{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.020276497695852536, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 6.098039215686274, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The impact of military engagement in disaster management on civil–military relations

The frequency, scope and intensity of natural disasters are increasing, and so too are the number of victims, related deaths and the amount of economic damage. The increasing frequency of disasters often overwhelms civilian management structures and demands the engagement of the military. This has generated new problems and controversies. However, mainstream scholarship in this field has so far failed adequately to address civil–military relations in disaster management. This article highlights the issue and addresses the various arguments used to advocate or reject military involvement in disaster management: militarisation, utilitarian, security-strategic, functional-humanitarian and rejection-isolation arguments. This epistemological and ontological approach identifies, depicts and classifies the arguments. It also identifies the various controversies that accompany military engagement in disaster management as a basis for future research into civil–military relations in the field.