New Humanitarianism and Changing Logics of the Political in International Relations
| Date | 01 January 2015 |
| Author | Hikaru Yamashita |
| DOI | 10.1177/0305829814554408 |
| Published date | 01 January 2015 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Millennium: Journal of
International Studies
2015, Vol. 43(2) 411 –428
© The Author(s) 2014
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0305829814554408
mil.sagepub.com
MILLENNIUM
Journal of International Studies
New Humanitarianism
and Changing Logics of the
Political in International
Relations
Hikaru Yamashita
National Institute for Defense Studies, Japan
Abstract
This article seeks to place new/neo humanitarianism in a wider context of post-Cold War
international relations and argues that its emergence corresponds to an important shift in the
meaning of the political in contemporary international relations. It describes the shift in terms of
the contrast between two logics of politics: the conventional logic of distinction, whereby political
processes take place between territorially separated sovereign entities, and the emerging logic of
translucency. The latter logic, in which new values (and risks) are generated by the actor’s ability
and will to extend beyond its material and ideational boundaries, has been adopted by many global
actors, including humanitarian ones. The article argues that new humanitarianism, which seeks
linkage to activities that were once off limits to traditional humanitarianism, represents another
example of the practical and ideational adaptation on the part of a traditional movement to a new
political landscape.
Keywords
humanitarianism, logic of translucency, politics, sovereignty
It is widely known that the number of assaults, killings and kidnappings of humanitarian
personnel has increased to alarming levels in recent years. According to the Aid Worker
Security Database (AWSD), the number of incidents has been on a steady upward trajec-
tory since the late 1990s and reached 172 cases in 2013. With regard to killings, injuries
and kidnappings, more than 200 humanitarians have been victims per year since 2006,
Corresponding author:
Hikaru Yamashita, National Institute for Defense Studies, 2-2-1 Nakameguro, Meguro, Tokyo 153-8648,
Japan.
Email: hikaru_yamashita@yahoo.co.jp
554408MIL0010.1177/0305829814554408Millennium: Journal of International StudiesYamashita
research-article2014
Article
412 Millennium: Journal of International Studies 43(2)
1. Aid Worker Security Database, available at: https://aidworkersecurity.org/ (accessed 6
February 2014).
2. Joanna Macrae, ‘Analysis and Synthesis’, in The New Humanitarianisms: A Review of Trends
in Global Humanitarian Action, ed. Joanna Macrae (London: Humanitarian Policy Group
Report 11, April 2002), 10.
with a record high of 336 victims, again in 2013. This accounts for more than a quadru-
pling of the figures in the late 1990s.1
The trend has spurred vigorous debates in the humanitarian community on what
caused this crisis in humanitarian assistance and what should be done to deal with it. The
debates revolve around the presumed causal linkage between this crisis and the changed
nature of humanitarian action. Whereas humanitarianism has traditionally been defined
on the basis of a careful distinction from politics, in ‘new’ or ‘neo’ humanitarianism this
dividing line has become blurred, with the result that humanitarians are now seen to be
in closer association with political/military actors and therefore legitimate targets of
attacks. The problem with this debate, however, is its failure to recognise the possibility
that it is not just humanitarianism but also the nature of politics that is currently undergo-
ing significant change. If traditional humanitarianism is quintessentially dependent on
notions of the ‘political’, significant changes in the nature of politics cannot but affect the
nature and scope of humanitarianism.
Instead of viewing humanitarianism as undergoing change while taking politics as
given, this article submits the view that it is the nature of politics that is undergoing
change and that new humanitarianism can rather be seen as an adaptation to this changed
regime of politics. To make this argument, I first analyse the discourses of new humani-
tarianism to show how a blurring of the traditional distinction between humanitarianism
and politics characterises these discourses. The article then introduces two logics of poli-
tics – the traditional ‘logic of distinction’ and an emergent ‘logic of translucency’ – to
articulate the nature of politics in today’s international relations. Finally, I place the
emergence of a new form of humanitarianism within broader changes of politics by sug-
gesting how the new logic of translucency operates within new humanitarianism and
pointing out, further, that the aforementioned crisis in humanitarian assistance can also
be seen as one of the consequences of this operation. The conclusion discusses implica-
tions of this argument and suggests areas for further inquiry.
New Humanitarianism and the ‘Political’ in International
Relations
There is broad consensus among commentators concerning the nature of the changes and
challenges facing humanitarianism. For instance, Joanna Macrae points out that humani-
tarianism is ‘now seen by some to be an organising principle for intervention in internal
conflicts, a tool for peacebuilding and the starting-point for addressing poverty, as well as
a palliative in times of conflict and crisis’.2 Hoffman and Weiss similarly point to the
existence of humanitarian solidarists who insist that humanitarian aid should be ameliora-
tive and address the structural causes of humanitarian crises, and also be useful in terms
To continue reading
Request your trial