitarian actors, Bangui, 19 April 2019. These humanitarian principles are more expansive than the traditional humanitarian principles articulated in Pictet 1979.

  72. 72.

    Interview with humanitarian actor, Bangui, 16 April 2019.

  73. 73.

    Interview with UN Multidimensional Integrated Stabilisation Mission in the Central African Republic (MINUSCA) actor, Bangui, 19 April 2019.

  74. 74.

    On vernacularization, see Levitt and Merry 2009. I develop the IHL vernacular concept in Sutton 2021b.

  75. 75.

    Terry and McQuinn 2018; Fresard 2004.

  76. 76.

    Terry and McQuinn 2018, p. 8.

  77. 77.

    Ibid.

  78. 78.

    Ibid. See also the ICRC’s work on Islamic Learning Circles (ICRC 2018).

  79. 79.

    Bellal 2016, p. 2. See also note 95 below.

  80. 80.

    Interview with trainer of humanitarian negotiators, Bangkok, 21 January 2020.

  81. 81.

    Mancini-Griffoli and Picot 2004, p. 11.

  82. 82.

    Ibid.

  83. 83.

    Clements 2020, pp. 7, 26–27.

  84. 84.

    OCHA 2006, p. 29. The UN-OCHA Manual’s approach reflects a tendency in the wider literature, which is to package humanitarian principles and IHL rules together as ‘law’.

  85. 85.

    Ibid., p. 67.

  86. 86.

    Grace and Wilkinson 2016, p. 10.

  87. 87.

    Grace 2020a, p. 85.

  88. 88.

    OCHA 2006, p. 29.

  89. 89.

    Ibid.

  90. 90.

    Mercy Corps 2018, pp. 15, 31.

  91. 91.

    Ibid., p. 20.

  92. 92.

    Ibid.

  93. 93.

    CCHN 2019, p. 67.

  94. 94.

    For a postcolonial approach to IHL, see Mégret 2006; Alexander 2016.

  95. 95.

    In-depth interventions on armed group laws and norms can be found in Bellal 2016; Jackson 2021, Chapter 3 (on Taliban negotiation strategies); Provost 2021 (on rebel courts globally); Jackson and Weigand 2020 (on Taliban courts).

  96. 96.

    ICRC 2016, p. 6 (focusing on humanitarian aid delivery rather than humanitarian negotiations per se).

  97. 97.

    Mack and Pejic 2008, pp. 11–14.

  98. 98.

    Petrasek 2000, pp. 16–17. See also Grace and Wilkinson 2016, pp. 4–5; Bellal 2016.

  99. 99.

    CCHN 2019, p. 237.

  100. 100.

    Ibid.

  101. 101.

    Grace and Wilkinson 2016, p. 12.

  102. 102.

    Ibid., p. 10.

  103. 103.

    Ibid., pp. 10–11.

  104. 104.

    See Sect. 4.2.1.1; Levitt and Merry 2009; Sutton 2021b.

  105. 105.

    ICRC 2016, p. 6 (framing religious engagement as a replacement or substitute for international law).

  106. 106.

    Cismas and Heffes 2020 (framing religious engagement as complementary to ‘law talk’); Generating Respect Project 2021.

  107. 107.

    See also Jackson 2021 (civilian populations negotiate directly with the Taliban).

  108. 108.

    Cismas and Heffes 2020.

  109. 109.

    Ibid.

  110. 110.

    Mercy Corps 2018, p. 31.

  111. 111.

    Grace and Wilkinson 2016, p. 12.

  112. 112.

    Mercy Corps 2018, p. 31.

  113. 113.

    Grace and Wilkinson 2016, p. 12. See also Grace 2020a, pp. 88–89 and n 105 (on normative stalemate).

  114. 114.

    CCHN 2019, p. 68.

  115. 115.

    Ibid., pp. 138, 148–149.

  116. 116.

    Mancini-Griffoli and Picot 2004, pp. 25–26.

  117. 117.

    Clements 2020, pp. 35, 39.

  118. 118.

    On how civilian status is shaped in war, see Barros and Thomas 2018; Sutton 2021b.

