Analysis of International Relations Series: Present and Future Trends and Challenges in Humanitarian Interventions
Foreword
In the realm of International Relations, where conflict, displacement, and natural disasters shape our ever-changing landscape, a nuanced understanding of humanitarian action is paramount. In the series "Analysis of International Relations," the reader will embark on a journey to unravel the multifaceted dimensions of humanitarianism.
From delving into introductory notions and concepts to dissecting ethical considerations and legal frameworks, this series offers a nuanced understanding of humanitarian interventions. Each article examines key aspects such as the historical evolution of interventions, the role of anthropology in shaping humanitarian practices, and the diverse typologies of approaches to intervention, including sovereigntist, pacifist, and human rights-based perspectives.
Furthermore, readers will grapple with the ethical dilemmas inherent in humanitarian interventions, exploring questions of impartiality, consent, and the unintended consequences of aid. The legal frameworks underpinning interventions, as well as the roles of international organizations like the United Nations and NATO, are scrutinized to evaluate their effectiveness and challenges in coordinating and implementing humanitarian efforts.
Historical case studies, including pivotal moments in Bosnia, Rwanda, and Kosovo, provide valuable insights into the successes, failures, and lessons learned from past interventions, shedding light on their impact on international relations. Moreover, readers will confront present and future trends and challenges in humanitarian interventions, from the implications of new technologies to the complexities of climate change and the rise of non-state actors.
Ultimately, this series aims to equip readers with the analytical skills necessary to navigate the complexities of humanitarian interventions within the broader context of international relations. As we explore the intricacies of global humanitarian action, may these insights inspire thoughtful reflection on the importance of compassion, solidarity, justice, and collective action in the face of adversity.
This Research Series is divided into eight articles, including:
8. Present and Future Trends and Challenges in Humanitarian Interventions
Present and Future Trends and Challenges in Humanitarian Interventions
Critics have increasingly scrutinized the effectiveness of humanitarian efforts, with some declaring the "end of humanitarianism" or, more specifically, "the end of international humanitarian action" (McGoldrick, 2015, p. 1180). The landscape of humanitarian interventions illustrates both advancements and enduring challenges. Over the past few decades, various reforms and initiatives have been implemented to improve the effectiveness and coordination of humanitarian efforts. However, the paradox of rising fatalities in a decreasing number of conflicts, the escalation of migration, and persistent critiques of humanitarian action reflect critics’ concerns about the sector’s ability to meet escalating needs and effectively address the complexities of contemporary crises.
This article will explore key elements that contribute to the success and failures of humanitarian interventions, as well as examine future directions for the field. In doing so, it aims to address the following research questions:
What are some of the primary challenges faced in contemporary humanitarian interventions?
How can strategies and operational frameworks be reformed to effectively adapt to the challenges posed by an evolving global landscape?
Contemporary Challenges of Humanitarian Efforts
Military Operations
Humanitarian intervention has encountered increasingly complex challenges in recent years, influenced by shifting geopolitical dynamics, evolving conflicts, and systemic issues within the humanitarian sector. The post-9/11 era has particularly illuminated the intricate relationship between military and humanitarian objectives, which has substantial implications for both the effectiveness and perception of humanitarian efforts. Although the overall number of armed conflicts worldwide has decreased, the fatality rate resulting from these conflicts has increased significantly. In 2008, there were 63 active conflicts globally, and this number declined to 42 by 2014 (McGoldrick, 2015, p. 1181). Despite this reduction in the number of conflicts, the number of fatalities surged from 56,000 in 2008 to 180,000 in 2014 (McGoldrick, 2015, p. 1181). This trend highlights a critical shift in modern warfare: conflicts are becoming deadlier. Consequently, there is an urgent need for more effective and adaptable humanitarian responses to address the increasing severity of these conflicts and their profound impact on civilian populations. Humanitarian organizations must evolve their strategies to better manage and mitigate the escalating human costs associated with contemporary conflicts.
