R2P Not in the Name of NGOs? What Can Best Explain the Decision-Making Processes of NGOs in Regard to the R2P Principle? A Comparative Case Study of MSF and Oxfam International

(1)

R2P Not in the Name of NGOs?

What Can Best Explain the Decision-Making Processes of NGOs in Regard to the R2P Principle?

A Comparative Case Study of MSF and Oxfam International

by

Remi G.H. Kloos, BSc S1483331

June 9, 2019

Leiden University

Institute of Security and Global Affairs Faculty of Governance and Global Affairs

Crisis and Security Management (MSc)

Supervisor: Dr.mr. E.T. Aloyo Second Reader: Dr. J. Matthys

(2)

R2P Not in the Name of NGOs?

What Can Best Explain the Decision-Making Processes of NGOs in Regard to the R2P Principle?

(3)

Abstract

This master thesis analyses the decision-making process of Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) and Oxfam International on the R2P principle by means of a comparative case study

qualitative content analysis. The main puzzle which motivated this research was to

understand what could potentially explain the surprising decision of MSF to not support the R2P principle. This thesis will help explain and predict NGO actions in the future and adds to the literature on organisational decision-making of NGOs. Retrospectively looking at the decision-making process of MSF and Oxfam on the R2P principle, it is concluded that MSF and Oxfam have different decision-making logics. For both cases the hypotheses were right: MSF’s decision-making process on R2P can best be explained by the Logic of Consequences and Oxfam's decision-making process on R2P can best be explained by the Logic of

Appropriateness.

Keywords:_{Responsibility to Protect (R2P), NGO, Decision-Making Models, Logic of} Appropriateness, Logic of Consequences, Garbage Can Model, Médecins Sans

Frontières (MSF), Oxfam International.

Acknowledgements

I hereby express my genuine gratitude to my master thesis supervisor Dr.mr. Eamon T. Aloyo and second reader Dr. Joery Matthysfor the useful comments, remarks and engagement through this master thesis. Furthermore, I would like to thank my family, who have

unconditionally supported me throughout the entire process by helping me putting the pieces together and keeping me motivated and driven.

I believe in the cause of the humanitarian work and I want to express my admiration for MSF and Oxfam International who are committed to making the world a safer place.

I hope you will enjoy reading this thesis.

(4)

List of Abbreviations

GCM Garbage Can Model

IGA International General Assembly

IHL International Humanitarian Law

LoA Logic of Appropriateness

LoC Logic of Consequences

MSF Médecins Sans Frontières

NGO Non-Governmental Organisation

Oxfam Oxfam International

R2P Responsibility to Protect

UN United Nations

(7)

1. Introduction

The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) principle is an important concept in the protection of human rights around the world. R2P allows the international community to intervene in order to prevent or stop crimes against humanity, genocide, war crimes and ethnic cleansings (Mulder, 2014). The problem with this R2P doctrine is that it failed to protect many citizens around the world since its introduction, even though some of these cases did comply with the requirements for legitimation of intervention under the R2P principle (Bellamy, 2015, p. 190 & 191). Therefore, over the years, the principle has had to deal with lots of critics, failures and academics stating that the principle needs to change. Problems of R2P include the lack of implication, effectiveness, inconsistency and competing political interests (Paris, 2014, p. 570).

1.1 NGOs and R2P

An institutionalized principle with the main goal to protect human rights around the world sounds like a dream for humanitarian NGOs. Humanitarian NGOs like Amnesty

International, Oxfam International (Oxfam) and new ones such as the International Coalition for the Responsibility to Protect (ICRtoP) and Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect (GCR2P) advocate actively for the R2P principle. On the other hand, there are some

humanitarian NGOs that did not take a stand on the principle and there is only one that actively advocated against the R2P principle: Médecins Sans Frontieres/Doctors without Borders (MSF) (Weissman, 2010).

‘Not In Our Name’ is what MSF stated considering their vision on the R2P principle on the 3rd of October 2010 (Weissman, 2010). How is it possible that the R2P principle, which was first articulated in the 2001 ICISS report as a normative doctrine to protect human rights in case of mass atrocities (ICISS, 2001), is denied by MSF; a humanitarian NGO with humanitarian objectives?

(8)

of Appropriateness, Logic of Consequences and the Garbage Can Model) to respectively MSF and Oxfam, this research intends to find the best explanatory model for NGO

decision-making on R2P. This will help explain and predict NGO actions in the future and adds to the literature on organisational decision-making, which so far does not extensively focus on NGO actions. To sum up, the research question is:

What can best explain the decision-making processes of NGOs in regard to the R2P principle?

Questions like: how do MSF and Oxfam frame the R2P principle and what are the

characteristics behind NGOs decisions will be answered. This research aims to answer the questions to what motivates NGOs and why do NGOs decided whether to support the R2P principle or not? The hypotheses are:

If an NGO uses the Logic of Appropriateness, then it will support the R2P principle If an NGO uses the Logic of Consequences, then it will not support the R2P principle

If an NGO uses the Garbage Can Model, then it will not support the R2P principle

1.2 Academical Relevance

This research further explores and extends the academic literature on what motivates NGOs and why the R2P principle has not been very effective at fighting mass atrocities (Paris, 2014, p. 571)._{Although much research (Paris, 2014) has been done on the dysfunctioning of the} R2P principle, little research has been done on the argumentation doctrine of NGOs on R2P. NGOs are humanitarian organisations and therefore inherently thought of as supporters of the ‘humanitarian’ R2P principle. MSF shows a different case and, with the exception of

Weissman, no research covers this exception. Weissman (2010) wrote an influential article on ‘why MSF does not support the Responsibility to Protect’. In his study Weissman argues that MSF does not support R2P, because supporting R2P would mean supporting imperialism (2010). Furthermore, Weissman argues against the use of violence for humanitarian purposes (Rock & Weissman, 2010). Weissman (2010) strongly emphasises the political (imperialism)

(9)

and military aspect of why MSF does not support R2P, neglecting humanitarian motives. Therefore, this study aims to deeper investigate the motivations of MSF not to support R2P.

This research aims to go beyond the political (imperialism) and military (intervention) argumentations and will look into the broader motivations of NGOs, without completely leaving out the political and military aspects. Why would an NGO not support the R2P principle? Answering this question can be valuable for further research on the new world order (see Slaughter, 2004) and the greater role for NGOs in global governance. Furthermore it is important to understand what drives NGOs in making decisions on, for example,

supporting or not supporting the R2P principle. Therefore, besides examining MSF’s motivations, this thesis will also cover the motivations of Oxfam to support R2P. Oxfam International is included to contrast to MSF, as comparing these two gives insights on why and how different decisions are made.