  119. 119.

    Haque 2019.

  120. 120.

    Sarat and Kearns 1993, pp. 29, 32, 55.

  121. 121.

    Interview with humanitarian actor, Bangui, 19 April 2019.

  122. 122.

    Mercy Corps 2018, p. 22.

  123. 123.

    Jackson 2016, p. 14. The 19 ANSAs examined for that study had prior training in IHL and an existing relationship with the organization Geneva Call. They may thus be more knowledgeable about IHL than other armed groups.

  124. 124.

    Ibid., pp. 14–15.

  125. 125.

    Ibid., p. 13.

  126. 126.

    Ibid., p. 12.

  127. 127.

    Petrasek 2000, p. 59.

  128. 128.

    Ibid. Petrasek also finds that legal applicability may not be decisive: people could draw on Additional Protocol II, for example, even where it did not technically apply (p. 63).

  129. 129.

    OCHA 2006, p. 40.

  130. 130.

    Sutton 2019, p. 10.

  131. 131.

    Interview with humanitarian actors, Bangui, 19 April 2019.

  132. 132.

    Selecting the most protective regime is not straightforward, however. IHL allows for ‘collateral damage’ and other harms to befall civilians, so in some cases a law enforcement regime informed by IHRL might offer more protection. See Lattimer and Sands 2018.

  133. 133.

    Interview with humanitarian actors, Bangui, 19 April 2019.

  134. 134.

    OCHA 2006, p. 71 (noting also that conflict parties might say IHRL does not apply because a state of emergency permits derogation (p. 40)).

  135. 135.

    Grace 2020a, pp. 88–89.

  136. 136.

    On lawfare, see Martin 2019.

  137. 137.

    On the preponderance of normative and doctrinal approaches to law in the context of humanitarianism, see Lohne and Sandvik 2017; Sutton 2018.

  138. 138.

    Mancini-Griffoli and Picot 2004.

  139. 139.

    Ibid.

  140. 140.

    Lees and Sutton 2019, p. 12.

  141. 141.

    Ibid., p. 28. This is not tantamount to a finding that compliance with IHL always generates the best humanitarian outcomes.

  142. 142.

    Ibid.

  143. 143.

    This is a different scenario to the frontline humanitarian negotiations explored here, but the insight applies.

  144. 144.

    Jackson 2021, p. 44.

  145. 145.

    Leary et al. 2013; Brooks 2015.

  146. 146.

    Key sources include: Bandes et al. 2021; Bandes and Blumenthal 2012; Maroney 2006; Salerno 2021; White 2020; Verlinden 2018; Saab 2021; Bianchi and Saab 2019.

  147. 147.

    Interview with humanitarian actor, Bangkok, 22 January 2020.

  148. 148.

    Mancini-Griffoli and Picot 2004.

  149. 149.

    Ibid., p. 93.

  150. 150.

    Ibid.

  151. 151.

    For critiques of the claim that law is objective and rational, see Sect. 4.2 of this chapter and all chapters in Bandes et al. 2021.

  152. 152.

    Mancini-Griffoli and Picot 2004, p. 103.

  153. 153.

    Ibid.

  154. 154.

    Ibid., p. 118.

  155. 155.

    Ibid., p. 117. On in-group belonging and expressive law, see Nadler 2017.

  156. 156.

    CCHN 2019, pp. 64–65.

  157. 157.

    Ibid., p. 65.

  158. 158.

    Ibid., p. 68; Sect. 4.2.1.2.

  159. 159.

    Ibid., pp. 160–163.

  160. 160.

    Ibid., p. 205. The CCHN Manual also refers to a background negotiation team that examines the values, identity, and cultural norms of the counterpart over which the counterpart has little control (p. 215).

  161. 161.

    Hochschild 2012 (defining emotional labour as the management of one’s own emotions and more specifically ‘the management of feeling to create a publicly observable facial and bodily display’ in the context of service work).

  162. 162.

    Mercy Corps 2018, p. 31.

  163. 163.

    Mack and Pejic 2008, p. 13.

  164. 164.

