Ambassador Maurits R. Jochems is currently Deputy Assistant Secretary General for Operations in the International Secretariat of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). His functions include responsibility for the Alliance's work in the field of civil emergency planning. As a Dutch Foreign Service career diplomat, he has been seconded to NATO since August 2005. Before taking up his current position he was Director of International Security Policy in the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs, dealing with operations, NATO and EU security policy issues, UN disarmament and arms control, OSCE matters and arms export policy. He has also served at Dutch embassies in Kingston, Bonn, Beirut, Brussels (NATO) and Rome.

Recent catastrophes, and predictions of an increasing potential for more, have stimulated thinking about the best policy responses to these threats. This article explores how security concepts influence catastrophe governance. The article considers how globalization affects thinking about catastrophes and describes ways in which catastrophes have been conceptualized as governance challenges, such as the human rights approach to the provision of health and humanitarian assistance. The article explains how health and humanitarian assistance experienced “securitization” in the post-cold war period, a development that challenges rights-based strategies and creates complex and controversial implications for the prevention, protection and response functions of catastrophe governance.

Comparing the two tsunamis of Lisbon in 1775 and of Asia in 2004, the article analyses the different paradigmatic interpretations of “Western” religious and secular causality. Based on the rational concept of risk making and risk taking, the need to accept failures and their consequences is discussed, as well as the responsibility to develop human strategies for disaster prevention and to foster living conditions which may avoid large-scale suffering.

The article takes an overall look at the initial medical relief activities in Nagasaki after the atomic bomb fell there on 9 August 1945. In Nagasaki, as in Hiroshima, medical facilities were instantaneously destroyed by the explosion, yet the surviving doctors and other medical staff, though themselves sometimes seriously injured, did their best to help the victims. Medical facilities in adjacent areas also tended to the wounded continuously being brought there; some relief workers arrived at the disaster area when the level of radiation was still dangerously high. This article will in particular highlight the work of the doctors.

This article offers an understanding of the nature, scale and complexity of two hypothetical yet possible events and their potentially overwhelming impact upon health, security and socioeconomic productivity. It describes a no-warning CBRNE incident and a gradual rising-tide emergency with a newly emerging infectious disease, summarizing a range of likely response actions, impacts and constraints, particularly for the humanitarian community.

It is uncertain who will assist the victims of use of nuclear, radiological, biological or chemical weapons if an international response is required, and how this assistance can be provided without undue risk to those providing it. The use of such weapons or any other release of the materials of which they are composed cannot be considered as presenting a uniform risk. There are a variety of risks, each with its own implications for getting help to the people affected and for the health and security of those bringing that help. The political implications are serious and complex. This brief review shows the difficulties inherent in assisting the victims or potential victims of use of nuclear, radiological, biological and chemical weapons.

In both disasters and armed conflicts, domestic regulatory control over the entry and operation of international humanitarian relief operations can significantly affect their ability to address the critical needs of affected persons. The types of regulatory problems that arise, such as customs barriers, visa issues and taxation of aid, are often similar, but both the underlying dynamics and the applicable international law can be quite different. This article analyses these similarities and differences and suggests distinct steps that might be taken to move forward in the two contexts.

The article examines and compares two recent judgments which provide some of the most valuable examples of the difficulties surrounding the application of international humanitarian law to the phenomenon of terrorism: the Hamdan judgment of the Supreme Court of the United States, and the Targeted Killings judgment of the Supreme Court of Israel. Both judgments deal with the thresholds of applicability of the law of armed conflict, as well as with the concept of unlawful combatancy and the relationship between human rights law and humanitarian law. Both judgments are at times inconsistent and lacking in analysis, with the Hamdan judgment in particular misinterpreting the relevant international authorities, including the Commentaries on the Geneva Conventions. Despite these flaws, or because of them, both of these judgments remain instructive. The purpose of this article is to present the lessons for the future that these two decisions might bring to ongoing debates on the impact of global terrorism on the law of armed conflict.

Since the beginning of the Israeli occupation more than 200,000 cases have been brought before military courts, where Palestinian civilians have been prosecuted and judged by the military authorities. However, despite the large number of judicial decisions, this jurisprudence has not received the attention it merits. Academic researchers and NGOs have usually examined the procedural rights of the accused and have only rarely dealt with other legal matters. This article aims to examine the preliminary issue of territorial jurisdiction. Through the analysis a process of judicial domination is revealed. It is a domination that facilitates extensive control of the military authorities over the Palestinian civilian population through their judicial powers.

The proper management of the dead from catastrophes is an essential component of humanitarian response, together with the rescue and care of survivors and the provision and rehabilitation of essential services. Sadly, insufficient recognition of the importance of ensuring proper management of the dead and of caring for the needs of the bereaved, coupled with the frequent collapse of forensic services in the aftermath of catastrophes, contribute to perpetuating the tragedy and trauma suffered by survivors forever unable properly to bury and mourn their dead. In 2006 the Pan American Health Organisation (PAHO) and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), together with the World Health Organisation (WHO) and the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC), published guidelines for the management of the dead, to help improve the management of the dead after catastrophes. The publication, Management of Dead Bodies after Disasters: A Field Manual for First Responders, offers practical and simple recommendations to non-specialists for the proper and dignified management of the dead in catastrophes and for the care of bereaved relatives. It also helps to dispel the principal myth which often complicates this difficult task: the unfounded association of cadavers with epidemics. The manual has proven to be a valuable tool for first responders, including humanitarian workers, for disaster response and preparedness in various operational contexts.