Scholarlink

<p>Humanitarian action is increasingly described as being “under attack”, yet existing analyses often treat current pressures as isolated failures of access, coordination, or legal compliance. This article argues that the contemporary crisis of humanitarianism reflects a broader pattern of structural strain affecting the material, normative, institutional, and legitimacy conditions that have historically sustained large-scale humanitarian cooperation.</p><p>Drawing on four illustrative cases — Gaza, Sudan, Myanmar and Ukraine — the article advances two connected claims. First, that the simultaneous erosion of resources, shared norms, and symbolic legitimacy is reshaping humanitarian action in ways that cannot be explained by operational failure or context-specific violence alone. Second, and more centrally, that this erosion is producing a specific dual dynamic: operational fragmentation at the level of delivery, combined with re-concentration of authority over funding, access, information, and legitimacy at the political and institutional level.</p><p>Rather than signalling the end of humanitarianism, this transformation points to the emergence of more localised, politically embedded, and uneven forms of humanitarian governance. While these configurations may enable continued action in constrained environments, they also raise significant challenges for accountability, equity, impartiality, and protection standards. Understanding this dual dynamic — and situating it within the longer history of humanitarianism’s structural tensions — is essential for assessing the future of humanitarian governance in an increasingly fragmented and contested global order.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Humanitarianism under structural strain: fragmentation and the reconfiguration of humanitarian governance in contemporary crises

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年8月3日

查看全文
  • Fernando Olalla Carabias

摘要

Humanitarian action is increasingly described as being “under attack”, yet existing analyses often treat current pressures as isolated failures of access, coordination, or legal compliance. This article argues that the contemporary crisis of humanitarianism reflects a broader pattern of structural strain affecting the material, normative, institutional, and legitimacy conditions that have historically sustained large-scale humanitarian cooperation.

Drawing on four illustrative cases — Gaza, Sudan, Myanmar and Ukraine — the article advances two connected claims. First, that the simultaneous erosion of resources, shared norms, and symbolic legitimacy is reshaping humanitarian action in ways that cannot be explained by operational failure or context-specific violence alone. Second, and more centrally, that this erosion is producing a specific dual dynamic: operational fragmentation at the level of delivery, combined with re-concentration of authority over funding, access, information, and legitimacy at the political and institutional level.

Rather than signalling the end of humanitarianism, this transformation points to the emergence of more localised, politically embedded, and uneven forms of humanitarian governance. While these configurations may enable continued action in constrained environments, they also raise significant challenges for accountability, equity, impartiality, and protection standards. Understanding this dual dynamic — and situating it within the longer history of humanitarianism’s structural tensions — is essential for assessing the future of humanitarian governance in an increasingly fragmented and contested global order.