CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 6International Law and Human RightsHistorical and Contemporary Political DynamicsGlobal Peace and Security Dynamics

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

More humanitarian accountability, less humanitarian access? Alternative ideas on accountability for protection activities in conflict settings

Klein-Kelly, Natalie·2018·International Review of the Red Cross
DOI 10.1017/s1816383119000031
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Ambitions to fulfil accountability demands in humanitarian action are high, including for protection activities in armed conflict settings. However, from a Dunantist position, meeting accountability demands is often not only unsatisfactory for practical reasons, but is also inappropriate in view of humanitarian principles and flawed from related ethical perspectives. Regarding accountability primarily as a technical exercise, rather than as being linked to ethical perspectives on humanitarianism and its principles, may thus inadvertently contribute to reduced acceptability of, and ultimately reduced access for, humanitarian actors. Dunantist actors wishing to stay true to their ethical approach need new ways of thinking about accountability, a reflection which can serve as an example for an ongoing need to consider differences between actors within the humanitarian–development nexus.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s1816383119000031

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Citations

Cites

Still being checked.

Research works printed but not linked: 55

  1. Bonino, 2014, Evaluating Protection in Humanitarian Action: Issues and Challenges
  2. Dijkzeul, 2016, Humanitarianism and Challenges of Cooperation
  3. Miliband, 2015, Improving Humanitarian Aid: How to Make Relief More Efficient and Effective, Foreign Affairs, 94, 126
  4. Goodhand, 2006, Civil War, Civil Peace
  5. van Mierop, 2016, Coming Clean on Neutrality and Independence: The Need to Assess the Application of Humanitarian Principles, International Review of the Red Cross, 97, 11
  6. Ramalingam, 2013, Aid on the Edge of Chaos: Rethinking International Cooperation in a Complex World, 107
  7. 2018, Professional Standards for Protection Work
  8. Niland, 2015, Independent Whole of the System Review of Protection in the Context of Humanitarian Action, 4
  9. Gordon, 2016, Romancing Principles and Human Rights: Are Humanitarian Principles Salvageable?, International Review of the Red Cross, 97
  10. Elhawary, 2012, In the Eyes of Others: How People in Crisis Perceive Humanitarian Aid
  11. Bennett, 2016, Time to Let Go: Remarking Humanitarian Action for the Modern Era
  12. O'Gorman, 2011, Conflict and Development: Development Matters, 13
  13. Abbott, 2007, Research Skills for Policy and Development: How to Find Out Fast, 212
  14. 10.1017/S1816383112000343 · DOI
  15. Peruzzotti, 2006, NGO Accountability: Politics, Principles and Innovations
  16. 10.1017/S1816383111000026 · DOI
  17. 10.4324/9781315777276 · DOI
  18. Mackintosh, 2010, Reclaiming Protection as a Humanitarian Goal: Fodder for the Faint-Hearted Aid-Worker, International Legal Studies, 1, 396
  19. 10.3362/9780855988869 · DOI
  20. 10.1111/disa.12009 · DOI
  21. Väkämäki, 2011, Review: Results-Based Management in Development Cooperation
  22. Dijkzeul, 2016, The New Humanitarians in International Practice: Emerging Actors and Contested Principles
  23. 10.1017/CBO9780511755958 · DOI
  24. Carbonnier, 2014, Reason, Emotion, Compassion: Can Altruism Survive Professionalization in the Humanitarian Sector?, Disasters, 39, 197
  25. 2008, ICRC Protection Policy: Institutional Policy, International Review of the Red Cross, 90, 752
  26. 10.3362/9781780440453 · DOI
  27. Gensler, 2018, Ethics: A Contemporary Introduction, 174
  28. 2016, Inter-Agency Standing Committee Policy on Protection in Humanitarian Action
  29. Tyler, 2013, Transparency in Philanthropy: An Analysis of Accountability, Fallacy, and Volunteerism, 66
  30. Cohen, 1998, Exodus Within Borders: The Uprooted Who Never Left Home, Foreign Affairs, 77
  31. 10.1111/j.1747-7093.1999.tb00323.x · DOI
  32. 10.7208/chicago/9780226131535.001.0001 · DOI
  33. 10.1080/01436597.2018.1432346 · DOI
  34. Baron, 1997, Three Methods of Ethics: A Debate
  35. 10.1017/S181638310999052X · DOI
  36. Slim, 2002, By What Authority? The Legitimacy and Accountability of Nongovernmental Organisations, Journal of Humanitarian Assistance
  37. Roberts, 2001, Reflections on Humanitarian Action: Principles, Ethics and Contradictions
  38. Barnett, 2010, The International Humanitarian Order
  39. Volberg, 2007, Humanitarian Principles: Discourse on Neutrality and Independence of Humanitarian Aid
  40. 10.3362/9781780448855 · DOI
  41. 10.1007/978-3-642-32290-7_19 · DOI
  42. Stoddard, 2003, Humanitarian Action and the “Global War on Terror”: A Review of Trends and Issues, 25
  43. 10.1017/S1816383112000306 · DOI
  44. Terry, 2002, Condemned to Repeat? The Paradox of Humanitarian Action
  45. Slim, 2015, Humanitarian Ethics: A Guide to the Morality of Aid in War and Disaster
  46. Ferris, 2011, The Politics of Protection: The Limits of Humanitarian Action
  47. 10.1080/01436597.2012.698141 · DOI
  48. Barnett, 2011, Empire of Humanity: A History of Humanitarianism
  49. Pictet, 1970, The Fundamental Principles of the Red Cross: Commentary
  50. Redfield, 2010, Forces of Compassion: Humanitarianism between Ethics and Politics, 66
  51. Rieff, 2002, A Bed for the Night: Humanitarianism in Crisis
  52. DuBois, 2009, Protection: The New Humanitarian Fig-Leaf
  53. Labbé, 2016, Applying the Humanitarian Principles: Reflecting on the Experience of the ICRC, International Review of the Red Cross, 97
  54. Borton, 2009, Measuring What Matters in Peace Operations and Crisis Management
  55. Wraight, 2011, The Ethics of Trade and Aid: Development, Charity or Waste?

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Klein-Kelly, N.
Corresponding author
Klein-Kelly, Natalie
Venue
International Review of the Red Cross
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Published
2018-04
Volume
100
Issue
907-909
Pages
287-313
ISSN
  • 0020-8604 (ISSN-L)
  • 1816-3831
  • 1607-5889
DOI
10.1017/s1816383119000031
OpenAlex
W2946834361
Cited by
6
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2020: 1
FWCI
1.09
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.cambridge.org/core/terms (unspecified, 421 d)
Locations
International Review of the Red Cross (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › International Law and Human Rights
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History › Historical and Contemporary Political Dynamics
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Global Peace and Security Dynamics
Keywords
humanitarian accountability, humanitarian access, humanitarian principles, humanitarian ethics, humanitarian-development nexus, humanitarian action

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review