Paper details

Paper authors	Anna Khakee
In panel on	Hierarchies and Exclusion in Humanitarianism
Paper presenter(s) will be presenting	In-Person / Online

Abstract

Problematizing present-day “natural” boundaries of humanitarian action makes it possible to discern how they create – and are the result of – hierarchies. The boundaries at the heart of this essay are those drawn, in both theoretical and practical definitions of humanitarian action, between the “international” and the “national”, whereby the “international” is considered pertinent to humanitarianism, while the “national” is not. This paper argues that drawing this boundary has not been as straightforward as it may seem, and has ultimately reflected hierarchies in international relations. The argument is illustrated through an examination of three contexts: (1) the way that “aid” to colonial possessions is categorized as humanitarian even though it does not cross sovereign borders; (2) how the applicability of IHL to intrastate armed conflict has shifted over time in ways that reflect and reinforce hierarchies in international politics; and (3) the classification of the hosting costs for refugees and asylum seekers in their first year in their new country as “humanitarian aid” and how discussions around this has evolved over time. The fuzzy and often shifting demarcation lines of these three “natural” boundaries, the chapter argues, cannot be fully comprehended outside a postcolonial lens. It thus draws on a “standards of civilization” framework to throw light on how Northern states’ and knowledge producers’ boundary drawing reflects – of course with important differences – age-old colonial hierarchies of whose behavior is, as it were by definition, humanitarian, civilized and a model for other, Southern, states to emulate.

Back