    OCHA 2006, pp. 17, 83.

  165. 165.

    Ibid., pp. 53–54.

  166. 166.

    Ibid., 52.

  167. 167.

    Ibid., p. 71.

  168. 168.

    CCHN 2019, p. 205.

  169. 169.

    Ibid.

  170. 170.

    White 2020 (emotions direct judicial attention in courtroom settings).

  171. 171.

    Brabant and Vogel 2014.

  172. 172.

    Bellal and Casey-Maslen 2011, pp. 5–6.

  173. 173.

    This issue could also be treated as a more strategic calculus, with the emotional element being context-dependent.

  174. 174.

    Bellal and Casey-Maslen 2011, pp. 5–6.

  175. 175.

    Ibid., p. iii. See also Verlinden 2018.

  176. 176.

    Ibid., p. 22.

  177. 177.

    Ibid. A caveat might be needed here with respect to groups such as Boko Haram, who might have limited to no interest in IHL and their perceived compliance with it.

  178. 178.

    Grace and Wilkinson 2016, p. 6.

  179. 179.

    Terry and McQuinn 2018, pp. 29–30.

  180. 180.

    Clements 2020, p. 5; Bellal and Casey-Maslen 2011, pp. 6–9; OCHA 2006, p 39 (‘…the provisions of international law…. can strengthen the position of humanitarian actors during negotiations’). This dynamic needs to be explored further with respect to ‘local’ humanitarian actors.

  181. 181.

    Mancini-Griffoli and Picot 2004, p. 70. See also CCHN 2019, p. 97.

  182. 182.

    Ibid., p. 11.

  183. 183.

    Grace and Wilkinson 2016, pp. 6–7.

  184. 184.

    Mancini-Griffoli and Picot 2004, p. 104.

  185. 185.

    Interview with humanitarian actor, Jakarta, 3 March 2020.

  186. 186.

    CCHN 2019, p. 240.

  187. 187.

    Ibid., p. 9.

  188. 188.

    Ibid., p. 194.

  189. 189.

    Ibid., pp. 184–188. The Manual also highlights ‘personal skills’ (p. 9).

  190. 190.

    Mancini-Griffoli and Picot 2004, p. 17.

  191. 191.

    Ibid., p. 151.

  192. 192.

    Lamm and Silani 2004, p. 63.

  193. 193.

    Sutton and Rhoads 2020.

  194. 194.

    Mancini-Griffoli and Picot 2004, p. 122.

  195. 195.

    Ibid.

  196. 196.

    Ibid., p. 62.

  197. 197.

    Ibid.

  198. 198.

    Ibid., p. 122.

  199. 199.

    Ibid.

  200. 200.

    Grace 2020b, p. 26.

  201. 201.

    CCHN 2019, p. 90.

  202. 202.

    These types of emotions are of course still crucial to explore. On anxiety and the emotions of aid workers, see Hor 2021.

  203. 203.

    Mancini-Griffoli and Picot 2004, pp. 25–26.

  204. 204.

    Petrasek 2000, p. 29. For fear in a different context (environmental law-making), see Bianchi and Saab 2019.

  205. 205.

    CCHN 2019, p. 240.

  206. 206.

    On ‘managing’ emotions, see also Grace 2020b, pp. 13–41.

  207. 207.

    CCHN 2019, pp. 178–188.

  208. 208.

    Ibid.

  209. 209.

    Ibid., pp. 184–188.

  210. 210.

    Ibid., p. 178.

  211. 211.

    On displayed emotions in the restorative justice context, see Rossner 2013, p. 38.

  212. 212.

    Van der Löwe and Parkinson 2014, p. 130.

  213. 213.

    Ibid.

  214. 214.

    On emotional atmospheres, see Griffero 2016.

  215. 215.

    Mood is considered here as less intense and longer-lasting than emotions; Greissmair 2017, pp. 1064.

  216. 216.

    On facial expressions, see Ekman and Rosenberg 2005.

  217. 217.

    Van der Löwe and Parkinson 2014.

  218. 218.

    Ibid.

  219. 219.

    Ibid.