One major issue has been the blurring of lines between military and humanitarian goals. The "global war on terror," launched in response to the September 11 attacks, has significantly impacted international relations and the approach to humanitarian interventions (McGoldrick, 2015, p. 1185). This war has led to situations where military and humanitarian objectives are closely intertwined, complicating the delivery and perception of humanitarian aid. U.S.-led military interventions, such as those in Afghanistan and Iraq, illustrate this challenge vividly. In these conflicts, the overlap between military operations and humanitarian efforts often led to confusion and difficulty in maintaining the neutrality of humanitarian aid. The dual role of military forces conducting both combat operations and humanitarian assistance can undermine the perceived impartiality and effectiveness of humanitarian work (McGoldrick, 2015, p. 1185). A critical incident highlighting these challenges was the 2003 bombing of the UN headquarters in Baghdad. This attack not only exemplified the increasing risks faced by aid workers in conflict zones but also negatively impacted the perception of humanitarian efforts, as the blending of military and humanitarian activities eroded trust and safety for humanitarian personnel (McGoldrick, 2015, p. 1185).
Migration
In the 21st century, the world has witnessed record-high levels of migration due to various factors such as conflicts, economic difficulties, and climate change. Large-scale movements of people have become a prominent characteristic of global crises, impacting regions including Central America, the Sahel, Southeast Asia, and the Arabian Peninsula (McGoldrick, 2015, p. 1192). By the end of 2014, displaced persons numbered a record 59.5 million, with the Syrian conflict contributing significantly to this crisis. By late 2015, there were approximately 4.2 million Syrian refugees and 6.6 million internally displaced persons (McGoldrick, 2015, p. 1186). These massive migrations present significant challenges for humanitarian efforts. Addressing the needs of displaced individuals requires more than just short-term assistance. Humanitarian organizations must implement comprehensive strategies that not only tackle immediate necessities like food, shelter, and medical care but also consider long-term solutions for the integration of migrants and refugees into their new communities. This approach is essential to effectively manage the complexities of contemporary migration crises and to support displaced individuals in rebuilding their lives.
Politicization of Aid
Humanitarian aid is sometimes manipulated for political purposes, which can undermine its effectiveness and neutrality. Humanitarian organizations may even encounter administrative obstacles and restrictions imposed by host states. Both this intrisic and extrinsic misuse complicate and hinder access to affected populations or constrain the operations of humanitarian agencies, further complicating the response to crises (McGoldrick, 2015, p. 1182).
Additionally, the involvement of non-state armed groups in conflicts introduces a different set of difficulties. These groups may outright reject international humanitarian law and create obstacles to aid access, obstructing humanitarian operations and increasing the risks for aid workers (McGoldrick, 2015, p. 1183).
Conversely, the integration of humanitarian aid into broader military or political strategies—such as “hearts and minds” campaigns—can blur the line between humanitarian and military objectives. In effect, when aid is perceived as part of a broader strategic agenda, it can lead to distrust and reduced cooperation from local communities, as was the case in conflicts happening in Syria, Yemen, and Libya, where the politicization of aid and the involvement of various actors severely impacted the delivery and effectiveness of humanitarian assistance (McGoldrick, 2015, p. 1184).
Emergence of New Humanitarian Actors
The humanitarian sector has experienced a significant evolution with the emergence of a diverse range of actors, including new state players such as Brazil, China, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia. These countries are increasingly integrating their humanitarian efforts with their foreign policy objectives, which introduces new dynamics and challenges traditional humanitarian norms (Bernard, 2011, p. 896). New state actors often align their humanitarian assistance with broader geopolitical strategies. For instance, countries like China and Turkey may use humanitarian aid as a means to bolster their international influence or to achieve strategic objectives. This integration of aid with foreign policy goals may thus blur the lines between purely humanitarian work and political or strategic interests (Bernard, 2011, p. 896). The involvement of these new state actors can challenge established humanitarian principles.
Traditionally, humanitarian aid is governed by principles of neutrality, impartiality, and independence. However, when aid is closely tied to foreign policy objectives, it can undermine these principles and affect the perceived neutrality of the assistance provided. This shift complicates the ability of humanitarian organizations to operate effectively and maintain the trust of affected populations (Bernard, 2011, p. 896). Therefore, humanitarian organizations face a critical challenge in maintaining their independence from political and armed actors while also being accountable to donors and recipients. Independence is essential to ensure that humanitarian aid remains impartial and is delivered based on need rather than political or military interests. However, organizations must also be accountable to donors who fund their operations and to the communities they serve. Balancing these demands—ensuring that aid is delivered impartially while also meeting the expectations and requirements of donors and recipients—remains a complex and ongoing challenge (Bernard, 2011, p. 895).
