Before 1990 and the emergence of disaster risk reduction or (DRR), humanitarianism, which is fueled

In response to the recent failure of the international community to prevent the famine crisis in the Horn of Africa since July 2011, Suzanne Dvorak the chief executive of Save the Children wrote that, “We need to provide help now. But we cannot forget that these children are wasting away in a disaster that we could - and should - have prevented” she added, “The UN estimates that every $1 spent in prevention saves $7 in emergency spending.” (Dvorak, 2011).

The location and geography of the country has caused the people to experience famine after famine, leaving many to die from starvation. A famine is in definition, “A great shortage or an extreme scarcity of food over an extended period of time” (Webster). There are several different types of famine that occur in different types of the world. The type that Ethiopia generally goes through is called a Ravallion. During a Ravallion famine, there are unusually large amounts of causalities with extreme shortages of food in certain parts of the population. There are many things that cause famine, whether it’s draught, plague, or civil disrupt. Right now, Ethiopia is experiencing a draught that has killed almost all of their crops. Because of the famines that Ethiopia experiences most every year, there is usually an increase in the amount of people malnourished. This year, 11to 14 million people are expected to go hungry leaving many to starve to death. Ethiopia has experienced many draughts like these, the worst however, being in 1983. This draught lasted two years and the draught alone killed over 400,000 people in one year, this doesn’t include the deaths that were due to starvation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983%E2%80%931985_famine_in_Ethiopia).

To understand the impact of humanitarian crises and how international politics play a role, a common definition of such crises must be understood. In his book “Humanitarian Crises and the International

Natural calamities are unpredictable phenomena’s where the damage may be countless and immeasurable examples of natural calamities are earthquakes, floods and famine. In situations like this relief operations are challenging even though many organizations and nations extend their resources to overcome the disaster. We often face issues and concerns in a massive disaster which may lead to ethical-dilemma and criticism. When we analyze disaster situation ethical concerns arises. Here I would like to present the ethical dilemma involved in the rescue operations in Haiti disaster and analysis of the

The main point of Banerjee and Duflo’s Poor Economics (2012) is that aid is neither good nor bad: there are instances where it can help greatly and instances where it can fail those it seeks to help(4). Aid is a powerful tool, therefore it’s imperative that we carefully select the right types of projects (Banerjee & Duflo, 2012, p. 4-5). Banerjee and Duflo (2012) present a few key points of action as a framework for approaching aid, with the broadest issue being the idea that too much responsibility is placed on the poor in making the most basic decisions (268-69). One example that Banerjee and Duflo (2012) offer is the fact that many of the poorest people don’t have sanitary water

One of the world's literally the newest country South Sudan mostly is in a famine circumstance right now in a particularly big way. According to the UN 20 million people might essentially be at risk of famine in Nigeria, Yemen and Somalia, which mostly is fairly significant. Also 70 million people will generally be in need of emergency food and water aid, showing how also 70 million people will basically be in need of emergency food and water aid in a subtle way. I specifically think that the UN and south sudan government should for the most part look for all intents and purposes more into what actually started the famine so they can actually prevent it from happening in for all intents and purposes other countries, showing how one of the world's hardly the newest country South Sudan particularly is in a famine circumstance right now in a really big way. The UN should focus on stopping the civil war which may generally help for all intents and purposes stop the famine while all the pretty other anti-famine organizations for the most part provide food and water to the people affected, definitely further showing how Earlier this February The United Nations for all intents and purposes said some parts of the world kind of are famine, really last time this essentially happened it really was in 2011, or so they actually

Some people speak against U.S foreign aid being sent to Africa for humanitarian reasons. Others speak out in favor of such actions. All of us have seen the news tickers with vital headlines about “people being devastated by droughts in Zimbabwe and unhygienic water in Sudan”, but what is their government doing about it. Personally, I’ve asked myself several founded inquiries about where is this foreign aid going to and what are some of the achievements being made. I’ve acquired over time well-built knowledge in relation to the United Nations and the work they perform globally to promote stability and development. I will be bringing in several valid arguments to get to the bottom of this controversial subject of