  220. 220.

    Grace 2020b, p. 26.

  221. 221.

    Ibid., pp. 26–27; Fisher and Shapiro 2006.

  222. 222.

    van Aaken et al. 2019.

  223. 223.

    For this reason, I am cautious about the terminology of ‘emotional capital’, which Benoliel introduces and Grace further develops in the humanitarian negotiations context. See Benoliel 2017; Grace 2020b, pp. 24–25.

  224. 224.

    Nouwen and Kendall 2020.

  225. 225.

    Cismas and Heffes 2020; Jackson 2021; Krause and Kamler 2022.

  226. 226.

    Bangerter 2011.

References

Articles, Books and Other Documents

  • Akande D, Gillard E (2017) Humanitarian Actors’ Engagement with Accountability Mechanisms in Situations of Armed Conflict: Workshop Report. Anuario De Direito Internacional 2016: 105–132

    Google Scholar 

  • Alexander A (2016). International Humanitarian Law, Postcolonialism and the 1977 Geneva Protocol. Melbourne International Law Journal 17(1): 15–50

    Google Scholar 

  • Bandes S (2015) Law and Emotion. International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2nd edn. 13: 461–467

    Google Scholar 

  • Bandes S, Blumenthal J (2012) Emotion and the Law. Annual Review of Law and Social Sciences 8:161–81

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bandes S et al (eds) (2021) Research Handbook on Law and Emotion. Edward Elgar, Northampton MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Bangerter O (2011) Reasons Why Armed Groups Choose to Respect International Humanitarian Law or Not. International Review of the Red Cross 93 (882): 353–384

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barros A, Thomas M (2018) The Civilianization of War. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bellal A (2016) Welcome on Board: Improving Respect for International Humanitarian Law Through the Engagement of Armed Non-State Actors. Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law 19: 37–61

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bellal A, Casey-Maslen S (2011) Rules of Engagement: Protecting Civilians through Dialogue with Armed Non-State Actors. Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights, Geneva, Switzerland

    Google Scholar 

  • Belliveau J (2015) Red Lines and Al Shabaab: Negotiating Humanitarian Access in Somalia. Clingendael Institute, The Hague, The Netherlands/NOREF, Oslo, Norway

    Google Scholar 

  • Benoliel M (2017) Building Negotiation Capital. Asian Management Insights 4(1): 54–60

    Google Scholar 

  • Bianchi A, Saab A (2019) Fear and International Law-Making: An Exploratory Inquiry. Leiden Journal of International Law 32(3): 351–365

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brabant J, Vogel C (2014) In Their Eyes: The Perception of Aid and Humanitarian Workers by Irregular Combatants in the Democratic Republic of Congo. The International NGO Safety Organization, The Hague, The Netherlands

    Google Scholar 

  • Breslawski J (2022) The Shortcomings of International Humanitarian Law in Access Negotiations: New Strategies and Ways Forward. International Studies Review 24 (1): 1–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brooks AW (2015) Emotion and the Art of Negotiation. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2015/12/emotion-and-the-art-of-negotiation. Accessed 3 May 2022

  • Carter W, Haver K (2016) Humanitarian Access Negotiations with Non-State Armed Groups: Internal Guidance Gaps and Emerging Good Practice. Resource Paper from the Secure Access in Volatile Environments (SAVE) Research Programme. Humanitarian Outcomes, London, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • Centre of Competence on Humanitarian Negotiation (2019) CCHN Field Manual on Frontline Humanitarian Negotiation, 2nd edn. CCHN, Geneva, Switzerland

    Google Scholar 

  • Centre of Competence on Humanitarian Negotiation (2021) Community of Practice Archives. https://frontline-negotiations.org/category/all-videos/community-of-practice/. Accessed 23 November 2021

  • Cismas I, Heffes E (2020) Not the Usual Suspects: Religious Leaders as Influencers of International Humanitarian Law Compliance. Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law 22: 125–150