1.3 Societal Relevance

This research is important for societal reasons because it tries to further explore the area of NGOs in global governance and the new world order (see Slaughter, 2004) through

understanding why MSF decided not to support the R2P principle and why Oxfam did support R2P. Even though, the R2P principle is primarily based around states, the failure of effective use of the principle calls for NGOs to become more active and important in the use of the R2P principle. The failure of the R2P principle has mainly to do with states putting their national interest before humanitarian values (Weissman, 2010_{). Pace, from the World} Federalist Movement-Institute for Global Policy, indicated in a conference organised by Oxfam International on e.g. the Responsibility to Protect, that ‘NGOs may have a central role in the implementation of the principle by pressuring their respective governments to take the necessary measures’ (Garrigues, 2007, p. 14). Furthermore, NGOs give a lot of advice and information to states, who take their decisions based on these reports. Slaughter (2004) states in her book ‘a new world order’ that the new world order should entail a network governance in which NGOs play a more important role. This research aims to contribute to fill the

R2P-gap and give rise to better and more effective protecting of people from mass atrocities and ethnic cleansing. The objective of this research is to explain why some NGOs decide not

(10)

This paper will start with a theoretical framework of organisational decision-making models, including the conceptualisation of the main concepts. Followed by the methodology which covers, among other things, the method of data collection, case selection, operationalization and limitations of this research. Thereafter, a content analysis of the documents and articles gathered from MSF and Oxfam follow. In the conclusion, the outcome of the research will be summarized, the answer to the research question will be provided, and prospects for further research will be discussed.

(11)

2. R2P and Organisational Decision-Making Models

In today's society we have to deal with a wide range and number of security threats. In the definition of Krause and Williams (1996) of critical security studies, the state is the main referent object. But what if exactly that actor lacks the will or power to protect its citizens, or helps the endangering of its own people (Krause & Williams, 1996, p. 230)? Galtung and Oberg define an alternative concept of security in Waever (1995, p. 2). This concept is based on four positive goals for human needs: survival, development, freedom and identity

(Waever, 1995, p. 2). In case those four positive goals are not present, people lack security. Therefore it is important to research one of the main policies set up especially to protect people from their own state; Responsibility to Protect (R2P). This section will discuss the main concepts used in this research and the organisational decision-making models.

2.1 The Responsibility to Protect (R2P)

The R2P principle is an important concept in the protection of human rights around the world, but it is also a widely contested principle. Problems of R2P include the lack of implication, effectiveness, inconsistency and competing political interests (Paris, 2014, p. 570). The international community seems often incapable to effectively use the R2P doctrine in order to protect the human rights of people in situations of mass atrocities (Paris, 2014, p. 570). The R2P principle was accepted in 2005 by the UN general assembly of the United Nations (UN) and endorsed in Resolution 1674 by the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) (Mulder, 2014, p. 532). R2P is the obligation of states to protect its own people and in case they do not comply with this obligation, the international community is obliged to protect the rights of those citizens (ICISS, 2001, p. 49). ‘There is a responsibility of the international community to take timely and decisive action to prevent and halt the four crimes that are covered under R2P, when a state clearly fails to protect’ (Mulder, 2014, p. 532). Thus, if the leader commits one of the crimes included in R2P, the state forfeits its right to sovereignty and foreign intervention is allowed. Crimes that fall under the R2P are:

genocides, ethnic cleansing, crimes against humanity and war crimes (Mulder, 2014, p. 533). In case of violation of one of those rights, R2P incentives are: prevention, intervention and

(12)

rebuilding, with the use of violence only as last means necessary (Dembinski & Reinold, 2011, p. 5). In order to legitimize the use of R2P, the consent of the UNSC is needed. The five permanent members are able to use their veto to stop the use of R2P as legitimation for intervention (Dembinski & Reinold, 2011, p. 5). The legitimization criteria for military intervention are ‘right authority, just cause, right intention, last resort, proportional means and reasonable prospect of success’ (Dembinski & Reinold, 2011, p. 4).

2.2 Organisational Decision-Making Models

Decision-making is a widely used and influential study, also in crisis and security studies. Organisational decision-making theory is an important aspect of NGO behaviour. Besides the influential work of James March on organisational decision-making, organisational

decision-making covers many more different typologies. March and Olsen (1989) are very influential theorists and distinguish between the rational choice ‘Logic of Consequences’ and the constructivist ‘Logic of Appropriateness’. Furthermore, Cohen, March and Olsen (1972₎ added the Garbage Can Model (GCM), which argues for a less sequential model of

decision-making. This research uses these three influential models of organisational decision-making. This study adds to the existing literature, while it uses parts of the organisational decision-making theories to explore an empirical phenomenon. So far decision-making processes of NGOs are not extensively analysed. Even though this study limits itself to the use of March’s models, it still represents a big part of the literature on organisational decision-making.

A limitation of these theories is that they do not imply persistence of a given logic (Schulz,_{2014, p. 4). Actions can change over time and can be combinations of different} logics. Therefore, it is difficult to make predictions based on this research. In this study, the goal is to explain NGO decision-making processes. Consequently, the problem of action prediction is not relevant here.

Logic of Consequences

The first model of organisational decision-making is the Logic of Consequences (LoC), introduced by James March in the 1980s, and argues that decision-making is based on instrumental rational choice, in which preferences are maximized (Heyse, 2006, p. 36).

(13)

Actors are self-interested and weigh costs against benefits in decision-making. In order to come to this ‘best’ decision, complete information on alternatives and their consequences is needed (Heyse, 2006, p. 36). The LoC is ‘analysed-based action’ according to March and Simon (1993, p. 7). After carefully analysing the possible alternatives, their outcomes and own preferences, the option with the lowest costs and greatest benefits is chosen.

Some critics like March (1994), Simon (1997) and Kahneman, Slovic and Tversky (1982) argue that instrumental rationality is a contested subject in organisational

decision-making, because it is not possible to include all possible alternatives. Another critic relates to the vaguely defined and not hierarchical ordered preferences which causes

contradictions and consequently incapability to rationally achieve these preferences (Lindblom, 1959, p. 82). Consequently, Simon came up with the concept of bounded rationality in 1945 (in Heyse, 2006, p. 36). Bounded rationality highlights the difficulty of preference maximization because of cognitive and organisational constraints, and argues that rational behavior should be seen as an attempt to maximize preferences (Simon, 1997, p. 88). This is important to note for this study, while it can happen that the result of decision-making is not the most optimal, but the intention was and therefore the LoC was still followed.

Instrumentality, sequentiality and prospective and anticipatory reasoning are four characters of this decision-making model (Perrow, 1986, p. 121). The aim of the LoC is to maximize organisational goals, which are formulated by efficiently analysing future outcomes (March, 1994, in Heyse, 2006, p. 33). Furthermore, according to the LoC, decision-making is an intra organisational process which means that there is no interest for outside pressures and demands that are not related to the organisation’s goals (Heyse, 2006, p. 36).

To indicate if the LoC is used in the decision-making process of NGOs, a few characteristics should be identified. First, the problem is defined by the decision-makers, afterwards multiple alternative actions are defined, and only with this knowledge a decision is made (sequential reasoning). Another characteristic is that the decision-makers value possible future consequences of the alternatives in the decision-making process (prospective

reasoning). Third, decision-makers use a cost-benefit analysis in order to calculate the best option, with organisational goals as main objectives (maximizing and anticipatory behavior). Fourth, the decision-making process is driven by collecting and analysing as much

(14)

the most optimal way, pursuing the most efficient way to achieve the organisational goals (optimal decisions).