Famine is something that is not very common. It is a widespread and extreme scarcity of food. According to the United Nations, “ more than two people per 10,000 die each day, acute malnutrition rates are above 30 percent, all livestock is dead and there is less than 2,100 kilocalories of food and 4 liters of water available per person per day” (LeGagnoux,Borgen Project ), confirming that Somalia is in fact suffering through a famine.

has a moral imperative with its position of superpower. Humanitarian action is designed not to resolve conflicts but to protect human dignity and save lives. By evaluating interventions from the perspective of the victims rather than the interveners, it carves a new path for redefining the legitimacy and legality of interventions made in the name of human rights and humanitarianism. In general, the purpose of humanitarian governance might be not only to save lives but also to save humanity and create a cosmopolitan world order. The intervention is good not only for the object but also for the subject- it helps reaffirm the individual’s sense of her own humanity. Information and transformation technologies make it impossible to use ignorance as an excuse, and the rise of more efficient and effective delivery systems means that it is possible to respond to emergencies when something can still be done. The action of intervention would maintain the reliability of the United States, the international community, and the rule of international

In continuing to define pure humanitarianism by explaining what it is not, we’ll delve into institutionalization. We can understand contemporary humanitarians by “their commitment to defending their own institutional interest, as well as the degree to which that commitment influences the way they conceive of providing help to people in need.” Humanitarian actors might not be willing to provide aid if it means violating their own interests. This further takes away from the goal of humanitarianism of providing universal aid. Increasingly bureaucratic humanitarian organizations are becoming more subjective in who can be helped and how interests can be elevated as a result.

They helped in addressing the gap through the coordination and organising a collective response of all actors in the humanitarian system which has made it more effective. The countries which have the cluster system of approach can easily tell or identify the duplication in project coverage thought the cluster meeting or by consolidated appeal process. The individual countries will also have certain measures which helps in the effective use of humanitarian processes. This widely followed in Somalia to assess the gap and coverage analysis in the nutrition cluster. This basically helps them in finding out the coverage in geographical areas and if the coverage is low further actions are taken and also to have better predictability and accountability in the humanitarian response. (Boon,

The United Nations and other major humanitarian relief organizations have recently come under fire as many victims have spoken up about being raped or being sexually assaulted in any way. Civil servants, humanitarian workers, peacekeepers, and contractors may seem like the peaceful do-gooders, yet reports by victims have shown otherwise. <= Clear and well articulated thesis

In comparison, in his book Saving Strangers, Nicholas J. Wheeler sets out to argue for what he calls a “solidarist” view of humanitarian intervention, and attempts to dispute the arguments for the contrary “pluralist” or “realist” view. Both books are very different in composition, but both set out to answer many of the difficult questions that are brought forth in the humanitarian intervention debate. Although it is clear that Humanitarian Intervention attempts to present the reader with many different viewpoints on the subject, on many levels these arguments converge well with that of Saving Strangers in that its contributors more often discuss the need for reform in international law or a looser adherence to it in certain situations, as well as a questioning of the legal priority sovereignty has over human rights. In essence, the purpose of Holzgrefe and Keohane’s book is to allow the reader to survey a variety of arguments to formulate his or her own viewpoint on humanitarian intervention, while Wheeler’s book is an attempt to convince the reader of his “solidarist” views on the subject. Because of this, it is easier to find a clear, proposed solution from Saving Strangers than Humanitarian Intervention because of the more varied perspectives present in the latter.

With the impact of globalisation and ‘the intensification of worldwide social relations’, one of the biggest debates in the international society today is centred around the justification of humanitarian intervention. This essay will first present the proposing and opposing arguments for humanitarian intervention as well as argue that humanitarian intervention does ultimately represent a threat to international order.

For quite some time now the question of whether humanitarian intervention is an unacceptable assault on sovereignty has been at the top of the list of priority questions for international relations professors. In 2004 Neil MacFarlane, a professor of international relations, Carolin J Thielking, a doctoral candidate in international relations, and Thomas G Weiss, the director of the Ralph Bunch Institute for International Studies, gathered together to review the question of whether anyone cares about humanitarian intervention anymore. Central to their argument was the ‘responsibility to protect’ idea, and the effect