institutionalised humanitarian action. In many ways this is the most promising
approach. Accountability has long been the pursuit of those areas of
institutionalised humanitarianism, notably in its legal forms, whose aim is to hold
others, those with “bad intentions”, to account for the harm they caused. Widening
the net of accountability to include humanitarianism itself, for all its “good
intentions”, could be seen as a mature acknowledgement of the flawed and
complex nature of an essentially valuable endeavour. Arguably, it represents the
real acknowledgement that humanitarianism has become a profession. As with
other fields coming to terms with professionalisation, concepts such as “quality”
and accountability become important buzzwords.^12 Perhaps they also represent the
acknowledgement that their principles and moral authority are no longer an
automatic, transcendent source of legitimacy. Laura Hammond notes that there has
often been a mismatch between the work professional humanitarians think a
clearly-expressed commitment to principles of impartiality, neutrality and
independence do, and aid recipients’ perceptions, which are rarely expressed in
relation to these. Instead, they make judgements based on humanitarians’
responsiveness to local needs.^13 It recognises the increasing evidence that even
when they are not doing serious harm, humanitarians are frequently not doing
much good, and that they need, as we saw in the previous chapter, to take
outcomes, the consequences of their actions, seriously. It is also linked to the shift
away from seeing victims as helpless and the shift in vocabulary from relief to
“assistance”.
So what does accountability mean for humanitarians? In practice, it has
resulted in a number of widely, though not universally, endorsed documents and
networks: the Red Cross Code of Conduct;^14 The Sphere Project,^15 which resulted in
12
There is an interesting parallel here with the quality agenda, and benchmarking exercises,
in higher education. 13
Hammond, "The Power of Holding Humanitarianism Hostage and the Myth of Protective
Principles", 193. 14
15 IFRC, The Code of Conduct.
The Sphere Project. Available at http://www.sphereproject.org/; accessed on 13 August
2010.