Search results

The purpose of this paper is to explore the ethical dimensions of crisis translation through the lenses of Paul Ricoeur’s philosophical scholarship. In particular, his work on both translation and ethics will be examined in order to draw practical applications for those involved in humanitarian action.

The authors identified relevant themes in the work of renowned philosopher Paul Ricoeur and used philosophical analysis to apply them to ethical issues in crisis translation.

Paul Ricoeur was one of the leading philosophers in the twentieth century, writing on a wide variety of topics. From these, his work on translation and on ethics provided suitable ways to examine ethical issues in crisis translation. In particular, his concept of “linguistic hospitality” provides an important lens through which translation ethics can be examined. In addition, Ricoeur’s approach to ethics emphasised relational and justice dimensions which are crucial to examine in humanitarian settings.

While the findings are conceptual, they have many practical implications for how translation is approached in humanitarian crises. The focus on justice in Ricoeur’s approach has implications for policy and practice and serves to ensure that translation is available for all affected communities and that all groups are included in discussions around humanitarian responses.

Ricoeur’s work provides important insights into both translation and ethics that have significant social implications. His ideas highlight the personal and emotional aspects of translation and ethics, and point to their relational character. His openness to others provides an important basis for building trust and promoting dignity even in difficult humanitarian settings.

Ricoeur’s ethics points to the importance of persons and their relationships, reminding responders that translation is not just a mechanical exercise. This approach fosters an interest in and openness to others and their languages, which can promote respect towards those being helped in humanitarian crises.

The humanitarian principle of impartiality requires that assistance be based on need alone. In order to ascertain needs, and later to assess whether assistance has been effective in meeting those needs, we need to gather evidence. In humanitarian crises this is generally done through assessments, monitoring and evaluation, and it generally involves seeking information from those we seek to assist. In the fast-paced environment of humanitarian crises, the question of whether the collection of this information is ethical is frequently overlooked. For research participants, the consequences can be extremely severe.

This chapter examines the ethics of research, primarily in the form of assessments, monitoring and evaluation, in humanitarian crises. The chapter first considers the question of what constitutes research in humanitarian crises, and why it is needed. It then examines the general principles of ethical research (respect, beneficence, research merit and integrity, and justice), and highlights three key considerations that require particular attention in humanitarian crises: the justificatory threshold, the vulnerability of research participants, and safety and security. The chapter also examines key components of the research process that are particularly important (and frequently overlooked) in humanitarian crises, including the privacy and confidentiality of research participants, informed consent and feedback to research participants. It concludes with the suggestion that basic instruction in the principles of ethical research should be included in the orientation and training provided to humanitarian practitioners, including to emergency response teams who are commonly involved in carrying out assessments in the early stages of a humanitarian response.

Achieving localisation (the transfer of control to local actors) has proven extremely challenging in the development sector, and the humanitarian sector appears to be facing equal challenges. This chapter seeks to engage with that struggle and examine why this lesson has been so difficult to learn. Drawing on conference workshops and 10 key informant interviews, this paper examines the obstacles and opportunities for localisation, seeking to understand what makes it so hard for those who hold disproportionate power in humanitarian encounters to hand over power. The authors found a clear sense of localisation being a process rather than an outcome; optimism that momentum is slowly gathering towards this process, and a clear sense of the steps required to fully achieve it. Examining practitioners’ perspectives in this way adds an important voice to discussions of humanitarian practice.

The notion that disasters are not natural is longstanding, leading to a growing number of campaigns aimed at countering the use of the term “natural disaster.” Whilst these efforts are crucial, critical perspectives regarding the potential risks associated with this process are lacking, particularly in places affected by violent conflict. This paper aims to present a critical analysis of these efforts, highlighting the need to approach them with care.

The author draws upon insights and discussions accumulated over a decade of research into the relationship between disasters and conflict. The article includes a critical literature review on the disaster–conflict relationship and literature specifically addressing the idea that disasters are not natural. The analysis of field notes led to a second literature review covering topics such as (de) politicisation, instrumentalisation, disaster diplomacy, ethics, humanitarian principles, disaster risk reduction, peacebuilding and conflict sensitivity.

This analysis underscores the importance of advocating that disasters are not natural, especially in conflict-affected areas. However, an uncritical approach could lead to unintended consequences, such as exacerbating social conflicts or obstructing disaster-related actions. The article also presents alternatives to advance the understanding that disasters are not natural whilst mitigating risks, such as embracing a “do-no-harm” approach or conflict-sensitive analyses.

The author offers an innovative critical approach to advancing the understanding that disasters are not natural but socio-political. This perspective is advocated, especially in conflict-affected contexts, to address the root causes of both disasters and conflicts. The author also invites their peers and practitioners to prioritise reflective scholarship and practices, aiming to prevent the unintentional exacerbation of suffering whilst working towards its reduction.

In this paper, the authors propose a new lens to examine international humanitarian organizations' responsibilities in the context of project closure, what authors call “an ethics of the temporary”. The authors offer this as an orienting ethical ideal to facilitate the moral imagination of humanitarian planners, practitioners and stakeholders.

The authors drew on recent philosophical work on responsibilities for global justice to analyze an ethical concern inherent to humanitarian practice, the proper scope of responsibility in the context of closure of humanitarian projects.

