The inclusion of sexual and gender minorities (SOGI minorities) in humanitarian action has until quite recently been a neglected topic within the humanitarian sector. This paper zeroes in on the growing discussion surrounding this issue by analyzing and problematizing ”non-local” humanitarian actors' advocacy for SOGI inclusive humanitarian efforts in ”SOGI hostile” states. The thesis can be divided into three parts. I firstly account for how four ”non-local” humanitarian actors’ have advocated for SOGI inclusion in humanitarian action in ”SOGI hostile” settings. After this, I problematize the discussed advocacy using postcolonial concepts. I lastly come with suggestions regarding how the identified problems can be remedied. The study has shown that humanitarian actors engage in advocacy for SOGI inclusion in various ways. Some of the actors seem comfortable with directly pushing the idea of SOGI inclusivity onto humanitarian workers in ”SOGI hostile” states, while others take a more relaxed approach. Regarding the problems with the advocacy discussed in the paper I have argued that the advocacy does not take postcolonial concerns into a sufficient account, and that it often seems to be rooted in western understandings of sexuality. One of the actors also appears to undermine the risks that can come with advocating for SOGI inclusion in certain settings. To remedy the mentioned problems I suggest that aspects of a Culturally specific advocacy approach should be implemented when ”non-local” humanitarian actors advocate for SOGI inclusion in ”SOGI hostile” states, since such an approach would consider the impacts of colonialism. I also implore the discussed humanitarian actors to look beyond ”identity-centric” and ”LGBTI-centric” understandings of gender and sexuality. I lastly assert that the advocacy should recognize that inclusion may be unsafe in some contexts.

This dissertation explored how humanitarian organisations have supported Georgia to achieve the UN 2030 Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) of 2015, in particular the Planet Goals. It has proven difficult for Member States to turn the SDGs into national policy. Middle-income countries face challenges to focus on all goals simultaneously, while balancing economic development needs and environmental protection ambitions. Humanitarian organisations play a prominent role supporting the implementation of the SDGs. Therefore, this dissertation aims to answer the research question: How has humanitarian organisations been effective in supporting the implementation of the SDGs, particularly the Planet Goals, in Georgia?The theoretical backing to the research is based Arhin (2016), who studied humanitarian organisations and SDGs in Ghana. Arhin outlined three main roles of organisations in SDG work namely, implementation, advocacy, and facilitation. In addition, theories concerning the operational space of organisations as well as the SDGs as a system was used. A conceptual framework was created to guide the data collection and the analysis.The research was conducted as a qualitative case study, through interviews and documents. Nine interviews were conducted, along with a review of external aid reports, Voluntary National Reviews for 2016 and 2020 and the European Union-Georgia Association Agreement. The material was analysed using critical discourse theory, using a programme called ATLAS.ti.The results found that Georgia’s development agenda has an explicit focus on economic growth rather than environmental sustainability. There is a large disparity in society with substantial urban-rural divides. A part of the population needs basic necessities, typically in rural areas, whereas cities are more developed. The European Union-Georgia Association Agreement has had a large influence on the development focus and agenda in Georgia, and the Government prioritises policies to meet the requirements under this agreement to advance its European Union aspirations. The research concluded that there is no organised work towards implementing the SDGs in Georgia. Organisations designing and implementing projects align with the obligations under the European Union Association Agreement, and subsequently align project objectives and impact with the SDGs, as long as there is a natural fit between the set project objectives and the SDGs. Thus, SDGs do not guide the objective setting for projects. There is barely any advocacy of the 2030 Agenda in Georgia. In terms of facilitation, the SDGs are addressed at institutional level, which is somewhat politicised. The adoption of the SDGs can be considered a political manoeuvre to confirm Georgia’s commitment as a member of the global order, whereas the true focus of Georgia’s development agenda focuses on economic growth under the European Union-Georgia Association Agreement.

