Humanitarian action is characterized by a tension between the universality of its pretensions and the particularity of the contexts of its realization. The notion of “humanitarian” builds on the concept of “humanity” and signals the universality of its outlook–implying that it relies on a universal human inclination and also that it applies to humanity as a whole (Fast 2016).
As a variation on an old theme, this universality was emphasized in the United Nations report One Humanity: Shared Responsibility, which was prepared for the World Humanitarian Summit in 2016. It is stated that effective action requires a “unified vision”: “In a globalized world, this vision needs to be inclusive and universal and to bring people, communities and countries together, while recognizing and transcending cultural, religious or political differences.” It is maintained that this vision must rely on a notion of “our common humanity”; “that there is inherent dignity and worth in every individual that must be protected, respected and given the opportunity and conditions to flourish” (Ki-Moon 2016: 15–16).
In the humanitarian principles defined by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), “humanity” and “universality” appear separately. In this instance, humanity, combined with neutrality, impartiality, and independence, pertains to how humanitarian law and assistance should be conceived and applied, while universality refers to the global scope of their application ( ICRC 2015). The ICRC currently has a near universal reach in this respect, and while most headquarters of large international humanitarian organizations are based in Europe, international and local organizations doing humanitarian work are a global phenomenon ( UNOCHA 2018). That said, there is a tension between the ideal of universal reach and the reality of “forgotten crises” and trends in humanitarian action, where certain crises are overfunded and over-represented. Moreover, the desired universal outreach might be limited by access denial–as reflected in debates about constraints on the humanitarian space.
Surprisingly, humanitarian law and assistance are criticized both for not being sufficiently universal and also for their universal attitude. For instance, Costas Douzinas reminds us that the notion of humanity is itself an invention of modernity, with no universalist equivalent in Greek or Roman thought (Douzinas 2007: 1). Contrary to this universalist image, Didier Fassin describes how humanitarianism as we know it today is integral to broader social and political developments in Europe over the past few decades, and is not a timeless manifestation of empathy and care (Fassin 2011).
Yet there is a universal dimension to the basic humanitarian objective of assisting people in desperate need, independent of their identity or self-interest. This objective does not rely on a particular notion of humanity or humanitarianism but rather on inclinations towards charity and compassion. The ways in which humanitarian practices turn these inclinations into ideas and actions are nonetheless always formed by their cultural and political settings, both at the sending and receiving ends. Jacinta O’Hagan and Miwa Hirono (2014), for instance, describe how the emergence of new humanitarian actors and arenas in Asia has resulted in new “cultures of humanitarianism,” without necessarily undermining international humanitarian cooperation (O’Hagan and Hirono 2014). Others have demonstrated how any humanitarian practice involves a degree of political instrumentalization when being realized, entailing a great diversity in political features and consequences of humanitarian governance (Dijkzeul and Sandvik 2019). Indeed, the supposed universality of humanitarianism lends itself well to the facilitation and justification of political agendas.
Moreover, bureaucratic and technological rationales form humanitarian engagement. On the one hand, this contributes to the universality of the assistance, given its reliance on universal rules and standards. On the other hand, bureaucracy and technology represent a non-universal modern rationality that may depart from predominant political rationalities and technologies in those arenas where humanitarian organizations operate (Hilhorst and Jansen 2010).
References
Dijkzeul, D. , Sandvik, K.B. (2019) A World in Turmoil: Governing Risk, Establishing Order in Humanitarian Crises. Disasters, 43: 85–108.
Douzinas, C. (2007) The Many Faces of Humanitarianism. Parrhesia, 2: 1–28.
Fassin, D. (2011) Humanitarian Reason . University of California Press.
Fast, L. (2016) Unpacking the Principle of Humanity: Tensions and Implications. International Review of the Red Cross, 97: 111–131.
Hilhorst, D. , Jansen, B.J. (2010) Humanitarian Space as Arena: A Perspective on the Everyday Politics of Aid. Development and Change, 41: 1117–1139.
ICRC (International Committee of the Red Cross) (2015) The Fundamental Principles of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement: Ethics and Tools for Humanitarian Action.
Ki-Moon, B. (2016) One Humanity: Shared Responsibility. Report of the Secretary-General for the World Humanitarian Summit. A/70/709. United Nations.
O’Hagan, J. , Hirono, M. (2014) Fragmentation of the International Humanitarian Order? Understanding “Cultures of Humanitarianism” in East Asia. Ethics and International Affairs, 28: 409–424.
OCHA (United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs) (2018) Global Humanitarian Overview. https://www.unocha.org.