The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Protecting Civilians in War: The ICRC, UNHCR, and Their Limitations in Internal Armed Conflicts
Abstract
Since the complex emergencies of the 1990s, humanitarian agencies have placed increasing emphasis on the protection of civilians during armed conflict. In spite of this, there is a consensus among humanitarians that outcomes are falling short of intentions, and that the increased emphasis on protection by humanitarian actors has failed to yield a corresponding improvement in the security of the civilian population. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) are two of the most important humanitarian agencies for the protection of internally displaced persons and other civilians, and both have protection at the heart of their mandates. This book explores how the history, structure, and culture of each of these two international organizations affect how it goes about protection, and highlights how their resulting approaches to protection are inherently limited. Whereas existing explanations for shortcomings in humanitarian protection tend to blame factors external to humanitarian agencies, this book focuses on the organizations themselves, and their understandings of protection. While acknowledging the importance of other actors in determining the level of civilian security or insecurity, the analysis in this book focuses on how the ICRC and UNHCR conceptualize and practise protection, in order to add another layer to our understanding of why protection outcomes are so often so disappointing. B…
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“The UN agencies are subordinate to superior UN bodies and are politically and financially dependent on States (Bradley, 2016, p. 29).”
From Unique data, different values: Explaining variation in the use of biometrics by international humanitarian organizations (2024) · cites this paper as Bradley, 2016, p. 29
In the citing paper
“While the interests of States are, to some extent, the driving force of the IO behavior, IOs respond differently to external pressure (Bradley, 2016, p. 23).”
From Unique data, different values: Explaining variation in the use of biometrics by international humanitarian organizations (2024) · cites this paper as Bradley, 2016
Citations
Cites
Still being checked.
Cited by
China, the UN, and Human Protection: Beliefs, Power, Image
Foot, R. (2020) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198843733.001.0001 · Cited by 104
Bradley, M. (2020) · European Journal of International Relations · doi:10.1177/1354066120908637 · Cited by 54
Self-citationFive shades of grey: variants of ‘political’ humanitarianism
Bradley, M. (2021) · Disasters · doi:10.1111/disa.12512 · Cited by 41
Self-citationGelot, L. (2017) · Contemporary Security Policy · doi:10.1080/13523260.2017.1291564 · Cited by 38
Who are the civilians in the wars of South Sudan?
Kindersley, N., & Rolandsen, Ø. H. (2019) · Security Dialogue · doi:10.1177/0967010619863262 · Cited by 36
Metadata
- Authors
- Bradley, M.
- Corresponding author
- Bradley, Miriam
- ORCID
- Bradley, Miriam
- Venue
- Oxford University Press eBooks
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press
- Published
- 2016-03-01
- OpenAlex
- W4232378937
- Cited by
- 37
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 18 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 2
- FWCI
- 7.17
- Type
- book
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Oxford University Press eBooks (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Peacebuilding and International Security
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › International Law and Human Rights
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Global Peace and Security Dynamics
- Keywords
- civilian protection, humanitarian protection, International Committee of the Red Cross, UNHCR, internally displaced persons, humanitarian organizations, organizational culture, humanitarian policy, complex emergencies, civilian security
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Protecting Civilians in War: The ICRC, UNHCR, and Their Limitations in Internal Armed Conflicts. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198716389.001.0001
- The paper
- Bradley, M. (2016). Protecting Civilians in War: The ICRC, UNHCR, and Their Limitations in Internal Armed Conflicts. Oxford University Press eBooks. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof%3Aoso/9780198716389.001.0001