人道主义行动中的问责制

IF 1.4 Q3 DEMOGRAPHY
Dorothea Hilhorst, Samantha Melis, Rodrigo Mena, Roanne van Voorst
{"title":"人道主义行动中的问责制","authors":"Dorothea Hilhorst, Samantha Melis, Rodrigo Mena, Roanne van Voorst","doi":"10.1093/rsq/hdab015","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Although a growing number of NGOs are combining humanitarian and development activities, it was long the case that humanitarian action was isolated from discussions and practices in the world of development. The work of saving lives was deemed to be guided solely by the humanitarian principles, and discussions on accountability were rare. In the 1990s, humanitarian standards initiatives arose in recognition that humanitarian organisations were not accountable to affected populations. This article aims to take stock of accountability initiatives and practices in the sector. It builds on accountability theory in distinguishing upward, sideways, and downward accountability, and incorporates formal and informal forms of accountability. It is based on empirical research in Myanmar, Afghanistan, and Sierra Leone. The first part of the article outlines the history of accountability in the humanitarian sector, including an accountability timeline, and discusses current trends in performances around accountability towards displaced people, minorities, and other recipients of aid. It then presents the findings from the three countries. The article concludes by calling attention to the everyday politics of accountability, the widening accountability arena, the differential accountability demands on international and national aid providers, and the crucial importance of sideways accountability to bring accountability to a next level.","PeriodicalId":39907,"journal":{"name":"Refugee Survey Quarterly","volume":"1 9‐10","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Accountability in Humanitarian Action\",\"authors\":\"Dorothea Hilhorst, Samantha Melis, Rodrigo Mena, Roanne van Voorst\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/rsq/hdab015\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Although a growing number of NGOs are combining humanitarian and development activities, it was long the case that humanitarian action was isolated from discussions and practices in the world of development. The work of saving lives was deemed to be guided solely by the humanitarian principles, and discussions on accountability were rare. In the 1990s, humanitarian standards initiatives arose in recognition that humanitarian organisations were not accountable to affected populations. This article aims to take stock of accountability initiatives and practices in the sector. It builds on accountability theory in distinguishing upward, sideways, and downward accountability, and incorporates formal and informal forms of accountability. It is based on empirical research in Myanmar, Afghanistan, and Sierra Leone. The first part of the article outlines the history of accountability in the humanitarian sector, including an accountability timeline, and discusses current trends in performances around accountability towards displaced people, minorities, and other recipients of aid. It then presents the findings from the three countries. The article concludes by calling attention to the everyday politics of accountability, the widening accountability arena, the differential accountability demands on international and national aid providers, and the crucial importance of sideways accountability to bring accountability to a next level.\",\"PeriodicalId\":39907,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Refugee Survey Quarterly\",\"volume\":\"1 9‐10\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-10-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Refugee Survey Quarterly\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/rsq/hdab015\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"DEMOGRAPHY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Refugee Survey Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/rsq/hdab015","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DEMOGRAPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

虽然越来越多的非政府组织将人道主义活动与发展活动结合起来,但长期以来,人道主义行动与发展领域的讨论和实践是孤立的。拯救生命的工作被认为完全以人道主义原则为指导,关于问责制的讨论很少。在20世纪90年代,人们认识到人道主义组织不对受影响的人口负责,于是出现了人道主义标准倡议。本文旨在对该部门的问责倡议和实践进行评估。它建立在责任理论的基础上,区分了向上、横向和向下的责任,并结合了正式和非正式的责任形式。它基于对缅甸、阿富汗和塞拉利昂的实证研究。文章的第一部分概述了人道主义部门问责制的历史,包括问责制时间表,并讨论了目前在对流离失所者、少数民族和其他受援者问责方面的表现趋势。然后,报告展示了这三个国家的调查结果。文章最后呼吁关注问责制的日常政治、不断扩大的问责领域、对国际和国家援助提供者的不同问责要求,以及将问责制提升到下一个水平的横向问责制的至关重要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Accountability in Humanitarian Action
Although a growing number of NGOs are combining humanitarian and development activities, it was long the case that humanitarian action was isolated from discussions and practices in the world of development. The work of saving lives was deemed to be guided solely by the humanitarian principles, and discussions on accountability were rare. In the 1990s, humanitarian standards initiatives arose in recognition that humanitarian organisations were not accountable to affected populations. This article aims to take stock of accountability initiatives and practices in the sector. It builds on accountability theory in distinguishing upward, sideways, and downward accountability, and incorporates formal and informal forms of accountability. It is based on empirical research in Myanmar, Afghanistan, and Sierra Leone. The first part of the article outlines the history of accountability in the humanitarian sector, including an accountability timeline, and discusses current trends in performances around accountability towards displaced people, minorities, and other recipients of aid. It then presents the findings from the three countries. The article concludes by calling attention to the everyday politics of accountability, the widening accountability arena, the differential accountability demands on international and national aid providers, and the crucial importance of sideways accountability to bring accountability to a next level.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Refugee Survey Quarterly
Refugee Survey Quarterly Social Sciences-Political Science and International Relations
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
8.30%
发文量
26
期刊介绍: The Refugee Survey Quarterly is published four times a year and serves as an authoritative source on current refugee and international protection issues. Each issue contains a selection of articles and documents on a specific theme, as well as book reviews on refugee-related literature. With this distinctive thematic approach, the journal crosses in each issue the entire range of refugee research on a particular key challenge to forced migration. The journal seeks to act as a link between scholars and practitioners by highlighting the evolving nature of refugee protection as reflected in the practice of UNHCR and other major actors in the field.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信