The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Condemned to repeat?: the paradox of humanitarian action
Abstract
Humanitarian groups have failed, Fiona Terry believes, to face up to the core paradox of their activity: humanitarian action aims to alleviate suffering, but by inadvertently sustaining conflict it potentially prolongs suffering. In Condemned to Repeat?, Terry examines the side-effects of intervention by aid organizations and points out the need to acknowledge the political consequences of the choice to give aid. The author makes the controversial claim that aid agencies act as though the initial decision to supply aid satisfies any need for ethical discussion and are often blind to the moral quandaries of aid. Terry focuses on four historically relevant cases: Rwandan camps in Zaire, Afghan camps in Pakistan, Salvadoran and Nicaraguan camps in Honduras, and Cambodian camps in Thailand.Terry was the head of the French section of Medecins sans frontieres (Doctors without Borders) when it withdrew from the Rwandan refugee camps in Zaire because aid intended for refugees actually strengthened those responsible for perpetrating genocide. This book contains documents from the former Rwandan army and government that were found in the refugee camps after they were attacked in late 1996. This material illustrates how combatants manipulate humanitarian action to their benefit. Condemned to Repeat? makes clear that the paradox of aid demands immediate attention by organizations and governments around the world. The author stresses that, if international agencies are to meet the needs of populations in crisis, their organizational behavior must adjust to the wider political and socioeconomic contexts in which aid occurs.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Casualties of Care: Immigration and the Politics of Humanitarianism in France
Ticktin, M. I. (2011) · doi:10.1525/9780520950535 · Cited by 965
The Marketing of Rebellion: Insurgents, Media, and International Activism
Bob, C. (2005) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511756245 · Cited by 627
What is a camp? Legitimate refugee lives in spaces of long-term displacement
Feldman, I. (2015) · Geoforum · doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2014.11.014 · Cited by 130
Evolution Without Progress? Humanitarianism in a World of Hurt
Barnett, M. (2009) · International Organization · doi:10.1017/s0020818309990087 · Cited by 111
Sowers, J. L., Weinthal, E., & Zawahri, N. (2017) · Security Dialogue · doi:10.1177/0967010617716615 · Cited by 95
Metadata
- Venue
- Choice Reviews Online
- Publisher
- American Library Association
- Published
- 2003-04-01
- Volume
- 40
- Issue
- 08
- Pages
- 40-4891-40-4891
- ISSN
- 0009-4978 (ISSN-L)
- 1523-8253
- OpenAlex
- W1548934394
- Cited by
- 612
- References
- 0
- Type
- book review
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: Condemned to repeat?: the paradox of humanitarian action. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.5860/choice.40-4891
- The paper
- Condemned to repeat?: the paradox of humanitarian action. (2003). Choice Reviews Online. https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.40-4891
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.