THE HUMANITARIAN ASSISTANCE DILEMMA: THE MORAL COST OF WITHDRAWING ASSISTANCE

Abstract

This thesis considers the humanitarian assistance dilemma: when non-governmental humanitarian aid agencies can reduce harm and preserve more lives by withdrawing aid or reallocating aid to other places, should they stop providing the aid and withdraw assistance from current aid recipients? The existing literature on humanitarian assistance is mainly discussed in the simple consequentialist language of aid utility, cost effectiveness, and the maximisation of harm-reduction. In doing so, it largely suggests that aid organisations should leave. This thesis rejects this approach. Instead, it defends the ‘Non-consequentialist Approach’ to the humanitarian assistance dilemma. This account highlights three non-consequentialist considerations and suggests that humanitarian aid agencies stay and continue to provide assistance. These are: (1) humanitarian aid workers’ special relationships with those whom they are assisting, (2) humanitarian aid agencies’ causal responsibility to assist those whom they have made vulnerable, and (3) humanitarian aid agencies’ obligations to fulfil reasonable expectations of those assisted.

Date of Award	31 Dec 2017
Original language	English
Awarding Institution	The University of Manchester
Supervisor	James Pattison (Supervisor)