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clements A (2020) Humanitarian Negotiations with Armed Groups: The Frontlines of Diplomacy. Routledge, London, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • Ekman P, Rosenberg E (2005) What the Face Reveals, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • Emre M (2021) The Repressive Politics of Emotional Intelligence. The New Yorker, New York, USA. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/04/19/the-repressive-politics-of-emotional-intelligence. Accessed 23 November 2021

  • Fisher R, Shapiro D (2006) Beyond Reason: Using Emotions as You Negotiate. Penguin, London, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • Fresard J (2004) The Roots of Behavior in War. International Committee of the Red Cross, Geneva, Switzerland

    Google Scholar 

  • Generating Respect Project (2021) https://www.generatingrespectproject.org/. Accessed 23 November 2021

  • Geneva Call (2021) Who We Are. https://www.genevacall.org/mission/#:~:text=Mission-,Who%20we%20are,improve%20the%20protection%20of%20civilians.%20%E2%80%9D. Accessed 23 November 2021

  • Goleman D (2020) Emotional Intelligence: Why it Can Matter More Than IQ, 25th Anniversary edn. Bloomsbury Publishing, London, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • Grace R (2020a) Humanitarian Negotiation with Parties to Armed Conflict: The Role of Laws and Principles in the Discourse. Journal of International Humanitarian Legal Studies 11(1): 68–96

    Google Scholar 

  • Grace R (2020b) The Humanitarian as Negotiator: Developing Capacity Across the Aid Sector. Negotiation Journal 36(1): 13–41

    Google Scholar 

  • Grace R, Wilkinson S (2016) Preliminary Report on the Role of Laws and Norms in Humanitarian Negotiations. Harvard Humanitarian Initiative, Cambridge, MA, USA

    Google Scholar 

  • Greissmair M (2017) Ups and Downs: Emotional Dynamics in Negotiations and their Effects on (In)Equity. Group Decision and Negotiation 26(6): 1061–1090

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griffero T (2016) Atmospheres: Aesthetics of Emotional Spaces. English Translation. Routledge, Milton Park, Oxfordshire, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • Haque A (2019) Indeterminacy in the Law of Armed Conflict. International Law Studies 95 (118): 118–160

    Google Scholar 

  • Hochschild A (2012) The Managed Heart: Commercialization of Human Feeling, 3rd edn. University of California Press, Berkeley, California, USA

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hor A (2021) The Everyday Emotional Lives of Aid Workers: How Humanitarian Anxiety Gets in the Way of Meaningful Local Participation. International Theory, online first view, 1–30

    Google Scholar 

  • Human Rights Watch (2019) Central African Republic: Armed Group Kills 46 Civilians. https://www.hrw.org/news/2019/07/18/central-african-republic-armed-group-kills-46-civilians. Accessed 24 November 2021

  • ICRC (International Committee of the Red Cross) (2016) Refreshing Humanitarian Action. International Committee of the Red Cross, Geneva, Switzerland

    Google Scholar 

  • ICRC (International Committee of the Red Cross) (2018) Engaging with Religious Circles on Islamic Law and IHL. https://www.icrc.org/en/document/engaging-religious-circles-islamic-law-and-ihl. Accessed 23 November 2021

  • Jackson A (2014) Humanitarian Negotiations with Armed Non-State Actors: Key Lessons from Afghanistan, Sudan and Somalia. Overseas Development Institute, London, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson A (2016) In Their Words: Perceptions of Armed Non-State Actors on Humanitarian Action. Geneva Call, Geneva, Switzerland

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson A (2021) Negotiating Survival: Civilian-Insurgent Relations in Afghanistan. Hurst, London, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson A, Weigand F (2020) Rebel Rule of Law: Taliban Courts in the West and North-West of Afghanistan. Overseas Development Institute, London, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • Krause J, Kamler E (2022) Ceasefires and Civilian Protection Monitoring in Myanmar. Global Studies Quarterly 2(1): 1–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lamm C, Silani G (2014) Insights into Collective Emotions from the Social Neuroscience of Empathy. In: von Scheve C, Salmela M (eds) Collective Emotions. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, pp 63–77

