Explore the vast range of titles available.

This article provides a first attempt at analysing the complex set of issues around remote management practices in insecure environments and their increased use. It looks at definitions and reviews existing published and grey literature on remote management and related practices. It tries to situate remote management in the evolving context of post-Cold War strategies of dealing with conflict and crisis. On the basis of interviews with a cross-section of aid workers, senior headquarters managerial and policy staff, donors, and research institutions, it provides an assessment of current remote management practices, with a particular focus on Afghanistan and Somalia, and their implications for the future of humanitarian action.

Whilst the relation between local and global levels has been a long-standing concern of humanitarian, development, and peace efforts, in recent years the term “localisation” has become a major issue in the humanitarian sector whilst peacebuilding scholarship has taken a “local turn.” This article analyses the concept of localisation across the three parts of the triple nexus—humanitarian, development, and peace. It traces the long-standing concern with the local in each of these domains, considering similarities and differences in their engagement with the local and counter-veiling trends towards universalisation, before proceeding to frame four challenges common to localisation across all forms of conflict response: defining the local, valuing local capacity, maintaining political will, and multi-scalar conflict response.

Data-driven artificial intelligence (AI) technologies are progressively transforming the humanitarian field, but these technologies bring about significant risks for the protection of vulnerable individuals and populations in situations of conflict and crisis. This article investigates the opportunities and risks of using AI in humanitarian action. It examines whether and under what circumstances AI can be safely deployed to support the work of humanitarian actors in the field. The article argues that AI has the potential to support humanitarian actors as they implement a paradigm shift from reactive to anticipatory approaches to humanitarian action. However, it recommends that the existing risks, including those relating to algorithmic bias and data privacy concerns, must be addressed as a priority if AI is to be put at the service of humanitarian action and not to be deployed at the expense of humanitarianism. In doing so, the article contributes to the current debates on whether it is possible to harness the potential of AI for responsible use in humanitarian action.

This article aims to acknowledge and articulate the notion of “humanitarian experimentation”. Whether through innovation or uncertain contexts, managing risk is a core component of the humanitarian initiative – but all risk is not created equal. There is a stark ethical and practical difference between managing risk and introducing it, which is mitigated in other fields through experimentation and regulation. This article identifies and historically contextualizes the concept of humanitarian experimentation, which is increasingly prescient, as a range of humanitarian subfields embark on projects of digitization and privatization. This trend is illustrated here through three contemporary examples of humanitarian innovations (biometrics, data modelling, cargo drones), with references to critical questions about adherence to the humanitarian “do no harm” imperative. This article outlines a broad taxonomy of harms, intended to serve as the starting point for a more comprehensive conversation about humanitarian action and the ethics of experimentation.

New technology may offer many opportunities for humanitarian action, but it also presents a number of challenges. Currently, most of the critical analysis of these potential challenges takes place in the blogosphere, on tweets and on listservs. There is a strong need for more scholarly engagement on the subject. This article offers an agenda for critical inquiry into the emergent field of humanitarian technology as applied to a broadly defined context of crises, encompassing both natural disasters and conflict zones, by identifying what technology does to the humanitarian enterprise, and by reflecting on the key challenges that emerge.

Considering the drastic changes in the nature of conflicts, humanitarian organizations (HOs) and donors, investing more attention into impartiality is critical for HOs if they are to survive and improve the quality of their humanitarian activities. As one of the four fundamental humanitarian principles, impartiality has critical implications for humanitarian action in relation to three aspects: its symbolic meaning for humanitarian action, its procedural significance for humanitarian access, and its operational importance for needs assessments. This article analyzes how the practice of impartiality is challenged by the current humanitarian financing model from five angles: funding source, funding amount, funding allocation, financial management and funding categorization. To cope with these obstacles, we focus on the financial perspective and propose three suggestions for international HOs: first, digitally innovating the humanitarian financing model to ensure that overall humanitarian needs are covered; second, strengthening engagement with non-traditional donors such as the Gulf countries and China, with a focus on infrastructure; and third, developing a hybrid financing model, with case studies from UNICEF and the International Committee of the Red Cross.