The ethics of the temporary includes four elements: situating humanitarian action temporally with attention to the past and how it shapes a current crisis and crisis response, focusing attention on anticipating and seeking to mitigate potential harm, promoting sustainability and greater equity going forward and emphasizing inclusive, collaborative approaches. The authors propose a set of questions that can foster discussion and reflection about the scope of humanitarian responsibilities at project closure.

Although the authors' work is primarily conceptual, it has many practical implications for humanitarian policy and practice. It can support critical reflection and offers a process for considering the scope of responsibility at project closure and decisions around how to close a given intervention in a manner that avoids causing harm and advances equity.

Very little work has been done on ethical closure of humanitarian projects. Most literature offers critiques. This essay contributes a new approach to closure, the ethical ideal and practice of an ethics of the temporary.

The purpose of this essay is to survey the ethical guidelines Red Cross personnel use to determine the appropriate course of action when faced with morally dilemmatic situations, such as whether or not to accept private donations to fund humanitarian operations.

A review of the principles which buttress and guide all Red Cross action is presented along with two case studies – one in which the Solomon Islands Red Cross Society refused money from a controversial mining company, which could have been used to assist flood victims, and the other in which the Nigerian Red Cross Society accepted money from oil companies that have been historically ethically-challenged – which illustrate the necessity of contextual analysis in making these decisions.

The principles upon which all Red Cross actions are based – humanity, impartiality, neutrality, independence – provide the guidelines by which to evaluate whether or not to accept private, corporate donations. The Red Cross principles-based ethics allows for seemingly contradictory decisions to be reached in different countries and contexts, but in manners which are ethically coherent and transparent.

This paper sets the foundation for future research into what guides humanitarian organizations as they carry out their life-sustaining operations. Organizations which use such ethical principles to determine the appropriateness of their actions should benefit from transparently demonstrating this.

Case studies from recent disasters demonstrate the value of using ethical guidelines to evaluate donor suitability. This rigor and transparency benefits not only the Red Cross and other humanitarian organizations, but most importantly those rendered vulnerable by disaster around the world.

International development and humanitarian work, including research and evaluation practice, relies upon the development of strong and trusting relationships between practitioners, researchers, local partners and communities. Due to these relationships, research conducted in developing countries and particularly in relation to development practice raises distinct ethical issues and dilemmas. The aim of this chapter is to discuss the importance of the consideration of ethics in international development and humanitarian research and how organisations can incorporate a culture of ethical inquiry into research and evaluation practice. It will highlight that good intentions and policy documents are alone not enough for when practitioners are working in development. It will also examine how principles and guidelines drafted expressly for and by the Australian international development sector is being used as a facilitator of ethical inquiry and good practice.

Current centralized humanitarian aid deployment practices may encourage urbanization thereby weakening short- and long-term resiliency of lower-income countries receiving aid. The purpose of this paper is first, to explore these shortcomings within the peer-reviewed literature and, second, propose a starting point for a solution with a decentralized humanitarian aid deployment (DHAD) framework.

The authors conducted a focused, qualitative review of available and relevant literature.

The literature reviewed demonstrates that current centralized humanitarian aid deployment models lack meaningful engagement of local assets while indicating a plausible connection between these same models and disaster urbanization. Next, the literature shows introducing a new decentralized model could represent a sustainable aid deployment standard for that country’s specific response, recovery, mitigation and planning opportunities and constraints.

The next step is to develop a working DHAD model for a lower-income country using a multi-layered, GIS analysis that incorporates some or all of the socioeconomic and environmental variables suggested herein.

The practical potential of the DHAD framework includes establishing the impacted country in the lead role of their own recovery at the moment of deployment, no longer relying on foreign logistics models to sort it out once aid has arrived.

This paper discusses a topic that much of the literature agrees requires more research while suggesting a new conceptual framework for aid deployment best practices which is also largely absent from the literature.

From a Latin American decolonial and transdisciplinary perspective, this article expands the increasingly relevant conversation about disaster ethics, not only in depth and scope but also both interdisciplinarily and interculturally. By reviewing key points of development ethics that are closely related but underexplored, it makes the case for focusing on disaster recovery as a relevant distributive phase for improving future prevention and mitigation, while remedying long-standing injustices.

To do so, against the backdrop of recently emerging postcolonial, decolonial and structural approaches to disaster and vulnerability studies, the article presents a theoretical conversation between decolonial studies, development ethics, intercultural practice and philosophy, and disaster ethics beyond utilitarian approaches.

So far, development and disaster ethics remain worlds apart, despite their relevant convergence around the key notion of “recovery” and its underlying normative determination. This article identifies that prevailing utilitarian ethics in emergency response, in addition to their problematic universalization, have prevented further engagement with deontological and process-based principles, including a nuanced distributive sensitivity. As a result of such cross-fertilization, methodological individualism in an intercultural encounter is suggested, as well as continued engagement with pluriversal deliberation about key ethical values and notions regarding disaster risk and response.

Calling for distributive bottom-up engagement beyond professional and academic boundaries, this article presents a new direction for decolonising disaster ethics, so far unexplored, seeking to bridge the value gap between development and disaster efforts, planning and prevention.