The number of people around the world who are affected by humanitarian crises has almost doubled in the past decade. For instance, in 2016, Southern Africa experienced the worst drought in 35 years, due to the weather phenomenon El Niño, and all aspects of society were affected. The aim of this thesis is to identify and analyse different types of challenges humanitarian relief programmes face in their disaster management in two different contexts: a conflict and a non-conflict context. The thesis combines both disaster management and peace and conflict studies. Interviews have been conducted in Zimbabwe (non-conflict) and Mozambique (conflict) with INGOs, UN organisations and donors that were involved in the humanitarian relief programmes in the countries during the El Niño induced drought in 2016. The programmes experienced various challenges, and additional challenges have been found in the humanitarian relief programmes in Mozambique due to the conflict. This thesis contributes to the existing theory with one piece of the puzzle: combining the theories on disaster management and peace and conflict studies and showing that neighbouring countries to those in conflict are likely to get spillover challenges from the country in conflict, primarily due to issues with refugees.

Purpose: The paper’s purpose is to critically discuss how a government institution, the Migration Court in Stockholm, interprets the law and how this interpretation reflects value choices and value priorities.  Methodology/Design: The present paper employs qualitative research methods focusing on discursive social psychology and the interpretative repertoire of “effortfulness”.  Results/Findings: This paper suggests that the definition of values as behaviour predictors helps us understand how state institutions and, in the present study, the Migration Court in Stockholm can express “other-oriented” values.  Value/Originality: The paper’s socio-legal analysis of the humanitarian sector highlights the emergence of the judiciary system as a new humanitarian actor.

Il existe une distinction entre les civils et les membres des forces armées. Cette distinction est implicitement la question de fond de cette étude sur la détermination du statut juridique des salariés des sociétés militaires privées (SMP) participant aux conflits armés. Par ailleurs, la défense et la sécurité de l'État sont assurées par divers acteurs de statuts différents qui ont des rôles bien définis par un cadre juridique : les civils et les membres des forces armées. La distinction sus-évoquée ne se limite pas là, mais elle concerne aussi les seuls membres des forces armées car il existe une distinction interne et une autre externe. Tous les membres des forces armées n'ont pas droit au statut de combattant. En revanche, la négation du statut de combattant à certains militaires n'est que relative et elle n'influence pas leur droit au statut de prisonnier de guerre. Ces militaires sont différents des personnes employées en dehors des forces armées et mandatées par leur employeur pour fournir des prestations auprès des armées sur un théâtre d'opérations. Cette utilisation soulève plusieurs questions en DIH. Les SMP fournissent des prestations qui vont de la logistique à la participation directe aux hostilités. Cette participation directe ou indirecte aux hostilités débouche sur une « hémorragie de langage » pour qualifier les salariés des SMP de mercenaires, de nouveaux mercenaires, de « security contractors », des soldats à vendre, des combattants irréguliers, etc. Ainsi, les salariés de ces sociétés exercent-ils une activité de mercenariat ? Leurs sociétés-employeurs constituent-elles des sociétés de secours ? ... / A distinction is made between civilians and military personnel. This distinction is implicit in the substantive issue of this study on determining the legal status of employees of private military companies (PMCs) involved in armed conflicts. Moreover, the defense and State security are provided by various actors of different statuses that have defined roles for a legal framework. Civilians and members of the armed forces are indeed links in this chain. The distinction mentioned over is not confined there, but it is also about the only members of the armed forces because there is a distinction between internal and one external. All members of the armed forces are not entitled to combatant status. However, the denial of combatant status to certain military is only relative and does not affect their right to prisoner of war status. These soldiers are different from those employed outside the armed forces and mandated by their employer to provide benefits to the armies in a theater of operations. This use raises several issues in IHL. PMCs provide services that go from logistics to direct participation in hostilities. This direct or indirect participation in hostilities leads to a “hemorrhage of language” to describe employees of PMCs as mercenaries, new mercenaries, defense and security contractors, soldiers for sale, irregular combatants, etc. Thus, the employees of these companies undertake specific activities of mercenaries? Their companies-employers do they constitute relief societies ? Are they combatants, noncombatants or irregular combatants ? This is so prompt questions that this thesis attempts to answer.