IRRC No. 907/908/909
More humanitarian accountability, less humanitarian access? Alternative ideas on accountability for protection activities in conflict settings
Reading time 73 min read
This article is also available in
Abstract
Ambitions to fulfil accountability demands in humanitarian action are high,
including for protection activities in armed conflict settings. However, from
a Dunantist position, meeting accountability demands is often not only
unsatisfactory for practical reasons, but is also inappropriate in view of
humanitarian principles and flawed from related ethical perspectives. Regarding
accountability primarily as a technical exercise, rather than as being linked to
ethical perspectives on humanitarianism and its principles, may thus inadvertently
contribute to reduced acceptability of, and ultimately reduced access for,
humanitarian actors. Dunantist actors wishing to stay true to their ethical
approach need new ways of thinking about accountability, a reflection which can
serve as an example for an ongoing need to consider differences between actors
within the humanitarian–development nexus.