Background In the past decades humanitarianism has seen an increase in its importance and relevance, mostly due to the surging needs of the populations it serves around the globe. With the core principles of humanity, neutrality, impartiality, and independence providing a strong value system, the humanitarian sector has responded to conflicts, outbreaks and climate-related emergencies, evolving into a necessary entity. Yet it currently finds itself at a crossroads: while its identity constantly undergoes self-reflection and transformation, humanitarianism grapples with an array of challenges, namely, the widening gap between funding and needs, the escalation of violations of international humanitarian law (IHL), and the complex dynamics of the climate crisis. Through critical evaluations of past and present crises, this scoping review seeks to analyse these humanitarian challenges and attempts to link them in a way that can inform future research as well as humanitarian practice. Methods This study employed a scoping review methodology that identified 158 relevant articles in the databases of PubMed and Google Scholar. Snowballing and citation tracking methods were also utilised. In the final review, 25 articles published between 2009 and 2023 were included and analysed. The articles utilised various methodological approaches, including literature reviews, mixed-methods approaches, qualitative case studies, and quantitative analyses. The comprehensive framework of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRIMA-ScR), as well as quality assurance tools such as the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal checklists were used, in order to ensure a systematic approach to both the literature research and the findings presentation. Results The results revealed a complex interplay between underfunding, IHL violations, and the impacts of the climate crisis, each exacerbating the others in a dynamic and interconnected manner. Key findings highlighted the pervasive issue of funding often being driven by political and economic interests rather than the rising humanitarian needs, the challenge of maintaining neutrality and impartiality in complex emergencies amidst politicisation of aid and increased attacks against aid workers and civilians, and the critical role of the climate crisis as a threat multiplier that compounds existing vulnerabilities, while also creating new ones. Discussion The literature reviewed and analysed proposes an Exacerbators-Symptoms-Solutions approach, which maps out the challenges and responses in humanitarian action. This approach aided in dissecting the complex and interlinked nature of humanitarian issues, identifying exacerbators like conflict, politicisation of aid, and climate crisis as key drivers that intensify existing vulnerabilities. The symptoms of these exacerbators are seen in the operational challenges such as limited humanitarian access, reduced safety for aid workers, and underfunding as well as in direct impacts on the people in need such as food insecurity and displacement. The solutions proposed emphasise the importance of local and anticipatory action, sustainable and innovative solutions, a holistic integration of efforts across the Humanitarian-Development-Peace (HDP) nexus enriched with climate considerations as well as the need for strong advocacy and political will, thus showcasing the interconnectedness not only of problems but also of potential remedies. Conclusion Humanitarian challenges should be addressed with an interconnected approach and synergistic strategies with a focus on both immediate needs and long-term sustainability in humanitarian efforts. This review demonstrated that challenges and solutions are interconnected and can have a compounding effect. For this to take place, humanitarian action has to be contextually-sensitive, politically-informed and climate-aware and the understanding of the interactions between humanitarian and developmental aid has to be deeper, highlighting the need for further research into how these domains can be more effectively integrated. The proposed Exacerbators-Symptoms-Solutions approach offers the base of future research in order to explore these interconnections in greater depth and a decision aid in humanitarian practice.

Despite the increasing exploration of innovative financing mechanisms to address the widening humanitarian funding gap, scholarly engagement with innovative humanitarian finance remains remarkably scarce. Many of these mechanisms adopt blended finance models, in which public or philanthropic funds are used to de-risk and attract private investment into fragile contexts. While such arrangements raise fundamental questions about the compatibility of profit motives with humanitarian values, their ethical implications are not well understood. This article addresses these gaps by introducing a novel analytical framework for examining the ethics of using market-based financing mechanisms for humanitarian action. The framework integrates three interdisciplinary ethical perspectives – market ethics, humanitarian principles, and normative moral philosophy – to form a layered and comprehensive approach. The article demonstrates the application of the framework through the case of impact bonds – an outcome-based financing mechanism in which investors provide upfront capital and are repaid with interest if projects achieve their intended outcomes.

Displacement due to weather and climate-related events (disaster displacement), including the adverse effects of climate change, is one of the greatest humanitarian challenges of the 21st century. Even though the forecasting of extreme events and early warning systems has improved globally, less attention has been given to translating anticipatory humanitarian action into the disaster displacement context with the aim to minimize forced displacement from extreme weather events through pre-allocated funds for the readiness, pre-positioning and activation costs. In this analysis, we assess the opportunities and challenges associated with utilising forecast-based financing (FbF) to expand anticipatory and early humanitarian action, based on the structured judgements of experts. These multi-disciplinary experts agree that FbF can reduce displacement risks and address the humanitarian impacts of disaster displacement early, or before a hazard materializes. We propose four action steps along the stages of disaster displacement to provide practical intervention points for researchers and practitioners. Finally, we discuss the implications of our findings and outline next steps. By integrating cross-disciplinary expert judgement, this paper provides a much-needed pathway to transform humanitarian action to be more anticipatory and adaptable to change, and help minimize disaster displacement in climate change vulnerable regions.

The application of social sciences has been recognized as valuable to inclusive humanitarian programming that aims to be attentive to the needs and initiatives of affected communities. However, the integration of social science-informed community engagement (CE) approaches in humanitarian action remains episodic, fragmented, and under-resourced. This research article provides insights from a study that reviewed existing and needed capacities for the systematic integration of social sciences for community engagement in humanitarian action. We examined what capacity resources exist and what resources need to be developed for strengthening social science integration into humanitarian programming for improved engagement of affected and at-risk communities in conflict and hazard contexts. A mixed method approach was used, including twenty-two key informant interviews and a focus group discussion with social scientists and humanitarian practitioners, an online survey with 42 respondents, a literature review, and a year-long monthly consultation with social scientists and humanitarian practitioners in a UNICEF-led global technical working group. Results illustrate insights on the value of the “social science lens” in humanitarian action and current usage of different social science disciplines. Challenges found include different understandings (e.g., on standardization), languages and methods used by practitioners and social scientists, and how to integrate the seemingly “slow” processes of social sciences to fit emergency response. Institutional barriers to mainstream community-centered humanitarian action facilitated by the social sciences include top-down decision-making and resourcing, lack of localization, and many siloed, dispersed, and episodic efforts.