The rise of diverse actors, including politically motivated non-governmental organizations (NGOs), further complicates the humanitarian landscape. Politically driven NGOs may prioritize political or ideological objectives over principled humanitarian action, making it difficult to distinguish between genuine humanitarian efforts and those with ulterior motives. This proliferation of actors can lead to a fragmented and less effective response, as it becomes harder to ensure that aid is delivered based on need rather than political considerations (McGoldrick, 2015, p. 1185). The blending of humanitarian work with political and strategic interests complicates the overall humanitarian landscape. It challenges the clarity and integrity of humanitarian interventions, making it more difficult to differentiate between principled humanitarian aid and relief efforts driven by political agendas. As a result, the effectiveness and perception of humanitarian assistance are impacted, as affected communities may view aid through the lens of the broader political context in which it is provided (McGoldrick, 2015, p. 1185).
Security and Access Issues
Access and security continue to be critical concerns in the field of humanitarian work. Humanitarian workers often encounter significant risks, including violence and kidnapping, especially in conflict zones. These security challenges pose serious threats to the safety of aid personnel and can severely disrupt the delivery of assistance (McGoldrick, 2015, p. 1186). In volatile and high-risk environments, humanitarian workers face numerous dangers, including targeted attacks and abductions. Such threats are particularly pronounced in conflict zones where security conditions are unstable and non-state actors may pose direct risks to aid personnel. These security issues not only endanger the lives of humanitarian workers but also hinder their ability to operate effectively and reach those in need (McGoldrick, 2015, p. 1186). To mitigate security risks, humanitarian organizations often outsource their operations to local implementers. While this approach can be necessary to navigate dangerous environments, it can also lead to problems such as "bunkerization"—where aid workers become isolated in secure compounds and have limited direct engagement with the communities they are meant to serve (McGoldrick, 2015, p. 1195). This isolation can compromise the effectiveness of aid distribution and challenge the principles of impartiality, as local implementers may not always adhere strictly to humanitarian principles or may be influenced by local political dynamics.
Legal and Operations Framework
The legal framework governing humanitarian access and operations requires further clarification to address several complex issues and help navigate and negotiate access in challenging contexts (Schwendimann, 2011).
One critical issue is determining how to reconcile military objectives with humanitarian requirements. In conflict zones, the necessity of military operations can sometimes conflict with the imperative to provide impartial humanitarian assistance. Clear guidelines are needed to ensure that military actions do not unduly restrict or obstruct humanitarian access and that humanitarian needs are adequately addressed even in complex security environments (Schwendimann, 2011).
Further, the roles and responsibilities of different actors in humanitarian interventions—ranging from international organizations and state actors to local NGOs and non-state armed groups—similarly require clearer definitions to enhance coordination and reduce conflicts or overlaps between different entities involved in humanitarian efforts (Schwendimann, 2011).
Some critics argue that overly rigid legal guidelines may hinder the flexibility required to respond effectively in complex and rapidly changing contexts. Humanitarian crises often unfold unpredictably, requiring swift and adaptable responses that legal frameworks may not allow (Hehir, 2008). For instance, during the 2010 Haiti earthquake, international organizations faced significant bureaucratic delays in deploying aid due to legal and regulatory requirements, which resulted in critical life-saving assistance being stalled (McGoldrick, 2015). Critics contend that a focus on compliance with legal norms can divert attention from the primary humanitarian mission of alleviating human suffering. In this view, a more flexible approach that allows for situational adaptability could lead to more effective interventions, even if it occasionally requires navigating legal ambiguities (Donini, 2012). The lack of flexibility in legal frameworks can prevent humanitarian actors from swiftly mobilizing resources in crises, such as when rapid response was crucial during the Ebola outbreak in West Africa in 2014.
The Future of Humanitarian Interventions: Adapting to an Evolving Global Landscape
Localization of Aid and Humanitarian Reform
The future of humanitarianism depends on its ability to adapt to political, structural, and environmental changes. There is a pressing need to re-evaluate traditional principles and practices to ensure that the sector remains relevant and effective in responding to global crises (Donini, 2012, p. 523). Reform is necessary to create a more inclusive, transparent, and accountable humanitarian system that can effectively address emerging challenges and protect vulnerable populations. Several factors are poised to influence the future trajectory of humanitarian interventions. Among these, the localization of aid has become a central theme in reform discussions, reflecting a significant shift in how humanitarian efforts are structured and implemented.