Logic of Appropriateness

The Logic of Appropriateness (LoA) is a constructivist model of organisational

decision-making. It focuses on the environment as imposing rules, norms and roles upon the individual (Scott, 1995, p. 51, in Heyse, 2006, p. 39). Thus, ‘action is often based more on identifying the normatively appropriate behavior than on calculating the return expected from alternative choices’ (March & Olsen, 1989, p. 22, in Heyse, 2006, p. 39). March and Olsen stress the importance of historical traditions, identity and appropriateness in the

decision-making process (1989, p. 38, in Mouritsen, 1994, p. 197). The logic of

appropriateness is a social construction of interests and preferences (Mouritsen, 1994, p. 205). The aim of this model is to make appropriate decisions, or: behave as is expected from the individual in a given situation (Scott, 1995, p. 39, in Heyse, 2006, p. 39).

The regime of rules is the leading characteristic of this LoA decision-making model. It is defined as ‘rules that specify which actors should act, how they should act, when and where they should act, what roles and obligations they have, which stakeholders should be involved and what their activities should be’ (Heyse, 2006, p. 40). For example, international humanitarian law (IHL) is an important rule regime for Oxfam, as will be discussed later in this research. The leading regime of rules of MSF and Oxfam need to be established and tested if these rules were applied in the analysed documents on R2P. These rules create patterns of behavior that reflect duties and obligations which are part of the contextual setting of the decisions that need to be taken (Heyse, 2006, p. 40)_{. Among others, March and Olsen} (1989) argue that these duties and obligations define the norms and roles that constrain the actor in the decision-making process.

The decision-making is retrospective in nature, combined with obligatory, rule-based, and value-driven action (March & Olsen, 1989, p. 23). Situations need to be matched to existing rules that reflect the norms and expectations associated to these norms (Lipshitz, 1994, p. 49). Furthermore, the decision-making is a contingent process, which means that outside pressures from the public, interest groups, the media and politics, as well as inside pressures are included in the decision-making process (Heyse, 2006).

(15)

Heyse (2006) argues that an ‘appropriate’ decision-making process includes first of all, instant reasoning. This reflects the patterned behavior: after a situation is defined, decision-makers know which rule system they need to use and this way they apply the rule system almost unconsciously. Secondly, the reasoning is retrospective which means that past events are taking into account. Next, the decision-makers behave according to their roles and obligations. Furthermore, decision-makers compare the situation with previous situations and use this information to decide upon the current issue. Lastly, the decision-making is

congruent, the shared values and beliefs are internalized.

Garbage Can Model

The Garbage Can Model (GCM) of decision-making was introduced by Cohen, March and Olsen (1972). The main idea of this model is that there are several streams in the

decision-making process: problems, solutions, participants and choice opportunities, that independently exist and do not instantly follow each other. The garbage can is referred to as the organisational space, in which the different streams move around simultaneously. ‘Problems are defined as the concerns of people inside and outside the organization, and…, solutions are products made by people within the organization’ (Heyse, 2006, p. 43). Cohen, March and Olsen emphasize that it is the stream of solutions that is always looking for problems to solve (1972, p. 3).

Timing is important in this decision-making model and is also referred to as the window of opportunity, the moment where problems, solutions and participants are coupled (Cohen, March & Olsen, 1976, p. 27). This means that the agenda-setting phase is important, because here the problems that need to be solved are defined. Cohen, March and Olsen (1976) argue that the decision and access structure are influenced by ‘the degree to which the organization has been able to regulate the connections between the streams by means of hierarchy, specialization, information distribution, classifications, and agenda-building’ (1976, p. 31 & 32).

The GCM entails simultaneous reasoning; the four streams of decision-making

(alternatives, problems, decision-making and actions) exist simultaneously. Second, there is a lack of shared values and goals in organisations, which means that there is more space for individual or departmental interests to influence the decision-making (prospective reasoning).

(16)

persuasion (persuasive behavior). Furthermore, the GCM is characterised by coupling, which means that decision-making takes place if the problems, solutions and participants are

coupled. Also, the GCM often entails coincidental decisions, because there are many contextual elements that influence the decision-making process.

This study is an explanatory study that tries to explain in the best way why two humanitarian aid NGOs (Oxfam and MSF) decided to respectively support and not support the R2P

principle. The above mentioned models are used as an instrument to guide the observations. The models will be used in their original form.

Tabel 1

Overview of Decision-Making Models and Main Characteristics Ca_tegory Logic of Consequences Logic of Appropriateness Garbage Can Model Framing of Problem Sequential Instant Simultaneous Type of Reasoning Prospective Retrospective Personal Type of Behavior Effective and

efficient: maximizing

Commitment and expectations

Persuasive

Frame of Reference Objectives: formal structures

Values: rule-based system

Group dynamics: actors are important Characteristics of Argumentation Information, data and monitoring Comparing situations: analogy Matching of streams: coupling

(17)

3. Methodology

The goal of this research is to answer the research question: _{What can best explain the} decision-making processes of NGOs in regard to the R2P principle? _{In order to answer this} research question, this thesis conducts an explanatory comparative case study of two non-governmental international humanitarian aid organisations: Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) and Oxfam International (Oxfam).

3.1 Case Selection

This comparative case study covers two cases, namely MSF and Oxfam. A comparative case study is chosen, because this research is focused on a contemporary phenomenon within a real-life context (Yin, 2003, p. 1), namely NGO involvement in international norms. Yin argues: ‘case studies are the preferred strategy when ‘how’ and ‘why’ questions are being posed, when the investigator has little control over events, and when the focus is on a contemporary phenomenon within some real-life context´ (2003, p. 1). In order to find out how NGOs come to different decisions, a comparative case study with a most-different case selection is used. This research is comprised of two cases studies, because ‘by comparing two or more cases, the researcher is in a better position to establish the circumstances in which a theory will or will not hold’ (Eisenhardt, 1989, in Bryman, 2012, p. 74)

The selection of these two NGOs represents a form of most-similar sampling, except for the crucial decision-making issue: R2P. By making sure the NGOs are most-similar, other external explanations that can explain the decision-making process are minimized. MSF and Oxfam operate in the same field of expertise: humanitarian aid. This research design allows theoretical generalization, meaning that the results of the study of these two cases could possibly have wider theoretical implications for the study of (humanitarian aid) NGOs in general (Yin, 1994). The theoretical replication logic of this study is to explore if differences in decision-making of NGOs on R2P can be explained by organisational decision-making models.

