In more than 70 countries, Médecins Sans Frontières provides medical humanitarian assistance to save lives and ease the suffering of people in crisis situations.
We set up the MSF Access Campaign in 1999 to push for access to, and the development of, life-saving and life-prolonging medicines, diagnostic tests and vaccines for people in our programmes and beyond.
Based in Paris, CRASH conducts and directs studies and analysis of MSF actions. They participate in internal training sessions and assessment missions in the field.
Based in Geneva, UREPH (or Research Unit) aims to improve the way MSF projects are implemented in the field and to participate in critical thinking on humanitarian and medical action.
Based in Brussels, MSF Analysis intends to stimulate reflection and debate on humanitarian topics organised around the themes of migration, refugees, aid access, health policy and the environment in which aid operates.
This logistical and supply centre in Brussels provides storage of and delivers medical equipment, logistics and drugs for international purchases for MSF missions.
This supply and logistics centre in Bordeaux, France, provides warehousing and delivery of medical equipment, logistics and drugs for international purchases for MSF missions.
This logistical centre in Amsterdam purchases, tests, and stores equipment including vehicles, communications material, power supplies, water-processing facilities and nutritional supplements.
BRAMU specialises in neglected tropical diseases, such as dengue and Chagas, and other infectious diseases. This medical unit is based in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Our medical guidelines are based on scientific data collected from MSF’s experiences, the World Health Organization (WHO), other renowned international medical institutions, and medical and scientific journals.
Providing epidemiological expertise to underpin our operations, conducting research and training to support our goal of providing medical aid in areas where people are affected by conflict, epidemics, disasters, or excluded from health care.
Evaluation Units have been established in Vienna, Stockholm, and Paris, assessing the potential and limitations of medical humanitarian action, thereby enhancing the effectiveness of our medical humanitarian work.
MSF works with LGBTQI+ populations in many settings over the last 25-30 years. LGBTQI+ people face healthcare disparities with limited access to care and higher disease rates than the general population.
The Luxembourg Operational Research (LuxOR) unit coordinates field research projects and operational research training, and provides support for documentation activities and routine data collection.
The MSF Paediatric Days is an event for paediatric field staff, policy makers and academia to exchange ideas, align efforts, inspire and share frontline research to advance urgent paediatric issues of direct concern for the humanitarian field.
The MSF Foundation aims to create a fertile arena for logistics and medical knowledge-sharing to meet the needs of MSF and the humanitarian sector as a whole.
A collaborative, patients’ needs-driven, non-profit drug research and development organisation that is developing new treatments for neglected diseases, founded in 2003 by seven organisations from around the world.
The MSF Science Portal is a digital platform for Médecins Sans Frontières to share the medical evidence we gather as part of our medical humanitarian work aiding people and communities affected by conflict, epidemics, disasters, or exclusion from health services.
Doctors Without Borders/Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) has launched the Transformational Investment Capacity (TIC) to transform our ability to address the most pressing medical and humanitarian challenges around the world.
The Telemedicine program provides secure solutions designed to support the needs of healthcare professionals across MSF, while building a community of knowledge-sharing and clinical collaboration.
Launched in 2012, the MSF Sweden Innovation Unit deploys a human-centered approach for promoting a culture of innovation within MSF, in order to more effectively co-create innovations that save lives and alleviate suffering.
Warning: Undefined variable $active_link in Drupal\msf_navigation\Plugin\Block\SOCSSectionNavBlock->build() (line 52 of modules/custom/msf_navigation/src/Plugin/Block/SOCSSectionNavBlock.php).
L’étude de cas 'MSF et le Darfour 2003-2009' examine les contraintes, questionnements et dilemmes liés aux prises de parole publiques de MSF dans la situation de violence extrême, de déplacements massifs et de conditions de survie délétères, endurée par la population du Darfour (Soudan), entre 2003 et 2009.
Dans un premier temps, afin de pouvoir accéder au Darfour et y organiser ses opérations, MSF a décidé de s'abstenir de toute déclaration publique concernant ce contexte de violence, se concentrant sur des appels à davantage d'assistance. Ce positionnement public a suscité des controverses internes comme externes : MSF devait-elle prendre part au débat public sur la qualification de la violence au Darfour comme génocide ou non, soutenir ou s'opposer à une intervention armée internationale, et coopérer ou non avec les enquêtes de la Cour pénale internationale (CPI) sur les crimes de guerre présumés au Darfour ?
Deux centres opérationnels de MSF ont été expulsés du Soudan en mars 2009.
Dilemmes & Questions
Au cours de cette période, les choix de MSF en matière d’opérations, de plaidoyer et de prise de parole publique ont fait l’objet de controverses, de dilemmes et de questions :
MSF doit-elle s’abstenir d’alerter sur les violences extrêmes commises au Darfour, telles que rapportées par les réfugiés darfouris au Tchad, afin de ne pas irriter les autorités soudanaises et de préserver les chances d’accès au Darfour ?
MSF doit-elle s’exprimer publiquement sur l’existence ou non d’un génocide au Darfour ? Est-ce le rôle de MSF ?
Si MSF qualifie la violence au Darfour de génocide, cela risque-t-il de justifier une intervention armée qui affaiblirait, entraverait ou détruirait l’impact des opérations humanitaires ?
En mettant en doute publiquement l’existence d’un génocide, MSF risque-elle de servir le gouvernement soudanais dans sa négation des violences extrêmes commises par les milices qu’il soutient ? MSF doit-elle prendre le risque d’être perçue comme telle ?
MSF doit-elle diffuser publiquement des informations sur les violences commises à l’encontre de la population, et prendre ainsi le risque que ces informations soient utilisées par la justice internationale ? MSF ne risque-t-elle pas d’être ainsi perçue comme un potentiel informateur de la justice internationale pour de futures inculpations de chefs de guerre ? Cette perception peut-elle entrainer la mise en danger des équipes sur le terrain ou le blocage de l’accès aux populations?
Comment MSF pourrait-elle gérer son éventuelle implication dans le processus d’accusation de la Cour pénale internationale qui considère que le refus de l’aide humanitaire constitue une preuve de l’intention de génocide ?
