This paper analyses humanitarian security in the framework of Donna Haraway's political material semiotics. It begins by arguing that targeted violence against health care constitutes a trope: a figure of speech that challenges and disrupts the established narrative of humanitarian security. Drawing on 20 in-depth expert interviews, the paper explores a case study of weaponisation of health care in the Syrian conflict (2011-present). It illustrates how different material-semiotic actors -such as politicians, pathogens, and medical infrastructure -condition and shape the security of humanitarian health workers in the opposition-held parts of the country. Taking medical facilities as its key unit of analysis, the paper shows how armed violence is not only directed towards these material-semiotic entities but amplified and transformed as it passes through them. In doing so, the paper sheds light on the formative role that nonhuman materialities play in the protection of aid workers and other civilian entities in armed conflict. The paper's findings also contribute towards an improved understanding of how previously under-appreciated variables impact the delivery of medical aid in complex humanitarian emergencies.

No abstract

Saana-Maria Jokinen, Ääniä sodasta: Syyrian tie vallankumouksesta suursotaan. Helsinki: Gaudeamus, 2020, 358 s.

Violence against humanitarians is a commonplace phenomenon in contemporary armed conflict. This paper examines how the manipulation of international legal principles for political or military purposes, a practice known as ‘lawfare’, impacts humanitarian security in conflict‐affected areas. Drawing on a case study of the Syrian conflict (2011–), it finds that lawfare has been used to legitimate systematic civilian targeting by pro‐government forces and to delegitimise the delivery of aid to opposition‐held areas of the country. Efforts to use legal measures to promote civilian welfare—by way of sanctions or demands for cross‐border humanitarian access—have been taken as evidence of Western attempts to politicise humanitarian considerations and international law. In practice, this has meant increased security risks for aid workers and impunity for those implicated in the violence. The paper concludes by calling for more critical research on lawfare and politicisation of international law as part and parcel of civilian protection in conflict‐affected areas.