The first case covered in this research is Médecins Sans Frontières/Doctors Without Borders (MSF). MSF is a humanitarian NGO that provides assistance to populations in

(18)

distress, to victims of natural or man-made disasters, and to victims of armed conflict (“Who we are, “ n.d.). MSF actively spoke out against the R2P principle (Weissman, 2010). MSF forms the basis of this study, because of it unique decision not to support R2P that differs from the mainstream support for the R2P principle. The second case chosen is Oxfam International (Oxfam). Oxfam is chosen to show contrast, while it actively supports the R2P principle and even advocates the principle as a member of the International Coalition for the Responsibility to Protect (ICRtoP). Furthermore, Oxfam is chosen because it is a widely known NGO committed to work in a transparent way, which means that there should be enough documentation available and this improves the quality of this research (“Our Purpose and Beliefs, “ n.d.).

To sum up, the two selected NGOs are similar in being humanitarian aid NGOs, but differ in their decision on whether to support the R2P principle. Therefore, the comparative case study has a strong exploratory character.

3.2 Data Selection

This research uses, among other things, online documented and published interviews of actors involved with the NGOs, and therefore it needs to be aware that some statements might be misleading comments formed by the interview and statement’s current situation and have to be interpreted carefully in the context to avoid drawing wrong conclusions (Bryman, 2012, p. 401). Therefore, this research uses ‘triangulation’ of data, which means that several sources of data are used in order to minimise the influence of contextual factors (Bryman, 2012, p. 392). Thus, besides those interviews, data sources cover official reports on R2P, academic literature, and statements made by, for example, spokespersons of the NGOs. Also, official documents of MSF and Oxfam on for example their values and objectives are used. The leading document for MSF is the article of Weissman ‘Not In Our Name’ on why MSF did not to support R2P (2010). Data is available on websites of the NGOs, online databases, archives of the ICRtoP and GCR2P and in databases containing academic literature. Conducting interviews is not included in this research, because spoken statements of

individuals easily differ from the vision of the NGO and do not include the process aspect of decision-making. Concluding, the added value of conducting interviews does not outweigh the downsides.

(19)

(20)

3.3 Operationalization

How can the characteristics be linked to the three decision-making models?

Logic of Consequences

The LoC is characterised by the sequential way in which the problem is framed. This means that the problems are formulated first, then the alternatives for action are discussed, after which the consequence of these alternatives are considered and in the end a solution is chosen. Furthermore, the reasoning is mostly prospective, which can be indicated by looking for anticipatory action: are future consequences of actions taken into account? Maximizing behavior is indicated by the importance of effectiveness and efficiency and cost-benefit analyses. Also, actions grounded in organisational objectives such as formal policies, procedures and guidelines are a characteristic of the LoC. Furthermore, the information driven characteristic can be indicated by the amount of information gathered and used and if there is a lot of emphasis on data collection and fact finding, its use and the use of monitoring mechanisms.

Logic of Appropriateness

The characteristics of the LoA also have certain indicators. First of all, the instant reasoning can be noticed if there is direct and almost unconscious decision-making based on the internalized value system. The use of past experiences in the decision-making refers to the retrospectiveness of the LoA. Furthermore, the obligatory and rule-based characteristic of the LoA can be indicated by expressions of commitment, the importance of the expectations of other people (intern and extern), and the presence of organisational values and use of the internalized rule system. The analogy of the LoA can be recognized by the use of comparison of the current situation with another, similar, situation.

Garbage Can Model

Lastly, the GCM also has some indicators. First of all, the problems, solutions, choice opportunities and actors appear simultaneous or semi randomly. Also, the absence of a collective goal rationality is an indicator for individual prospectiveness (personal rationality). Next, the persuasiveness characteristic can be indicated by the crucial role of actors (as the

(21)

ones that connect all the streams), group dynamics and persuasion, negotiation and

compromise elements. The last characteristic of the GCM is coupling, which can be indicated by matching (of the streams) and here timing and coincidence are influencing factors.

Tabel 2

Organisational characteristics of the three decision-making models

Category LoC LoA GCM

Framing of Problem Sequential

reasoning: problems → alternatives → consequences → solution, and rational choice Instant reasoning: direct and unconscious decision-making, and constructivism Simultaneous reasoning: problems, solutions, choice opportunities, actors all simultaneous and semi-random Type of Reasoning Prospective

reasoning: future consequences Retrospective reasoning: past experiences Personal reasoning :Personal rationality

Type of Behavior Effective and efficient Commitment and expectations Persuasion, negotiation and compromise Frame of Reference Organisational

objectives: formal policies, procedures, and guidelines

Organisational values: internalized rule system based

Group dynamics: actors are important

Characteristics of Argumentation Information, data, and monitoring Comparing situations Matching of streams: timing, coincidence

These characteristics will help to analyze the decision-making process of the NGOs, but also alternative explanations for NGOs decision-making in regard to the R2P principle are

considered. For every category, the characteristic that mostly influenced the decision-making process of a NGO is selected. If the decision-making process of a NGO entails a majority, three or more, of characteristics of a certain decision-making model, this model is selected as the decision-making model that best explains the decision-making process of the NGO on R2P.

(22)

3.4 Content Analysis

The methodology of this thesis consists of a qualitative content analysis. The goal of this research is to explain why MSF did not support the R2P principle, and why Oxfam did. Therefore, content analysis is useful in analysing texts on how these NGOs envision the R2P principle and argument their decisions. Content analysis includes ‘any technique for making inferences by objectively and systematically identifying specified characteristics of messages’ (Holsti, 1969, p. 14, in Bryman, 2012, p. 289). Or, ‘Content analysis is a research technique for making replicable and valid inferences from texts (or other meaningful matter) to the contexts of their use’(Krippendorff, 2018, p. 24). A content analysis is reliable and valid according to Weber if the classification procedures is consistent: ‘ different people should code the same text in the same way’ (1990, p. 12).

This research aims to explain why MSF and Oxfam decided (not) to support R2P and which decision-making model is best applicable to explain the decision-making process of the NGOs. The goal of analysing all available qualitative data is to seek for a deeper

meaning. The gathered data is categorized into themes (thematic analysis) based on the three different decision-making models and their characteristics.

A research is in general reliable when it can be repeated by others (Koo & Li, 2016, p. 155). If someone else would carry out this exact same research, the findings should in general be the same. Only the interpretation of comments in, for example, speech acts, possibly differs slightly from one researcher to another, due to the problem of interpretation (Bryman, 2012, p. 392). This research aims to achieve the highest level of internal validity, namely; this research tries to measure what is supposed to be measured (Alshenqeeti, 2014, p. 43).

Concerning generalisation, the hypotheses should also apply for other NGOs, but only if they have clearly spoken out about the R2P principle and enough data is available. The hypotheses are likely to differ for other, governmental organisations, while those are directly influenced by governments.

This research will be conducted by analysing documents, speeches, statements and official reports from Oxfam International and MSF on the R2P principle. The content analysis categorised by a decision-making framework should provide more insights on the motivations of NGOs whether to support the R2P principle. The goal of this research is to

(23)

answer the research question: _{What can best explain the decision-making processes of NGOs} in regard to the R2P principle?

