Abstract

After violent conflicts, international actors face difficult choices about whether and how to provide assistance. These decisions can have immense consequences. As aid always occurs under conditions of scarcity, theoretical reflection is crucial to reveal the opportunity costs and potential tensions between alternative courses of action. Yet there has been relatively little scholarly reflection on what should constitute priorities for post-conflict assistance and why. This paper advances this debate by comparing two very different areas of assistance that both embody compelling values and goals: public health and transitional justice. It argues that aid for public health deserves greater attention based on powerful normative considerations and its impressive empirical record. It also suggests the need to examine not only clearly underperforming areas, but also tough cases. Transitional justice, despite its strong normative foundations, faces challenges and limitations that justify reform and a reconsideration of the emphasis commonly placed on it. Our intention is not to suggest that long-standing commitments ought to be abandoned or that all aid should be allocated to health. Rather, by scrutinising the priorities of international assistance, we hope to start a general discussion about how the international community can best help societies heal after conflict.

摘要

在暴力冲突之后，国际行为体面临着是否以及如何提供援助的艰难选择。这些决定可能会产生巨大的后果。由于援助总是在稀缺条件下发生，理论反思对于揭示机会成本和替代行动方案之间的潜在紧张关系至关重要。然而，关于什么应该构成冲突后援助的优先事项及其原因，学术上的思考相对较少。本文通过比较体现令人信服的价值观和目标的两个截然不同的援助领域来推进这场辩论：公共卫生和过渡时期司法。它认为，基于强有力的规范考虑和令人印象深刻的经验记录，对公共卫生的援助值得更多关注。它还表明，不仅需要检查明显表现不佳的领域，还要检查棘手的案例。过渡时期司法尽管具有强大的规范基础，但仍面临挑战和限制，这些挑战和限制证明了改革和重新考虑通常对其的重视是合理的。我们的意图不是建议放弃长期承诺或所有援助都应分配给卫生。相反，通过审查国际援助的优先事项，我们希望就国际社会如何才能最好地帮助冲突后社会愈合展开一般性讨论。我们的意图不是建议放弃长期承诺或所有援助都应分配给卫生。相反，通过审查国际援助的优先事项，我们希望就国际社会如何才能最好地帮助冲突后社会愈合展开一般性讨论。我们的意图不是建议放弃长期承诺或所有援助都应分配给卫生。相反，通过审查国际援助的优先事项，我们希望就国际社会如何才能最好地帮助冲突后社会愈合展开一般性讨论。