Suchergebnisse

Humanitarianism as a concept is arguably as old as humanity itself. To help one's fellow man in their time of need irrespective of race, religion, caste, or creed has been preached by innumerable ideologies. Despite being such a universally understood concept, in recent decades humanitarianism, has faced increased conflation with 'humanitarian intervention'. This paper seeks to discern the differences between humanitarianism and humanitarian intervention and will do so by examining the ideological and foundational differences between the two concepts. The two concepts despite sounding similar are fundamentally different; they involve different actors and have different objectives. This paper will distinguish between state and non- state actors and the different humanitarian roles, values, and interests they have. This paper will posit that states that engage in military interventions are not humanitarians and that the conflation of such actions with those of impartial non-state actors are highly damaging to the ideals and values of humanitarianism.

The following speech was given by the President of the International Committee of the Red Cross, Peter Maurer, on 2 October 2014 at the Maison de la Paix in Geneva during a conference organized by the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies. Maurer recalled the continued relevance and importance of the humanitarian principles and warned that a lack of common understanding, as well as politicized uses of the principles, jeopardizes the scope and scale of humanitarian action. The speech launched the ICRC's Second Research and Debate Cycle on Principles Guiding Humanitarian Action. Throughout 2015 – the year of the 50th anniversary of the adoption of the Fundamental Principles of the Red Cross and Red Movement (the Movement) and of the 32nd International Conference of the Movement, and leading to the World Humanitarian Summit in 2016 – the Research and Debate Cycyle has gathered key actors in the humanitarian field during public events and high-level conferences.1These events have encouraged substantive discussions on the principles among experts from the Movement, the humanitarian, governmental and academic fields, and other informed participants.

Humanitarianism as a concept is arguably as old as humanity itself. To help one's fellow man in their time of need irrespective of race, religion, caste, or creed has been preached by innumerable ideologies. Despite being such a universally understood concept, in recent decades humanitarianism, has faced increased conflation with 'humanitarian intervention'. This paper seeks to discern the differences between humanitarianism and humanitarian intervention and will do so by examining the ideological and foundational differences between the two concepts. The two concepts despite sounding similar are fundamentally different; they involve different actors and have different objectives. This paper will distinguish between state and non- state actors and the different humanitarian roles, values, and interests they have. This paper will posit that states that engage in military interventions are not humanitarians and that the conflation of such actions with those of impartial non-state actors are highly damaging to the ideals and values of humanitarianism.

Abstract
Conceptually rooted in the efforts to ban indiscriminate weapons and both their immediate and long-term effects, humanitarian mine action and humanitarian disarmament operations have developed significantly since 1988, when the United Nations first took on work on mine action operations for the protection and benefit of local communities. A large part of those operations has been carried out by humanitarian disarmament NGOs such as the Mines Advisory Group (MAG), one of the first organizations to be established on this issue. Drawing on MAG's experience and perspective, this article explores how the humanitarian principles apply to humanitarian disarmament operations. The aim of the article is to show that as an operator on the humanitarian–development nexus, MAG considers the four humanitarian principles as a critical and necessary part of its reference framework due to the influence of the humanitarian disarmament framework, even when operating in the development space. All in all, the case of humanitarian disarmament and MAG's experience are good examples to illustrate where the humanitarian horizon is extended because of long-terms serious needs, and that humanitarian principles remain essential to keep the focus on the needs of affected populations.

Linking theory with policy and practice, this text introduces humanitarian economics as an emerging field of study that encompasses the economic and political economy dimensions of war, disaster, terrorism and humanitarianism. The work illustrates how economic analysis can improve our understanding of humanitarian crises, and how it can inform humanitarian actors, be it for example in negotiating with armed groups or in capturing the ambiguous role of aid in conflict