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lattimer M, Sands P (eds) (2018) The Grey Zone: Civilian Protection between Human Rights and the Laws of War. Hart Publishing, Oxford, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • Leary K et al (2013) Negotiating with Emotion. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2013/01/negotiating-with-emotion. Accessed 3 May 2022

  • Lees J, Sutton K (2019) Gaining Traction: Measuring the Impact of IHL Training. Australian Red Cross, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

    Google Scholar 

  • Levitt P, Merry S (2009) Vernacularization on the Ground: Local Uses of Global Women’s Rights in Peru, China, India and the United States. Global Networks 9(4): 441–461

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lohne K, Sandvik K (2017) Legal Sociology of Humanitarianism. Oslo Law Review 4(1): 4–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mack M, Pejic J (2008) Increasing Respect for International Humanitarian Law in Non-International Armed Conflicts. International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), Geneva, Switzerland

    Google Scholar 

  • MacLeod A et al (2016) Humanitarian Engagement with Non-State Armed Groups. Chatham House, London, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • Mancini-Griffoli D, Picot A (2004) Humanitarian Negotiation: A Handbook for Securing Access, Assistance and Protection for Civilians in Armed Conflict. Humanitarian Dialogue, Geneva, Switzerland

    Google Scholar 

  • Maroney T (2006) Law and Emotion: A Proposed Taxonomy of an Emerging Field. Law and Human Behavior 30:119–142

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin C (2019) What Are the Limits on Lawfare? Opinio Juris. http://opiniojuris.org/2019/05/05/what-are-the-limits-on-lawfare/. Accessed 23 November 2021

  • Matthews B (2006) Engaging Education: Developing Emotional Literacy, Equity and Co-Education. Open University Press, Maidenhead, Berkshire, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • Mégret F (2006) From ‘Savages’ to ‘Unlawful Combatants’: A Postcolonial Look at International Humanitarian Law’s ‘Other’. In: Orford A (ed) International Law and its ‘Others’. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp 265–317

    Google Scholar 

  • Mercy Corps (2018) Playbook: Negotiating for Humanitarian Access. Mercy Corps, Portland, Oregon, USA

    Google Scholar 

  • Minear L, Smith H (2007) Humanitarian Diplomacy: Practitioners and their Craft. United Nations, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Modirzadeh N (2020) Cut These Words: Passion and International Law of War Scholarship. Harvard International Law Journal 61(1): 1–64

    Google Scholar 

  • Nadler J (2017) Expressive Law, Social Norms, and Social Groups. Law and Social Inquiry 42(1): 60–75

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neuman M, Leduc B (2011) Somalia: Everything is Open to Negotiation. In: Magone C, Neuman M, Weissman F (eds) Humanitarian Negotiations Revealed: The MSF Experience. Hurst, London, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • Nouwen S, Kendall S (2020) International Criminal Justice and Humanitarianism. In: Heller KJ et al (eds) The Oxford Handbook of International Criminal Law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, Section VIII

    Google Scholar 

  • Petrasek D (2000) Ends and Means: Human Rights Approaches to Armed Groups. International Council on Human Rights, Versoix, Switzerland

    Google Scholar 

  • Pictet J (1979) The Fundamental Principles of the Red Cross, Commentary. Henry Dunant Institute, Geneva, Switzerland

    Google Scholar 

  • Provost R (2021) Rebel Courts: The Administration of Justice by Armed Insurgents. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ratner S (2011) Law Promotion Beyond Law Talk: The Red Cross, Persuasion, and the Laws of War. European Journal of International Law 22(2): 459–506

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rossner M (2013) Just Emotion: Rituals of Restorative Justice. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Saab A (2021) Emotion and International Law. ESIL Reflection 10(3): 1–10

    Google Scholar 

  • Salerno J (2021) The Impact of Experienced and Expressed Emotions in Legal Factfinding. Annual Review of Law and Social Science 17: 181–203

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarat A, Kearns T (1993) Beyond the Great Divide: Forms of Legal Scholarship and Everyday Life. In: Sarat A, Kearns T (eds) Law in Everyday Life. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, Michigan, pp 21–62