The localization of aid emphasizes the role of local humanitarian actors and affected communities, positioning them as primary agents in their recovery and response. This approach is endorsed by frameworks such as the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the 2016 World Humanitarian Summit (WHS), which advocate for putting people at the heart of humanitarian action and recognizing the vital role of local actors (McGoldrick, 2015, p. 1188). Local actors bring unique advantages due to their proximity and contextual understanding, which can address challenges like access issues, fragmentation, and the gap between response and development (McGoldrick, 2015, p. 1189). Local NGOs, often on the frontlines of crisis response, provide critical insights into the specific needs and conditions of affected communities. For instance, a representative from a local NGO in Syria stated, "Humanitarian efforts must prioritize the voices of those we aim to assist. Our communities know best what they need, and their input is essential for effective intervention" (Amnesty International, 2019). This emphasis on community engagement highlights the importance of culturally sensitive approaches and the necessity for humanitarian organizations to adapt their strategies based on local context. Such collaboration ensures that aid is not only relevant but also sustainable, allowing communities to take ownership of their recovery processes (Crisp, 2018).
Despite its potential, the localization agenda is not without challenges. Historical attempts to localize aid have often fallen short due to inconsistent implementation and perceived tokenism by international actors (McGoldrick, 2015, p. 1190). For instance, a survey conducted by the Humanitarian Accountability Partnership revealed that while many organizations voiced support for local actors, there was little change in funding practices. Local NGOs in countries like Syria and Yemen expressed frustration over the limited access to resources and decision-making processes. They reported that despite being on the front lines of crises, they were often sidelined in favor of larger international organizations that could secure funding more easily, ultimately hindering the effectiveness of localized responses (HAP, 2017). Furthermore, a report by the Overseas Development Institute noted that while international NGOs invited local organizations to consultations, they frequently disregarded their recommendations, opting instead for established practices that did not reflect local needs (ODI, 2011). This practice not only undermines local expertise but also perpetuates a cycle of dependency on international actors. For instance, during the response to the 2010 Haiti earthquake, several local NGOs were included in discussions about relief efforts, but many felt that their contributions were merely symbolic (ODI, 2011).
Nevertheless, concerns about adherence to humanitarian principles and the potential for local actors to have additional political goals must be addressed (McGoldrick, 2015, p. 1191). The adherence to humanitarian principles—neutrality, impartiality, and independence—can become complicated when local actors have political affiliations or agendas. For example, in South Sudan, some local NGOs are perceived to have ties to political factions, raising concerns among international donors about bias in aid distribution. Reports indicate that international organizations have hesitated to partner with these groups due to fears that humanitarian assistance could be used to further political ends, thereby compromising the neutrality required for effective humanitarian action (Dempsey & Van Dijk, 2018). This situation underscores the importance of carefully vetting local partners and ensuring that their goals align with humanitarian principles.
Solutions for Leveraging Resources, Technology, and Partnerships
The need for early intervention and appropriate resource allocation in humanitarian efforts is widely acknowledged, yet the implementation of these initiatives often falls short. A glaring example of this inconsistency is the disparity between the United Nations peacekeeping budget and the significantly higher costs of military operations, such as those observed in Iraq. According to Hehir (2008), this contrast highlights the challenges in funding allocation, which can undermine humanitarian effectiveness (p. 328). Future interventions should not only focus on immediate responses but also on the strategic allocation of resources to provide comprehensive support throughout the entire intervention lifecycle. The widening economic disparities between nations complicate these efforts as wealth becomes increasingly concentrated in wealthier countries while poorer regions grapple with persistent poverty (Ferris, 2011). This growing divide intensifies pressure on humanitarian organizations to meet the urgent needs of impoverished areas, often with limited resources. To navigate these challenges, humanitarian agencies must prioritize interventions based on urgency, explore innovative funding mechanisms, and ensure that resources are utilized efficiently. For example, leveraging public-private partnerships and technology-driven fundraising can maximize the impact of available resources (Ferris, 2011).
As emerging economies gain economic strength, they are assuming a more prominent role in global humanitarian efforts, acting as both donors and partners. These countries bring unique perspectives and additional resources to humanitarian interventions, enhancing the effectiveness of aid by integrating local knowledge and addressing culturally specific needs. Consequently, fostering strong partnerships with these rising economies is essential for developing and implementing more effective and contextually appropriate humanitarian responses (Ferris, 2011). The authority and decision-making processes that govern humanitarian interventions represent critical areas of concern within the sector. The 2000 Brahimi Report, along with various investigations by the United Nations, emphasizes the necessity for clear mandates and effective decision-making to enhance the overall effectiveness of humanitarian actions (Hehir, 2008, p. 330). Despite these recommendations, the willingness of states and international organizations to take decisive action has frequently been lacking, resulting in delayed responses and missed opportunities to alleviate suffering. To improve future interventions, there is an urgent need to establish more robust frameworks that define the decision-making processes and authority structures. Such frameworks would help ensure timely and effective responses to crises, allowing humanitarian actors to mobilize quickly and efficiently when disaster strikes.
