In many people’s views, humanitarianism is nothing more or less a revolution in the ethics of care (Stewart et al p. For a fact, this revolution, like many revolutions, was developed through a collaboration of transcendental visions, power, politics and it has generated a group of successes and excesses. Humanitarianism operates in the best historical of emancipator ethics. It aspires to keep people alive, to expand their opportunities, and to provide them much control over their fates. It does that through various interventions, all defended on the basis that they improve the welfare and health of others who are too powerless and weak to help themselves. A variety of private and public actors contributes to humanitarian action, among them, states, commercial outfits, religious bodies, philanthropies and various individuals (Mac Ginty, Roger, and Oliver Richmond.Humanitarian and development is a wide subject that most often than not elicits various reaction, especially in applicability. Concerns have been leveled in the past about preservation of human dignity. For instance, various international laws have been drafted to address these issues. These laws provide guidance on the limits an individual or government can operate and constraints. Humanitarian organizations on their part are not at liberty or do not inherit the responsibilities that other groups have failed to uphold, but the very require for their intervention and the consequences of their aid depend upon the extent to which higher-order responsibilities have not been met. Humanitarian agencies cannot be held obliged, for instance, for the militarization of the South Sudan refugee camps since it was neither their role nor within their capability to ensure the civilian feature of the camp.Moreover, it is common knowledge that whatever the context of an aid, and whatever the specific mix of humanitarian players involved, there is expected to be needed for coordination in order to enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of the humanitarian ability to meet the needs of affected groups throughout the world
Chander, D. 2012 ‘Resilience and Human Security: The Post-interventionist paradigm’, Security Dialogue, 43 (3), 213-229.
Duffield, Mark. 2010. ‘The liberal way of development and the development—security impasse: Exploring the global life-chance divide.’ Security Dialogue, 41(1), pp. 53-76; http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0967010609357042
Duffield, Mark. 2001. Global Governance and the New Wars: The Merging of Development and Security, London: Zed Books.
Gasper, Des. 2005. ‘Securing Humanity: Situating ‘Human Security’ as Concept and Discourse.’ Journal of Human Development 6(2), pp. 221-245; http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14649880500120558
Mac Ginty, Roger and Oliver Richmond. 2013. The Local Turn in Peace Building: a critical agenda for peace , Third World Quarterly 34 (5), 763-783Global Society 21(4), pp. 491-497; http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13600820701562710
Paris, R. 2010 ‘Saving Liberal Peacebuilding’, Review of International Studies, 36 (2), 337-365 (see also this reply by Cooper et a 2011 ‘The end of history and the last liberal peacebuilder’, Review of International Studies, 37 (4), 1995-2007.
Stewart, Frances and Graham K. Brown .2007, “Motivations for conflict: Groups and individuals.” In Chester Crocker, Fen Hampson and Pamela Aall, eds, Leashing the Dogs of War: Conflict Management in a Divided World, Washington: United States Institute of Peace.
Please type your essay title, choose your document type, enter your email and we send you essay samples