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Slim H (2003) Marketing Humanitarian Space: Argument and Method in Humanitarian Persuasion. Presentation at Humanitarian Negotiators Network, Geneva, Switzerland

    Google Scholar 

  • Stoddard A (2020) Necessary Risks: Professional Humanitarianism and Violence Against Aid Workers. Palgrave McMillan, London, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • Sutton R (2018) The “Phantom Local” and the Everyday Distinction Practices of Humanitarian Actors in War: A Socio-Legal Perspective. New Political Science 40(4): 640–657

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sutton R (2019) Who is a Civilian? Perceptions of “Civilianness” in the Central African Republic. Individualization of War Policy Brief 1. https://iow.eui.eu/wp-content/uploads/sites/20/2019/07/IOW-Policy-Brief-1-Sutton-Full-Brief-070719.pdf. Accessed 23 November 2021

  • Sutton R (2021a) How the Emotions and Perceptual Judgments of Frontline Actors Shape the Practice of International Humanitarian Law. In: Bandes S et al (eds) Research Handbook on Law and Emotion. Edward Elgar, Northampton, MA, USA, pp 477–491

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Sutton R (2021b) The Humanitarian Civilian: How the Idea of Distinction Circulates Within and Beyond International Humanitarian Law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sutton R, Rhoads EP (2020) Empathy, Humanitarian Protection, and the Application of IHL. Presentation at Leiden Workshop on Behavioral Approaches to International Law. Leiden, The Netherlands/virtual

    Google Scholar 

  • Terry F (2011) The International Committee of the Red Cross in Afghanistan: Reasserting the Neutrality of Humanitarian Action. International Review of the Red Cross 93(881): 173–188

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Terry F, McQuinn B (2018) The Roots of Restraint in War. International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), Geneva, Switzerland

    Google Scholar 

  • UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) (2006) Humanitarian Negotiations with Armed Groups: A Manual for Practitioners. OCHA, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • van Aaken A et al (2019) A Behavioral Analysis of Humanitarian Negotiations: A Research Initiative in Cooperation with the CCHN. https://frontline-negotiations.org/2020/01/a-behavioral-analysis-of-humanitarian-negotiations-cchn-collaborates-with-international-research-team/. Accessed 23 November 2021

  • van der Löwe I, Parkinson B (2014) Relational Emotions and Social Networks. In: von Scheve C, Salmela M (eds) Collective Emotions. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, pp 125–40

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Verlinden N (2018) To Feel or Not to Feel: Emotions and International Humanitarian Law. In: Deland M, Klamberg M, Wrange P (eds) International Humanitarian Law and Justice: Historical and Sociological Perspectives. Routledge, London, UK, Chapter 11

    Google Scholar 

  • Wenger E (1998) Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wenger-Trayner E, Wenger-Trayner B (2015) Introduction to Communities of Practice. https://wenger-trayner.com/introduction-to-communities-of-practice/. Accessed 21 April 2022

  • White EK (2020) On Emotions and the Politics of Attention in Judicial Reasoning. In: Amaya A, Del Mar M (eds) Virtue, Emotion and Imagination in Law and Legal Reasoning. Hart Publishing, Oxford, UK, pp 101–120

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland, UK

    Rebecca Sutton

Authors
  1. Rebecca Sutton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rebecca Sutton .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Law/Public Law, Free University of Berlin, Berlin, Germany

    Heike Krieger

  2. International Studies Division, Centro de Investigación y Docencia Económicas (CIDE), Mexico City, Mexico

    Pablo Kalmanovitz

  3. Buchmann Faculty of Law, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel

    Eliav Lieblich

  4. Manchester International Law Centre, The University of Manchester, School of Law, Manchester, UK

    Rebecca Mignot-Mahdavi

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 T.M.C. Asser Press and the authors

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Sutton, R. (2023). Read the Room: Legal and Emotional Literacy in Frontline Humanitarian Negotiations. In: Krieger, H., Kalmanovitz, P., Lieblich, E., Mignot-Mahdavi, R. (eds) Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law, Volume 24 (2021). Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-559-1_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-559-1_4

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-6265-558-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-6265-559-1

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation