Australia’s response to the Horn of Africa humanitarian crisis, 2011

An evaluation by the Office of Development Effectiveness of Australia’s response to the Horn of Africa humanitarian crisis, 2011. Foreword This report identifies many strengths of the Australian response to the humanitarian crisis in the Horn of Africa in 2011. At the time, humanitarian operations in severely affected areas were fraught with danger and were extremely difficult. Australia was a new player compared to other donors with years of experience in the region and a much larger presence on the ground. The Australian aid program responded quickly, despite limited capacity and experience in the region. The speed and flexibility of operations were notable strengths of the Australian response. Australian funds clearly saved lives; however, the results depended on more than funds alone. Effective coordination of response efforts is a persistent challenge for the global humanitarian system. Australia’s role in influencing implementing partners and coordinating important aspects of the overall system increased the effectiveness of Australian assistance, and the overall international response. Another clear finding is the need for funded agencies to improve reporting on activities and results. The reporting is essential for learning and to ensure informed decisions are made. The evaluation recommendations in areas such as these are designed to improve the effectiveness of Australian humanitarian assistance in the future. Finally, the evaluation highlights the complexity of disaster situations, which are growing in number and severity and will continue to pose a challenge for Australia in their commitment to supporting humanitarian work in the Indo-Pacific

Bienestar global: ¿sueño o realidad?

Jan Egeland, el coordinador saliente de ayuda de emergencia de la ONU, ha hecho un llamamiento para que se cree un “sistema humanitario que pueda responder de forma fiable, efectiva y eficaz en cualquier situación de emergencia (…) la asistencia humanitaria debe ser la responsabilidad de todas las naciones para el beneficio de todas las naciones”

Military Humanitamnism and the New Peacekeeping:

Summaries This article examines the rise of the military humanitarian policy of the United Nations since 1992 and outlines the new military doctrine on peacekeeping. First it explores how a military based approach to the increasing number of complex political emergencies emerged as a deliberate policy within the United Nations in the new humanitarian era after the Cold War. Second, it looks at various NGO reactions to this new era. Third, it compares the very different nature of today's UN peacekeeping operations with its Cold War predecessors. Fourth, it examines current British Army doctrine of ‘wider peacekeeping’ and its emphasis on the principle of consent. Finally, it takes the view that the new peacekeeping is here to stay and that the main challenge facing all those involved in humanitarian assistance is to further refine its basic principles and techniques

Saving individuals from the scourge of war : complementarity and tension between R2P and humanitarian action

Published: June 2016This chapter examines the central place of the protection of the individual in international relations and compares the approach of two areas of international practice that seek to protect the individual in armed conflict: the responsibility to protect (R2P) and humanitarian action. The chapter explores three main aspects of the relationship between humanitarian action and R2P. First, it examines the individualization of armed conflict that is essential to the premise of both these international practices of protection. Second, it sets out briefly the respective histories, ethical goals, and key tenets of each approach. Finally, the main part of the chapter identifies areas of complementarity and conflict between these two approaches to the protection of the individual in times of extreme violence. It notes significant overlap and differences between the essentially apolitical emergency approach of humanitarian action and the more constructivist political and state-building approach of R2P.The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Research Council under the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP/2007-2013) / ERC Grant Agreement No 340956 - IOW - The Individualisation of War: Reconfiguring the Ethics, Law, and Politics of Armed Conflict

Civilians, distinction, and the compassionate view of war

Published online: June 2016This chapter examines the ethical background of the compassionate view of war as it is epitomized in the ‘doctrine of civilians’ that has emerged in modern times, and the distinction between those who fight and those who do not. It explores the two traditions of ruthless and limited war and the strong rhetorical and operational emergence of compassion and restraint in international society in modern history. It also considers the victimhood and agency that characterizes the civilian experience of war to see how this can cause ethical and legal ambiguity that rightly queries a simplistic notion of distinction, going on to examine why most war ideologues still opt for a more ruthless form of violence than the espoused norm, and how that poses ethical and legal problems for the wider project of restraint. Finally, it argues for continued normative and legal consolidation around the ethics of compassionate war.The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Research Council under the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP/2007-2013) / ERC Grant Agreement No 340956 - IOW - The Individualisation of War: Reconfiguring the Ethics, Law, and Politics of Armed Conflict

Wonderful work : globalizing the ethics of humanitarian action

Published: 24 March 2015It is a wonderful development that there is now a global system of humanitarian action that can reach people suffering from armed conflict and disaster in any part of the world. The system does not reach everyone in need but it does succeed in reaching millions of people every year, delivering $18 billion of aid in 2013, and in monitoring the predicament of those it does not reach (Global Humanitarian Assistance (GHA) 2013). The humanitarian system is spearheaded by United Nations (UN) agencies, the Red Cross Movement and major non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that fit into, or alongside, national governments and local civil society as operational partners or additional capacity. The vast majority of humanitarian financing that drives the system currently comes from OECD governments, but over a quarter comes from private individuals who give regularly to NGOs or respond generously to emergency appeals (Stirk 2014). Alongside these strictly humanitarian agencies, human rights agencies and conflict resolution organizations act as outriders to the system. The former report human rights violations and the latter try to initiate peace negotiations to reduce the violence that is causing so much devastation.The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Research Council under the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP/2007-2013) / ERC Grant Agreement No 340956 - IOW - The Individualisation of War: Reconfiguring the Ethics, Law, and Politics of Armed Conflict