Citation

Adami M. Disasters 2019; ePub(ePub): ePub.

Affiliation

Department of War Studies and the Dickson Poon School of Law, King's College London.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2019, John Wiley and Sons)

DOI

10.1111/disa.12426

PMID

31782168

Abstract

There is an ongoing debate between old humanitarianism, which is based on the principle of neutrality, and short-term and relief-based assistance, and new humanitarianism based on advocacy and development. This work looks at this debate as if it was the humanitarian equivalent of the legal debate between IHL and IHRL. It thus tries to regulate this debate through the lex specialis and the use of the belts and suspenders approach. It will be argued that the lex specialis could help to regulate some fights between old and new humanitarianism, even if the war goes on. To be neutral or not to be neutral?- that is the question. And it is in front of this question that it is possible to understand the limited function of the lex specialis. This is because lex specialis does not determine which approach should apply and which should not. There is no superior approach. In conclusion, the belt and suspenders approach helps to understand that "what is the right approach for humanitarian actors?" is not the right question to ask, and both positions are valid or simply both positions apply. It is thus important to clarify and combine the two humanitarianisms. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

2019.

Language: en

Keywords

Dunantist; International human rights law (IHRL); humanitarianism; international humanitarian law (IHL); lex specialis; neutrality