As international humanitarian agencies try to aid disaster-stricken populations, the most important question to ask is: how can we build resilience? The classic paradigm of humanitarianism is based on the principles of humanity, impartiality, neutrality, and independence. These principles are meant to ensure that aid is purely needs-based, and that decisions are not driven by political motives or discrimination of any kind (Hilhorst, 2018). In the traditional theory of humanitarianism, recipients of aid are often depicted as victims which can be problematic. By using this label, it is assumed that those in need of humanitarian aid are unable to survive without it. When the new millennium started, people began to question whether classic humanitarianism was ethical. Although aid is not supposed to be driven by political motives, they were and are still present. There needed to be a greater focus on building resilience.

Once classic humanitarianism began to be questioned amongst the global society, a new theory developed, resilience humanitarianism. Hilhorst (2018) states, “The resilience paradigm rests on the notion that people, communities and societies (can) have the capacity to adapt to or spring back from tragic life events and disasters. Disaster, rather than being a total and immobilizing disruption, can become an event in which people seek continuity by using their resources to adapt.” This new way of thinking about humanitarianism has introduced a new approach to aid. In the past, human rights issues were left to international politicians or human rights agencies, like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International. Resilience humanitarianism demands that all aid be judged on how it contributes to promoting human rights. Even though this new method diverts from the classic principles of the past, there are still problems within the world of humanitarian aid. The differences between the two can be seen in the table.

Table 1. Classic humanitarianism and Resilience humanitarianism

Note. Adapted from Classical humanitarianism and resilience humanitarianism: making sense of two brands of humanitarian action by Hilhorst, D., 2018, Journal of International Humanitarian Action.

The differences between the classic and resilience humanitarianism are vastly distinct but the latter benefits those affected most by the crisis. The resilience theory also benefits survivors tremendously because they have a say in what the community needs are and how they should be met. It is crucial for humanitarian agencies and leaders to not impose their own beliefs on how aid is provided and implemented. Hilhorst (2018) acknowledges these pitfalls by stating, “Resilience humanitarianism tends to build on the survival economy and people’s resilience but may be blind to the economic logics of the conflict, and risks of exploitation and abuse of people’s vulnerability.” The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) argues that investing in resilience will:

• Optimize existing resources by investing in more durable solutions and avoiding parallel mechanisms.
• Strengthen infrastructures and national capacities that are more sustainable over the long term.
• Strengthen the capacity of individuals, host communities and states to cope with and recover from possible future shocks.
• Reduce the cost of the international response in the medium term.

Humanitarian crises are extremely complex and there is not an easy solution to solve them. In situations of displacement specifically, aid needs to be focused on building resilience in the new environment where people are relocated. Organizations must be flexible and adapt to the ever-changing environment disaster-affected populations are in. Recipients of aid should be encouraged to be in leadership positions and take an active role within the organizations providing aid and their community. Investing and encouraging self-reliance is crucial to build resiliency amongst these populations, but tools and resources must be accessible.

Underfunding in humanitarian aid has always been a detriment to disaster-stricken populations getting the resources they need. The bulk of the aid humanitarian organizations provide go towards short-term needs, but those funds should be allocated to also serve long-term needs. Shelters for displaced populations shouldn’t be viewed as a temporary site, it should become a community for them. There should be schools, health centers, professional development centers that all displaced persons have access to. Investment in infrastructure is critical because it would create spaces and important resources while also providing employment opportunities as well. This would enable displaced individuals to come to terms with the realization that living in another country isn’t just a temporary waiting period. They will begin to think strategically about the future if they are not viewing these spaces as temporary shelter.

Resilience humanitarianism has reshaped the way aid is provided to disaster-stricken populations. It seeks to find a sustainable solution that empowers the people impacted. In order for organizations to move towards this new kind of humanitarianism, they must overhaul all current aid programs. Although the UNDP has stressed the importance in investing in building resilience, the exploitation of displaced persons continues to persist today. Political motives are still prevalent in the humanitarian sector and prevents those from receiving aid when they need it the most. The global community must address these influences and denounce countries who prohibit aid on these bases. The humanitarian sector has made progress in the way it addresses and distributes aid, but there are still changes needed to truly build resilience in disaster-stricken populations.