(24)

4. Médecins Sans Frontières

The first case study is the medical humanitarian NGO Médecins Sans Frontières/Doctors Without Borders (MSF). MSF is a private international association with the aim of bringing medical humanitarian assistance to populations in distress, to victims of natural or man-made disasters and to victims of armed conflict (“MSF Charter and Principles,” n.d.). They operate irrespective of race, religion, creed or political convictions’ (“MSF Charter and Principles,” n.d.). From the beginning, MSF was in favor of military intervention. However only justified if state sovereignty is not undermined: ‘MSF was born out of doctors unwillingness to keep silent in the face of atrocities in the Biafran secession war (1967-’70) and developed a concept of a right and duty to intervene when lives are at stake and notwithstanding state sovereignty’ (Marks & Cooper, 2010, p. 89). Nevertheless, MSF’s vision on the

Responsibility to Protect clearly states that R2P is problematic and should not be supported (Weissman, 2010). There are a few trends noticeable in the decision-making process of MSF concerning the R2P principle. Analysing MSF’s documents on R2P finds that MSF’s

decision-making process can best be explained by the Logic of Consequences.

Governance structure

This research uses documents such as speeches, interviews, articles and other material of MSF or any MSF representative, like MSF spokespersons, members of the board or directors. Although some of those specifically mention not to speak in the name of MSF, this research argues that their personal views are influential in the decision-making process of MSF. MSF is run by MSF associations, whose members are mostly current and former field staff: ‘Our members share a commitment to independent medical humanitarian action, and collectively own and manage MSF through national and regional associations’ (“How we are run,” n.d.). All 24 MSF associations, MSF individuals and the international president together form MSF International, which safeguards the identity of the MSF movement (“How we are run,” n.d.). The annual International General Assembly (IGA) consist of representatives of each

association, individual membership and the international president. The international president, currently Dr Joanne Liu, is elected by the IGA. Each representative, and the

(25)

international president, has one independent vote on issues brought to the assembly for resolution (‘How we’re run’, n.d.).

A characteristic of MSF is that MSF’s members express their views on MSF’s actions in a debate, through which they can inform and steer MSF’s direction (“How we are run,” n.d.). MSF members elect the MSF governing bodies and hold them accountable for their actions. The use of statements of members of the governing board and (former) presidents of MSF in this research representing the voice of MSF is justified, because they are chosen to represent the members of MSF and are held accountable for their actions.

It is important to know how the internal operational system of MSF works, while this shows how much influence individuals have on the NGO. MSF is independent and individual members debate its way towards decision and policy making. Thus, individuals play a

leading role in the creation of MSF policy. This justifies the use of statements of individual members of MSF in this research. For example, one of the most important documents on why MSF does not support R2P is the article of Fabrice Weissman (2010) named ‘’Not In Our Name’: Why Médecins Sans Frontières Does Not Support the ‘Responsibility to Protect’’. Weissman is the general director of CRASH MSF; set up to inspire debate and critical reflection on field practices and public positions in order to improve the actions of MSF, and closely concerned with the decision-making of MSF (“Crash,“ n.d.). Weissman’s article and vision is really influential in MSF’s decision-making process. This is why, even though Weissman states that ‘In no way,..., do these texts lay down the ‘MSF party line’, nor do they seek to defend the idea of ‘true humanitarianism’’, his article is used in this research (2010).

4.1 Framing of Problem

4.1.1 Sequential reasoning

Two characteristics of the LoC are sequential reasoning and instrumental rational choice. Both of these characteristics can be found in the documents of MSF on whether to support R2P.

First of all, sequential reasoning means that first the issue is defined, carefully analysed and alternatives are discussed, before a decision is made (Heyse, 2006, p. 37). This is the case in the decision-making process of MSF on the R2P principle. For example, the

(26)

article of MSF “The Responsibility to Protect” (2002) first mentions the problem concerning the R2P principle, namely the blurring line between humanitarian and military intervention. According to MSF, the direct consequence of this is that impartiality is at stake (“The Responsibility to Protect,” 2002). This shows that MSF first states the issue, whereafter they discuss the consequences it has for MSF itself. Thus, first the problems of the R2P principle are closely analysed, followed by possible consequences, alternatives and recommendations for improving the R2P principle. The alternative for MSF regarding R2P is supporting the principle, which is considered by analysing its possible consequences. After carefully analysing all the options MSF decided not to support the R2P principle. In the last section of the article of MSF “The Responsibility to Protect” (2002), it is discussed what should change in order for MSF to support R2P. Examples of these recommendations are renewing the international convention, amending the UN charter and getting rid of the veto power in the UNSC (“The Responsibility to Protect,” 2002). MSF argues that a ‘true right to intervention’ as a force for peace can only exist if these recommendations are followed (“The

Responsibility to Protect,” 2002). This research observes a sequential framing of R2P by MSF, in which the reasoning involves a trajectory of problems, consequences and solutions that logically follow each other. Careful sequential reasoning leads to the decision of MSF not to support the R2P principle.

Furthermore, the director of the MSF foundation in Paris and the former president of MSF; Brauman, also clearly defines and analyses the problems concerning R2P in Dialogue 8 (n.d.). Brauman mentions in Dialogue 8 that the problem with the R2P principle arises when it is operationalized through the use of coercive means like military action (n.d., p. 5). The second argument Brauman gives for not supporting the R2P principle concerns the difficulty of defining the reasons why military intervention or action should be taken by the

international community, because the key concepts for justification are vague and weak (n.d., p. 5). Brauman strengthens his arguments by using past failures and possible future

consequences; ‘The consequences of armed intervention such as in Iraq, have historically been absolute disasters’ (Brauman, n.d., p. 5). Thus, the issue of R2P is closely analysed and possible consequences are discussed, which shows again the LoC sequential reasoning.

Besides the sequential reasoning another characteristic of LoC is: instrumental rational choice visible in the documents of MSF on R2P. Brauman mentions the negative consequences of

(27)

military intervention under R2P for the self-interest of MSF, especially the danger to the image of MSF as an impartial and neutral humanitarian NGO (n.d., p.5). The article of MSF “The Responsibility to Protect” (2002) also discusses the damage R2P can do to the image of MSF regarding its values and goals. Especially the use of military intervention is argued as negative for the self-interest of MSF. For example, military intervention under R2P can cause a repetition of what happened in Afghanistan, where the failed intervention caused

‘anti-western feelings’ and the pull back of MSF’s humanitarian aid action from the country (“The Responsibility to Protect,” 2002). This reasoning of MSF shows a focus on the self-interest instead of the humanitarian value of R2P and the need for protection. MSF shows a self-interested motivation in the decision-making process on why they do not support R2P. This focus, on maximizing own preferences, shows an instrumental rational choice approach of MSF, which is a characteristic of the LoC.

4.1.2 Instant reasoning

Even though the section above suggests a sequential reasoning, it can also be argued that the reasoning is more instant, with a direct and more unconscious decision-making based on the internalized value system (LoA). As mentioned before is MSF especially critical of the use of military intervention under R2P, which is directly set against the humanitarian aspect of MSF, and not in line with the main feature of R2P as a humanitarian principle (Weissman, 2010, p. 195). Here, MSF almost automatically applies the rule system, referring to a ‘true right to intervention’ and the fact that humanitarian organisations should not be involved in military intervention (“The Responsibility to Protect,” 2002). This instant reasoning is a characteristic of the LoA.

