Dialogue, Negotiation, and Advocacy

Abstract

AbstractChapter 23 turns to the dialogue- and advocacy-based activities undertaken by international humanitarian agencies. Given that a wide range of actors have an impact on humanitarian needs, responses, and outcomes, operational agencies have an interest in influencing the conduct of those different actors with a view to reducing humanitarian needs, facilitating humanitarian responses, and improving humanitarian outcomes. This chapter discusses three distinct approaches: (i) private dialogue or negotiation with (de jure and de facto) authorities, (ii) strategic sharing of information with select third parties who may be able to influence authorities, and (ii) public statements and criticism of the conduct of authorities. Different humanitarian agencies favour different approaches, but most seem more cautious about negotiating directly with armed groups than with the governments of affected states and more cautious about publicly criticizing governments than armed groups. The effectiveness of all these approaches is context-specific and difficult to gauge, and public criticism of authorities in particular can expose humanitarian agencies to threats of expulsion or violence. The difficulty and the high stakes of dialogue- and advocacy-based activities suggest a need for greater investment in dedicated training and strategizing than appears common in most international humanitarian agencies.