Considering that the number of actors involved in high-profile emergencies continues to grow, establishing clear coordination mechanisms will be essential to avoid unresponsiveness, or in some cases, duplication of efforts, and ensure a more cohesive response. While high-profile emergencies often garner substantial media attention and funding, smaller-scale crises frequently receive inadequate support. This disparity in response emphasizes the importance of balancing efforts between major disasters and less visible emergencies to ensure a comprehensive approach to crisis management. By addressing the need for efficient coordination and equitable resource distribution, the humanitarian sector can better navigate the complexities of modern interventions and ultimately improve outcomes for affected populations (Ferris, 2011). For instance, in complex settings such as highly densely populated areas where multiple armed groups operate, it is crucial to adapt logistics and security measures to mitigate the risks linked to urban warfare and criminal activities (Ferris, 2011). This includes not only enhancing the safety of humanitarian personnel but also ensuring that aid reaches the most vulnerable populations amidst ongoing conflict. Organizations may need to employ innovative approaches such as community-based distribution methods, which can help facilitate aid delivery while minimizing exposure to violence.
Modern crises often involve a mix of factors such as poor infrastructure, political instability, and social disruption. These complexities blur the lines between emergency relief and long-term development. For instance, in the aftermath of the Arab Spring, humanitarian responses needed to address immediate relief while also considering the longer-term impacts of political transitions and social upheaval. Similarly, the Japanese tsunami required not only immediate emergency aid but also extensive recovery and rebuilding efforts (Bernard, 2011, p. 892). The humanitarian sector must evolve to address the overlapping nature of emergency relief and development needs. Effective responses require integrating short-term relief efforts with long-term development planning, particularly in contexts where infrastructure and political systems are severely affected. This approach ensures that humanitarian aid not only addresses immediate needs but also contributes to longer-term recovery and stability (Bernard, 2011, p. 892). Moreover, the integration of advanced technologies can substantially enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of humanitarian responses. For example, employing technology for disaster prediction, response coordination, and tracking aid distribution can streamline operations and improve accountability (Ferris, 2011). Furthermore, with climate change increasing the frequency and severity of natural disasters, humanitarian organizations must prioritize disaster preparedness and risk reduction in their strategies. Incorporating climate adaptation measures into planning and response efforts will be critical to mitigating the impacts of environmental changes on vulnerable populations.
Finally, as the humanitarian sector becomes more professionalized, there is a risk that it might become overly bureaucratic. Increased professionalism often involves more structured procedures, detailed reporting requirements, and formalized processes. While these aspects can improve efficiency and accountability, they may also detract from the sector’s core humanitarian mission. The focus on administrative and procedural aspects can sometimes overshadow the immediate needs of those affected by crises, leading to delays and reduced flexibility in responding to emergencies (Bernard, 2011, p. 894). As the sector becomes more professional, there is a risk that an emphasis on efficiency and procedures may overshadow fundamental humanitarian principles such as neutrality, impartiality, and independence. To maintain the integrity of their mission, humanitarian organizations must uphold these principles, ensuring that aid is provided based solely on need and free from bias or political influence (Bernard, 2011, p. 896). At its core, however, humanitarian work is motivated by empathy and a moral obligation to alleviate the suffering of those affected by crises. Although the sector has become more organized and professional, characterized by standardized procedures, increased funding, and advanced logistical systems, these advancements should not overshadow the essential humanitarian values. Organizations must strike a balance between enhancing their administrative and logistical processes and maintaining a strong focus on the human element of their work, ensuring that compassion and a commitment to alleviating suffering remain central to their operations (Bernard, 2011, p. 896).
Conclusion
The landscape of humanitarian interventions is increasingly complex, marked by evolving political, social, and environmental challenges. This article has provided a comprehensive examination of the contemporary challenges faced by humanitarian efforts and the future strategies needed to adapt to these changes, thereby answering key research questions regarding the effectiveness and evolution of humanitarian action.