Weissman stated in his speech at the discussion panel with Allan Rock on R2P that MSF is not against the R2P principle itself, but against its agreement with the use of military force (Rock & Weissman, 2010). He substantiates this statement by using some normative arguments. The R2P principle is the use of force in the name of humanitarian values, which Weissman refers to as not desirable (Rock & Weissman, 2010). Weissman even calls it the obsession of the R2P principle with the use of force and argues that R2P is used as a political tool for that (Rock & Weissman, 2010). Furthermore, Weissman shows unbelieve for the fact that violence is tried to be used to deliver assistance and stresses that the problem with the

(28)

Weissman, 2010). Weissman clearly defines the problem of the R2P principle as it being an inversion of the humanitarian logic: ‘Why should we shoot to feed, shoot to heal,… this is not normal’ (Rock & Weissman, 2010). This statement shows a normative argument of why MSF does not support R2P, based on instantly applying the humanitarian values in the existing rule system of MSF. Here, the LoA explains the decision-making process of MSF.

Concluding, it can be argued that Weissman instantly and unconsciously expresses his concerns with the military aspect of the R2P principle. MSF concerns with military intervention as part of the R2P principle follows from the contradiction of military

intervention with the internalized rule system. However, analysing MSF documents shows a predominant influence of self-interest, where R2P is framed as a tool for MSF’s self interest. Thus, the normative arguments (LoA) are used as a cover for the actual self-interested motivation of MSF (LoC). Even though, MSF is against the non-humanitarian aspect of military intervention under R2P, they prioritise their self-interest such as the violation of MSF impartiality and neutrality and the proceedings of its own mission, over the protection of civilians under R2P.

4.1.3 Simultaneous reasoning

The decision-making process of MSF cannot be defined as simultaneous, while MSF entails a clear reasoning of why they do not support the R2P principle, in which the problems,

consequences, participants and choice opportunities follow each other. The GCM states the opposite, namely decision-making where the different streams do not follow each other. In the case of the decision-making of MSF all arguments and statements on the R2P principle are connected. Furthermore, the GCM is recognized by an organised anarchy in which participants compete for attention and have time and energy limitations. This is not the case in MSFs decision-making process while MSF does not have to compete for attention because of its independent identity. Also, MSF does not have any obligations concerning

(29)

4.2 Type of Reasoning

4.2.1 Prospective reasoning

Negative future consequences of R2P are mentioned in the analysed documents of MSF on R2P.

First of all, Weissman argues that military intervention under R2P can cause MSF’s humanitarian aid to become a military target, because ‘militarizing humanitarian convoys or facilities simply transforms them into military targets’ (2010, p. 198). Also in his speech at the panel discussion Weissman argues that the use of force to deliver assistance is not

sustainable, as the militarization of hospitals makes them military targets (Rock & Weissman, 2010).

A second consequence of supporting R2P would be the violation of MSF’s value impartiality (“The Responsibility to Protect,” 2002). The use of R2P, and especially military intervention under R2P, means the inescapability of picking sides (“The Responsibility to Protect,” 2002). The influence of the value of impartiality on the decision-making process of MSF will be more extensively discussed in section 4.4.

Third, Weissman suggests the ineffectiveness of the R2P principle, because the use of force to deliver assistance is not sustainable (Rock & Weissman, 2010). Weissman notes in his article: ‘Not In Our Name’, that the deployment of troops and the protection of civilians are not the same, and so far democratic armies have been unable to effectively protect (2010, p. 196 & 198). The ineffectiveness could cause many unforeseen problems, for example militarised aid facilities that become military targets (Rock & Weissman, 2010). The ineffectiveness of R2P will be discussed in more detail in section 4.3.

Connected to the question related to the effectiveness of R2P, the article of MSF “The Responsibility to Protect” (2002) states that ‘choosing to march under the same banner means that at the first serious challenge to the political/military agenda, non-coercive humanitarian action will be the first to be jeopardized, and that populations at risk will be the first to suffer’. Thus, MSF is concerned with the trustworthiness, reliability and effectiveness of the R2P principle as a tool to really protect populations at risk. This is again a clear example of the concern of MSF with future consequences of the R2P principle.

(30)

Lastly, another consequence of military intervention under R2P is that it suggests the justification of war and Weissman argues that the goal of humanitarian organisations is not to justify war, but to civilize war (Rock & Weissman, 2010). MSF should not, as a humanitarian organisation, be involved in any war activity that suggests its justification. According to MSF, this means that support for the R2P principle would harm the credibility of the term ‘humanitarian’.

Concluding, the future consequences of support for R2P play a significant role in the decision-making process of MSF on R2P, as follows from the analysis of the documents of MSF on R2P.

4.2.2 Retrospective reasoning

Analysing MSF documents on R2P shows a strong focus on past experiences with military intervention and R2P. The use of past failures instead of successes logically follows from the standpoint of MSF on R2P: no support. Past failures strengthen MSF’s argument not to support the R2P principle. MSF’s strong focus on past experiences, also appears from the La Mancha Agreement: ‘Our past experiences, including both failures and successes and related contradictionary discussions, have had a great deal of influence on the evolution of the conception of our role...‘ (2006, p. 1). Thus, in general, the use of past experiences is common in the decision-making process of MSF.

First of all, the article of MSF “The Responsibility to Protect” (2002) refers to failures in the past. Here, past failures are blamed on the inclusion of humanitarian action into

broader military and political intervention (“The Responsibility to Protect,” 2002). This use of military intervention for humanitarian purposes is what MSF is concerned about regarding R2P. MSF discusses for example the failed intervention in Afghanistan which caused

‘anti-western feelings’, and consequently a hostile environment that stopped MSF from delivering humanitarian aid and eventually led to MSF leaving the country (MSF, 2002). Besides past failures, also the consequence of military intervention for the actions of MSF are mentioned here. In case of military intervention under R2P, the possible anti-western feelings that come along can cause the inability of MSF to proceed delivering medical assistance (which is MSF’s main goal).

Also, Weissman uses past experiences to argue against R2P. For example, the failed British intervention in Sierra Leone, where ‘peace was imposed at a price’ and the failed

(31)

Australian intervention are mentioned, because they did not prevent pillaging and deportings (Weissman, 2010, p. 196). Moreover, Weissman stresses the importance of empirical

research to substantiate the statement that deploying troops and protecting civilians are two different things (2010, p. 196). Empirical research is characterised by the use of direct and indirect observations or experiences. This shows that past experiences influence the decision-making process of MSF on R2P.

Furthermore, Weissman uses past experiences in his speech at the panel discussion with Allan Rock (2010) to strengthen his argument on why MSF does not support the R2P principle. For example, in Afghanistan health facilities were militarized and turned into a battleground causing a lack of available healthcare for Afghan people (Rock & Weissman, 2010). Weissman uses this past failure to argue that the use of military force (under R2P) is not sustainable, because the militarization of humanitarian facilities makes them inherently a military target (Rock & Weissman, 2010). Weissman mentions that he does not criticises the past operations, but he uses them as factual examples of what could go wrong (Rock & Weissman, 2010). Concluding, Weissman uses past experiences to predict future consequences.

