effectively adopted a preventive mode. It is hard to identify any humanitarian actor
that does not in some way incorporate preventive aspects into their action.
Nevertheless, there are tensions within professional humanitarianism about
whether their main focus should be root causes, or immediate consequences of
suffering. At a deep level, these relate to whether the emphasis is on the possibility
of human perfectibility, or on a sceptical view of how much suffering can be
averted. For example, Ignatieff argues that the 1949 Geneva Conventions “accept
war as a normal anthropological ritual – the only way that certain human disputes
can be resolved. They seek only to ensure that warriors conform to certain basic
principles of humanity”.^100
Linked to these discussions are the kinds and contexts of suffering that
humanitarians see as most relevant, as suggested by Calhoun’s third item. Is
suffering to be ring-fenced in “emergencies” or understood in a more diffuse and
disparate manner, and what normative framework should be established to
articulate it as a matter for concern. This will emerge clearly in the examination of
how professional humanitarians conceptualise human suffering in Chapter 2, and
again in their debates on whether to align themselves with the project of enshrining
and defending universal human rights, or to dedicate themselves to the pursuit of
global justice (see Chapter 5).
Indeed the question of justice is one of the constant touchstones of debates
about the scope of humanitarianism. The position of Alain Destexhe is a case in
point. “Humanitarian action is noble when coupled with political action and justice.
Without them, it is doomed to failure and ... a conscience-salving gimmick.”^101 Yet
much professional humanitarian action takes place in contexts and timescales
within which it may be difficult to articulate, let alone achieve, justice. One key
question is, should humanitarians seek an alternative nobility in virtues such as
charity? This putative dichotomy will be examined in Chapter 5. But whether
professional humanitarians see themselves as serving the demands of justice or
charity, the content of their action also implies a debate about scope. At the heart
100
101 Ignatieff, The Warrior's Honor , 119.
Cited in Weiss, "Principles, Politics, and Humanitarian Action": 15.