Reviewing the Practice of Universal Principles

Alasdair Gordon-Gibson questions the relevance of universal principles to communities in crisis and presents the concept of voluntary ‘praxis’ as a more functional expression of the humanitarian relationship with politics and power.

Many working in the sector of humanitarian aid consider the principles of neutrality, impartiality and independence as being an essential and pre-existing part of the expression of ‘humanity’ and as universally applicable regardless of context or culture. However, to many analysts, they were established – like the organisations themselves – at a particular historical juncture and so may represent an ethos that is questioned or rejected by stakeholders outside of their foundational traditions.

This is especially the case considering the complex and competing drivers of humanitarian action in modern environments, where cultural and religious crises have helped undermine the fundamental humanitarian principles by contesting their universality and where humanitarian action has suffered as a result. This clash of cultural and religious worldviews, and the growth in the power of the market in the second half of the twentieth century, has led to the dominance of a globalised liberal and neo-liberal narrative that that has influenced political-economic strategies in foreign affairs in the same way that colonial discourse influenced attitudes to development and ‘civilisation’ in the 19^th century. Whilst colonial identities have to a great extent been consciously uncoupled from the narratives of contemporary aid and development, critics of approaches in the sector maintain that the traditional humanitarian identity remains associated with the exceptionalism of colonial times and in its modern expression appears ideological, which blurs the boundary between humanitarianism and human rights. 

There have been frequent calls for a humanitarian reset, most notably at the World Humanitarian Summit convened by the United Nations Secretary General in Istanbul in 2016 to study a ‘new way of working’. This resulted in the announcement of a ‘Grand Bargain’ that sought to give more means and resources to people in need. Hopes for a reset and radical change in direction have not been fulfilled: positive steps were made to advance the Sustainable Development Goals, aimed at reducing world poverty and bringing a more equitable balance to the global condition, but the pathway to enable more meaningful participation of affected populations remained the same.

A more radical change in direction points away from a focus on the long-contested debates around the core humanitarian principles of neutrality, impartiality and independence, and directs towards new ways of thinking on the humanitarian identity that legitimises the uncomfortable paradox of supporting political authority but with the agency to challenge it when red-lines have been crossed. With expectations of a growing humanitarian role in crisis response, notably with the addition of ‘peace’ to the aid-development nexus, there is need for construction of a moral platform that  promotes and sustains a broad base of trust across the public and all stakeholders in humanitarian response. Scholars in the social sciences have identified a place where the individual interest of one group can work cooperatively with the collective interests of another group and together actualise the space for a shared moral purpose. 

Humanitarian Praxis: popular agency to confront and contest

Reaching common consensus on an engagement with power requires recognition of the freedom to choose. Notions of solidarity and collaboration must discard ideas of coercion and control. Engagement must be voluntary and must be active in a space that allows the participant to opt in and to opt out. Principled action in this space is framed in the idea of an informal praxis rather than within the more confining definitions of a formalised practice.

Modern interpretations of praxis have been presented by Friedrich Kratochwil which offer a harmonisation of the debates that divide the importance of independence and the authority of the collective. His study recognises that structures in the contemporary socio-political environment have altered but the organising forces of politics and power are largely unchanged and in many societies are growing more assertive. Kratochwil observes that ‘although sovereignty remains the recognised organizational principle, new actors, such as intergovernmental organizations (IGOs) and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), have emerged and have undermined the state’s monopoly on determining sovereignty’s meaning’.[i] This challenge to authority in an increasingly assertive political environment has led to a hostile discourse from structures of power which perceive a threat to their alternative worldviews. The place for cooperation is reduced and avenues for engagement and discussion from both sides become conditional. The space for humanitarian action becomes dysfunctional as a result. Kratochwil is of the opinion that the knowledge and experience necessary for constructive cooperation in such unequal societies is acquired through popular participation within the hierarchies of established and unestablished power:  ‘It is through “commerce and conversation” that we develop the competencies for social life’.[ii]

This situates opportunities for a middle ground within understandings of ‘praxis’ – of purpose and practice – in a broader, more social, construction of notions of humanitarian space than the current discourse permits.  Kratochwil argues that this cannot be reduced to individually held beliefs, nor the intentions of a collective power. He argues that the critical element in constructing a sense of shared intention derives from a sense of wanting or doing something together. This sense of collectivity and cooperation instructs a more modest conception of humanitarian purpose and practice than the exceptional narratives dictated by the contemporary discourse and directs towards a new way of thinking that offers a discussion that is less exclusive, presenting a discourse of cooperation rather than contestation, but one with the independence to challenge.

Alasdair Gordon-Gibson, PhD. Honorary Lecturer, University of St Andrews, Graduate School for Interdisciplinary Studies. Author of ‘Humanitarians on the Frontier: Identity and Access along the Borders of Power’ (Bloomsbury, 2023). ‘Conflict and Development’ (third edition, Routledge 2024, co-authored with Andrew Williams).

Image: U.S. Air Force AFCENT by Staff Sgt. Caleb Roland

[i] Kratochwil, Praxis, p. 47.

[ii] Friedrich Kratochwil (2018) Praxis: On Acting and Knowing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p.11.