By the same token, also Brauman uses past experiences to strengthen MSF’s statement not to support R2P (n.d.). After evaluating past experiences, such as the armed intervention in Iraq which turned out to be an absolute disaster, Brauman states that R2P should not be supported because of the ‘unintended, unintentional and unexpected consequences of wars’ (Brauman, n.d., p. 5).

On the other hand, uses Soussan, a valued member of CRASH MSF, past experiences to show the need for protection and the temptation to actually use military intervention (2008). In her article: ‘MSF and protection: pending or closed?’, Soussan states: ‘in 2003 the organization formally decided that it should play no part in calls for ‘military intervention’, following the chaos in Liberia and the massacres in eastern DRC (Ituri) which had aroused the ‘temptation’ to do so’ (2008, p. 34). Thus, the chaos and massacres in Liberia and the DRC tempted MSF to use military intervention. However, in the end, MSF officially decided not to support military intervention, which vision they still uphold.

Concluding, it can be argued that most of the analysed documents of MSF on R2P show a strong influence of past experiences on the decision-making process of MSF on

(32)

whether to support the R2P principle. Especially past failed interventions support MSF being against the R2P principle.

4.2.3 Personal reasoning

Personal rationality is a feature of the GCM and suggests that the decision-making process is highly influenced by the lack of shared values and goals in the NGO, which creates more room for individuals to influence the decision-making process. However, the Charter of MSF includes the values and goals of MSF and states: ‘All of its members agree to honour the following principles…’ (“MSF Charter and Principles,” n.d.). This shows that MSF has a strong internalized rule regime of shared values and goals that everyone needs to follow. The documents of MSF on R2P did not show any deviations from this code of conduct and thus, personal rationality did not play a role in the decision-making process of MSF on the R2P principle.

4.3 Type of Behavior

4.3.1 Effective and efficient

As mentioned above MSF is concerned about the ineffectiveness of R2P and especially the ineffectiveness of military intervention under R2P. According to MSF, military intervention is not just going to solve the problem of violence, which makes the support for (military intervention under) R2P questionable (Soussan, 2008, p. 39). During the MSF board meeting of March 2001 the ineffectiveness of international mobilisation for protecting civilians was stressed: ‘I note once again that whenever it is a matter of protecting civilians, a major international mobilisation achieves nothing’ (Soussan, 2008, p. 34). Here, MSF shows that they are reluctant to support R2P because military intervention is not a guarantee for

protection. MSF’s scepticism of the effectiveness of military forces in delivering protection also appears from the comment of Soussan: ‘It is unrealistic to think that MSF can deliver medical aid to every corner of a province, so why would foreign troops be able to resolve all the problems of violence and access to aid?’ (2008, p. 35). Thus, according to MSF, the use of military intervention under R2P is useless, because it will not deliver the protection it promises. Military intervention only gives us the ‘illusion of protection’ (Soussan, 2008, p. 35).

(33)

The operational effectiveness of the R2P principle is also questioned by Weissman, in his article ‘Not In Our Name’ (2010). Weissman states for example that ‘democratic armies have not been successful in asserting themselves as the most effective or the most popular protector….’ (2010, p. 198). A just war to install military protection for the population and the use of force for a new political order have uncertain outcomes and inevitably cause victims among the people it is trying to save (Weissman, 2010, p. 198). Here, Weissman insinuates that dispatching foreign troops not automatically means that they protect the population (2010, p. 196).

Furthermore, Weissman argues in his speech at the discussion panel with Allan Rock (2010) that the use of force to deliver assistance is not sustainable. For example, if hospitals start to be militarised, they will become military targets (Rock & Weissman, 2010). Thus, the effectiveness of the use of military intervention under R2P principle is questionable.

Building on this argument, Weissman also mentioned in his speech ‘You cannot protect without following a political strategy of what you want to achieve’ (Rock & Weissman, 2010). This means that actors always pursue a political agenda with

(self-interested) strategic interests. Often, the use of force for the protection of populations under R2P means the creation of a new political order through violence, which shows that R2P is used as a political tool for the self-interest of actors (Weissman, 2010, p. 197). The amount of resources and the political will of actors determine, according to Weissman, that military intervention under R2P will not be effective nor efficient, because military

intervention under R2P is not in the self-interest of these actors (Weissman, 2010. p. 197 & 198). Protection is seen as a political tool and a tool to maximize power and self-interest: ‘The protection of civilians is seen as the surest way to guarantee victory - he who protects, wins’ (Weissman, 2010, p. 198). This is why MSF states that R2P should not be supported, because it only encourages this political game (Weissman, 2010, p. 203).

4.3.2 Commitment and expectations

The documents of MSF on R2P show a commitment to MSF’s own values and goals. MSF argues that they are committed to their value of non-violent intervention, focused on their goal of delivering humanitarian aid and being impartial and neutral (Weissman, 2010, p. 198 & 199). MSF is mostly committed to make sure that they themselves do not suffer any

(34)

The influence of expectations on the decision-making process is not visible in the documents of MSF on R2P. There is no evidence present in the analysed documents of MSF on R2P that shows an influence of others expectations on the decision-making process of MSF. Second, the fact that MSF was the only NGO that actively spoke out against the R2P principle, and thus, even though being a humanitarian NGO, not supporting a humanitarian principle, shows that MSF did not act according to the expectations. On the other hand, MSF did meet the expectation of speaking out when the provision of aid was abused, while MSF spoke out against R2P because of the signs of ineffectiveness and politically biased

motivations (“Who we are,” n.d.).

4.3.3 Persuasion, negotiation and compromise

The book of MSF: ‘Humanitarian Negotiations Revealed: The MSF Experience’ contains the statement that nothing is fixed from the outset, for example: ‘...the safety of personnel, the presence of expatriates, MSF’s intervention priorities, the quality of the assistance provided, control over resources, etc’ (Magone et al., 2011, p. 5). This means that everything is open to negotiation and decisions are the result of concessions. Therefore, the influence of

persuasion, negotiation and compromise on the decision-making process of MSF should be substantial and consequently the GCM is expected to best explain the decision-making process of MSF on R2P. However, even though this is stated in the book of MSF:

‘Humanitarian Negotiations Revealed: The MSF Experience’, the documents of MSF on R2P specifically do not show examples or influences of persuasion, negotiation or compromise.

4.4 Frame of Reference

This research states that organisational values and objectives are important characteristics to classify decision-making processes. In order to find out if values and goals were influential in the decision-making process of MSF on the R2P principle, it is essential to become familiar with the goals and values of MSF. Consequently, the goals and values of MSF are

summarized and applied to the documents of MSF on R2P.