In the first section, "Contemporary Challenges of Humanitarian Efforts," this article explored the multifaceted obstacles confronting humanitarian organizations, including the impacts of political instability, funding disparities, and the need for more effective coordination among various actors. These challenges highlight the inadequacies of existing frameworks and practices, answering the question of what barriers humanitarian organizations face in delivering timely and effective aid. The analysis emphasized the importance of addressing systemic issues, such as bureaucratic inefficiencies and the reliance on traditional funding mechanisms, which can hinder responsive and contextually relevant interventions. The second section, "The Future of Humanitarian Interventions: Adapting to an Evolving Global Landscape," focused on solutions and strategies for enhancing the effectiveness of humanitarian action. By emphasizing the localization of aid and the crucial role of local actors, this section answered the question of how humanitarian efforts can be restructured to better meet the needs of affected communities. The discussion on leveraging technology, innovative funding mechanisms, and partnerships with emerging economies provided practical pathways for addressing resource allocation challenges and improving operational efficiency.
Ultimately, this article underscores the need for a paradigm shift in humanitarian practices, advocating for a more inclusive, transparent, and accountable system that prioritizes local knowledge and community engagement. By fostering collaboration and integrating short-term relief with long-term development goals, the humanitarian sector can better navigate the complexities of modern crises and ensure that aid not only addresses immediate needs but also contributes to sustainable recovery and resilience. As the sector evolves, maintaining a strong commitment to fundamental humanitarian principles will be essential to preserving the integrity and effectiveness of humanitarian interventions worldwide.
Concluding this Research Series on humanitarian interventions, it becomes clear that the landscape of humanitarian action is both intricate and multifaceted. This exploration began with a foundational understanding of what constitutes humanitarian interventions and evolved through theoretical perspectives that frame these critical efforts. Additionally, diverse approaches were examined, and a deeper dive into the legal frameworks that govern interventions followed—both highlighting the importance of collaboration among various stakeholders. The series also shed light on the significance of anthropology and intercultural understanding, which are crucial for the effectiveness and sensitivity of humanitarian efforts. By analyzing historical case studies, valuable insights into past successes and failures were unearthed, shaping our understanding of best practices and pitfalls. Finally, this author looked to the future, addressing emerging trends and the challenges that lie ahead in the realm of humanitarian interventions. The evolving nature of global conflicts, technological advancements, and shifting political landscapes will undoubtedly influence how interventions are conceived and implemented.
Humanitarian interventions are complex endeavors that require a nuanced approach, a deep understanding of various perspectives, and a commitment to continuous learning and adaptation. This author hopes this series has provided its readership with a better understanding of the essential elements of humanitarian interventions and can serve as a stepping stone for further exploration. Should this series inspire its readers to continue a journey into this important area, this author wishes the best of luck in enhancing knowledge and engaging with the nuanced realities of humanitarian action.
Bibliographical References
Amnesty International. (2019). Humanitarian action and the role of local organizations.
Bernard, V. (2011). The Future of Humanitarian Action. International Review of the Red Cross, 93(884), 891-897.
Crisp, J. (2018). Local engagement in humanitarian action. Humanitarian Practice Network.
Dempsey, J., & Van Dijk, A. (2018). The Localization of Humanitarian Aid: Risks and Rewards. Disasters, 42(1), 7-25.
Donini, A. (2012). Disasters and the Future of Humanitarian Action: Issues, Trends, and Challenges. International Disaster Response Law, 517-531.
Donini, A. (2012). The Politics of Humanitarian Action. Humanitarian Exchange Magazine, 55, 23-25.
Ferris, E. (2011). Megatrends and the future of humanitarian action. International Review of the Red Cross, 93(884), 915-938.
Hehir, A. (2008). Humanitarian intervention: past, present and future. Political Studies Review, 6(3), 327-339.
Humanitarian Accountability Partnership (HAP). (2017). Localizing Humanitarian Action: A Survey of NGOs.
McGoldrick, C. (2015). The state of conflicts today: Can humanitarian action adapt? International Review of the Red Cross, 97(900), 1179-1208.
McGoldrick, P. (2015). The Changing Face of Humanitarian Assistance: Integrating Military and Civilian Actors. International Review of the Red Cross, 96(895), 1191-1210.
Overseas Development Institute (ODI). (2011). Humanitarian Effectiveness: The Role of Local Actors
Schwendimann, F. (2011). The legal framework of humanitarian access in armed conflict. International Review of the Red Cross, 93(884), 993-1008.
Comments