Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-r5zm4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-30T21:20:06.280Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Medical Civil–Military Relationships: A Feasibility Study of a United Kingdom Deployment in South Sudan

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 August 2019

S. T. Horne Open the ORCID record for S. T. Horne [Opens in a new window] ,
I. Gurney ,
J.E. Smith  and
R. Sullivan
S. T. Horne*
Affiliation:
Senior Lecturer in Emergency Medicine, Royal Centre for Defence Medicine Conflict and Health Research Group, King’s CollegeLondon
I. Gurney
Affiliation:
Lecturer in Emergency Medicine, Royal Centre for Defence Medicine
J.E. Smith
Affiliation:
Defence Professor of Emergency Medicine, Royal Centre for Defence Medicine
R. Sullivan
Affiliation:
Conflict and Health Research Group, King’s CollegeLondon
*
Correspondence and reprint requests to Simon T. Horne, Emergency Department, Derriford Hospital, Plymouth PL6 8DH, UK (e-mail: [email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives:

Civil–military relationships are necessary in humanitarian emergencies but, if poorly managed, may be detrimental to the efforts of humanitarian organizations. Awareness of guidelines and understanding of risks relating to the relationship among deployed military personnel have not been evaluated.

Methods:

Fifty-five military and 12 humanitarian healthcare workers in South Sudan completed questionnaires covering experience, training and role, agreement with statements about the deployment, and free text comments.

Results:

Both cohorts were equally aware of current guidance. Eight themes defined the relationship. There was disagreement about the benefit to the South Sudanese people of the military deployment, and whether military service was compatible with beneficial health impacts. Two key obstacles to the relationship and 3 areas the relationship could be developed were identified.

Conclusion:

This study shows that United Kingdom military personnel are effectively trained and understand the constraints on the civil–military relationship. Seven themes in common between the groups describe the relationship. Current guidance could be adapted to allow a different relationship for healthcare workers.

Keywords

civil–militaryhealth systemshumanitarian emergencydisaster
Type
Original Research
Information
Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness , Volume 14 , Issue 5 , October 2020 , pp. 568 - 576
Copyright
Copyright © 2019 Society for Disaster Medicine and Public Health, Inc.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded in Armies in the Field between Baden, Belgium, Denmark, France, Hesse-Darmstadt, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Prussia, Spain, Switzerland and Wurtemberg, signed at Geneva, 22 August 1864. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1864.Google Scholar
Gates, J. Schoolbooks and Krags; the United States Army in the Philippines, 1898-1902. New York: Praeger; 1973:326.Google Scholar
Egnell, R. Civil-military coordination for operational effectiveness: towards a measured approach. Small Wars Insurgencies. 2013;24(2):237-256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Studer, M. The ICRC and civil-military relations in armed conflict. Int Rev Red Cross. 2001;83(842):367-392.Google Scholar
International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), The Fundamental Principles of the Red Cross: commentary. Geneva: ICRC.Google Scholar
Ferreiro, M. Blurring of lines in complex emergencies: consequences for the humanitarian community. The Journal of Humanitarian Assistance 2012. https://sites.tufts.edu/jha/. Accessed February 22, 2018.Google Scholar
Medecins Sans Frontieres. MSF (Belgium) opposes cooperation between the humanitarian sector and the military – aid workers have to be impartial. 2003. https://www.msf.org/msf-belgium-opposes-cooperation-between-humanitarian-sector-and-military-aid-workers-have-be. Accessed July 18, 2019.Google Scholar
Powell, C. Remarks to the National Foreign Policy Conference for Leaders of Nongovernmental Organizations. Washington, DC: US Dept State; 2001.Google Scholar
Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC). The Use of Military and Civil Defence Assets To Support United Nations Humanitarian Activities in Complex Emergencies. Geneva: IASC; 2003.Google Scholar
United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), Guidelines On The Use of Foreign Military and Civil Defence Assets In Disaster Relief – “Oslo Guidelines”. Geneva: OCHA: 2008:1-31.Google Scholar
United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) Civil-Military Coordination Section (CMCS), OCHA On Message: UN CMCoord. Geneva: OCHA; 2017.Google Scholar
Slim, H. Nexus thinking in humanitarian policy: How does everything fit together on the ground? 2017. October 25, 2017. https://www.icrc.org/en/document/nexus-thinking-humanitarian-policy-how-does-everything-fit-together-ground. Accessed July 15, 2019.Google Scholar
Bollettino, V. Civil-military engagement: an empirical account of humanitarian perceptions of civil-military coordination during the response to typhoon Haiyan. Disaster Med Public Health Prep. 2015;10(01):7-10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bricknell, MC, Sullivan, R. The Centre for Defence Healthcare Engagement: a focus for defence engagement by the Defence Medical Services. J R Army Med Corps. 2018;164(1):5-7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gunnarsson, D, Hyer, R, Hufstader, AR, et al. Panel 2.15: civil-military cooperation in humanitarian health action. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2005;20(6):450-454.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA). Guidelines for the Coordination Between Humanitarian Actors and the United Nations Mission in South Sudan. Geneva: OCHA; 2013.Google Scholar