4.4.1 Organisational objectives

The main organisational objectives of MSF are: ‘... to provide assistance to populations in distress, to victims of natural or man-made disasters and to victims of armed conflict’ (“Who

(35)

we are,“ n.d.). This goal is also clearly stated in the article ‘Syria: MSF statements should not be used to justify military actions’ (2013). Here, MSF’s only purpose is defined as ‘saving lives and the diminishing people’s suffering’ (in Syria), while keeping their principles of neutrality and impartiality (“Syria,” 2013). Thus, if MSF is loyal to its objectives, their goals of saving lives and bringing down the number of people suffering should influence the decision-making process of MSF whether to support the R2P principle.

On the one hand, it can be argued that MSF did not follow its objective to save lives, because it denied to support a principle that aims to protect people from suffering. Even though the objectives of MSF show a moral obligation to help and protect people in need, MSF decided not to support the R2P principle.

On the other hand, it can also be argued that MSF did follow its objectives, including the objective to save lives. First, as mentioned before, MSF does justify the rejection of R2P by calling upon the ineffectiveness of R2P to protect people in need (Paris, 2014, p. 570). This principle is more likely to cause harm than good, especially when military intervention takes place (Weissman, 2010, p. 198). Consequently, the R2P principle is not in line with MSF’s objectives to save lives and diminish the suffering of people.

In addition, the use of military intervention under R2P is seen as an act of war by Weissman (2010, p. 196). Supporting an act of war collides with MSF’s main goal of protecting populations against war. The unexpected and uncertain consequences that come along with the use of force do not coincide with the objective to protect people and diminish suffering. Weissman summarises that military protection of a population requests a ‘just war’ and the use of violence, which has uncertain outcomes and inevitably creates victims among the people it’s trying to save (2010, p. 198). This is clearly against MSF’s objectives. Also, supporting an act of war collides with the objective of MSF to keep their principles of impartiality and neutrality, while being involved in a war includes picking sides.

Another goal of humanitarian organisations like MSF is to civilize war by differing between combatants and non-combatants in a conflict (Weissman, 2010, p. 199).

Consequently, the attempt of R2P to justify war by using humanitarian aid as a cover does not coincide with the goal of MSF to civilize war, and not justify war (Rock & Weissman, 2010).

(36)

justification for new wars’ (Weissman, 2010, p. 199). ‘Shoot to heal’ or ‘shoot to feed’ is not a humanitarian action (Weissman, 2010, p. 199). The use of force as part of the R2P principle is not part of MSF’s objectives. MSF argues that ‘It is not the role of a humanitarian

organization to call for the use of force in order to ensure that populations receive the appropriate aid’ (AR 2003-04, in Soussan, 2008, p. 34).

It can be concluded that MSF focuses on its role as a humanitarian organisation during war. Even though MSF’s main goal is to provide assistance to people in need, MSF argues that the ineffectiveness and focus on military intervention of the R2P principle causes its inability to protect efficiently and creates possibly more innocent victims. Support for the Responsibility to Protect is less important for MSF than preventing the R2P principle from making more victims. Thus, the organisational objectives only partly influence the

decision-making process of MSF and therefore the LoC is not able to fully explain the decision-making process of MSF on R2P.

4.4.2 Organisational values

The MSF Charter includes the five main values of MSF (“MSF Charter and Principles,” n.d.). As mentioned before, MSF’s actions are first discussed between its own members, who also safeguard MSF’s values when decisions are made. The MSF values should always remain at the core of every decision (“MSF Charter and Principles,” n.d.). This study finds that some of the MSF values are articulated in their argumentation on why they do not support the R2P principle, while other values are less vivid. This section analyses the MSF values and how they appear in the documents of MSF on R2P. The values impartiality and neutrality are combined, because the terms are used interchangeably in the documents of MSF on R2P.

Impartiality and neutrality

The first two values of MSF are impartiality and neutrality. Impartiality means that MSF offers assistance based on need and not based on country of heritage, religion, political affiliation or any other similar personal characteristic (“MSF Charter and Principles,” n.d.). The only choice made is based on the prioritization of those in most serious and immediate danger. Closely related to impartiality is, the second value, neutrality. MSF does not take sides in armed conflicts and does not support the agendas of conflicting parties (“MSF Charter and Principles,” n.d.). The fact that MSF is sometimes not present on all sides of the

(37)

conflict is not because they only support one side, but is because access is denied to them, the insecurity level is too high, or the main needs of a population are already covered (“Who we are,” n.d.).

Impartiality can be considered as one of the leading arguments for MSF’s decision not to support the R2P principle. The article of MSF “The Responsibility to Protect” (2002) argues that the blurring line between humanitarian and military intervention is the main problem concerning R2P and consequently violates the value of impartiality. MSF is of the opinion that independent and impartial humanitarian organisations, ‘... cannot associate themselves with any of the parties, even if the intervention is carried out for ‘humanitarian protection purposes’’ (“The Responsibility to Protect,” 2002).

Also the article ‘Syria: MSF statements should not be used to justify military actions’ (2013), is concerned with MSF’s value of impartiality. Here, MSF refers to its sole purpose as a life saver, aid provider to people in need (here Syria), and making sure that everything that happens in the critical event is in compliance with the principles of neutrality and impartiality (“Syria,” 2013). The importance of the value of impartiality also appears from the comment of MSF that ‘in its role as a medical humanitarian organization, it was not in a position to determine responsibility for the event’ (“Syria,” 2013). This follows from the connection of determining responsibility with picking sides in conflict, which is not

compatible with the values of impartiality and neutrality of MSF. Especially in cases where the government of a state is unwilling to protect its own population, the use of R2P is also a statement against the government. Thus, the use of R2P often includes, implicitly, picking sides in a conflict and this collides with the impartiality and neutrality value of MSF.

Brauman, the director of the MSF Foundation in Paris and the former president of MSF France, mentions that MSF is a humanitarian organisation, which does not support saying what is right and wrong in war (n.d., p. 5). Saying what is right and wrong in war does not collide with the humanitarian rule of impartiality and neutrality (Brauman, n.d., p. 5). Thus, the impartiality and neutrality value of MSF also here influences the decision-making process of MSF on R2P.

Furthermore, in the article ‘Not In Our Name’, Weissman states that MSF refused to support the use of force under R2P to protect people, because judging the legitimacy of war

R2P Not in the Name of NGOs? What Can Best Explain the Decision-Making Processes of NGOs in Regard to the R2P Principle? A Comparative Case Study of MSF and Oxfam International

R2P Not in the Name of NGOs?

R2P Not in the Name of NGOs?

Abstract

Acknowledgements

Table of Contents

List of Abbreviations

1. Introduction

1.1 NGOs and R2P

1.2 Academical Relevance

1.3 Societal Relevance

2. R2P and Organisational Decision-Making Models

2.1 The Responsibility to Protect (R2P)

2.2 Organisational Decision-Making Models

3. Methodology

3.1 Case Selection

3.2 Data Selection

3.3 Operationalization

3.4 Content Analysis

4. Médecins Sans Frontières

4.1 Framing of Problem

4.2 Type of Reasoning

4.3 Type of Behavior

4.4 Frame of Reference