Humanitarian diplomacy and the countries of the Global South: Trends and discourses

In recent years, discussions about the essence of humanitarization and humanization of international relations have intensified due to the aggravation of economic, social, and ethical problems against the background of a sharp deterioration in the international situation, particularly in the Global South. This paper aims to identify the specifics and provide a comparative analysis of the approaches of both the developed and developing states of the North and the South to the formats, content and purpose of humanitarian diplomacy in contemporary world politics. The first section examines academic discussions on the issues of humanitarian diplomacy. The authors highlight two main approaches in foreign and Russian international political studies to addressing the humanitarian problems of the Global South — an objectal and a subjectal ones. The former is typically associated with the developed countries of the Global North and is rooted in the practices of the colonial era. The latter gained prominence in academic research in the 21st century with the emergence of the ‘new donors’, which promoted joint development programs led by the countries of the Global South and built on regional financial institutions. At the same time, the authors note that academic research tends to focus primarily on the dynamics of aid flows and conditions for development assistance, while a number of current trends in the humanitarian diplomacy remain understudied. These trends are examined in the second section of the article. The authors emphasize the growing trend towards transnationalization and privatization of humanitarian diplomacy, active involvement of non-state and hybrid actors. The third section outlines the key features of humanitarian diplomacy of the leading countries of the Global South (China, India, Turkey), as well as that of the ASEAN states and Arab monarchies. The authors identify several general principles of humanitarian diplomacy shared by the countries of the Global South: a broad, pluralistic understanding of the humanitarian agenda to include cultural, scientific, academic, and youth policy issues; commitment to the ideas of solidarity and humanitarian cooperation (instead of the donor-recipient model); normative neutrality of the humanitarian policy; adherence to the principles of state sovereignty.

1. Bogatyreva O.N. 2022. Gumanitarnaya diplomatiya: sovremennye kontseptsii i podkhody [Humanitarian diplomacy: Modern concepts and approaches]. International Trends, vol. 20, no. 1 (68), pp. 166–191. DOI: 10.17994/ IT.2022.20.1.68.4. (In Russ.)

2. Bogatyreva O.N. 2023. Regional’naya i tsivilizatsionnaya spetsifika gumanitarnoi diplomatii v Latinskoi Amerike [Regional and civilization specific of Latin American humanitarian diplomacy]. In: Bogatyreva O.N. (ed.). Gumanitarnaya diplomatiya: tsivilizatsionnye i natsional’nye modeli [Humanitarian diplomacy: Civilization and national models]. Moscow, Aspekt Press Publ., pp. 61–106. (In Russ.)

3. Gromoglasova E. 2018a. Gumanitarnaya diplomatiya v sovremennykh mezhdunarodnykh otnosheniyakh: opyt sistemnogo issledovaniya [Humanitarian diplomacy in modern international politics: A systemic view]. Moscow, IMEMO RAN Publ. DOI: 10.20542/978-5-9535-0536-9. (In Russ.)

4. Gromoglasova E. 2018b. Gumanitarnaya sostavlyayushchaya vneshnei politiki gosudarstva [Humanitarian component of a state’s foreign policy]. Pathways to Peace and Security, no. 1 (54), pp. 77–91. DOI: 10.20542/2307-14942018-1-77-91. (In Russ.)

5. Gromoglasova E.S. 2019. Gumanitarnaya sostavlyayushchaya vo vneshnei politike gosudarstva [Humanitarian component in a state’s foreign policy]. PhD Thesis. Moscow. (In Russ.)

6. Dmitrieva V.A. 2022. Osobennosti gumanitarnoi diplomatii Meksiki na sovremennom etape [The specifics of modern humanitarian diplomacy of Mexico]. Latinskaya Amerika, no. 9, pp. 19–35. DOI: 10.31857/S0044748X0021271-7. (In Russ.)

7. Dmitrieva V.A., Melikov A.A., Shvarts B.M. 2022. Turtsiya [Türkiye]. In: Kuznetsov D.A. (ed.). Praktika sovremennoi gumanitarnoi diplomatii [Practice of modern humanitarian diplomacy]. Moscow, Editus Publ., pp. 182–193. (In Russ.)

8. Ivanov A.V. 2016. Moral’nye dilemmy i kontseptual’nye protivorechiya teorii ‘spravedlivoi voiny’ [Moral dilemmas and conceptual contradictions of the theory of ‘Just war’]. Istoricheskie, filosofskie, politicheskie i yuridicheskie nauki, kul’turologiya i iskusstvovedenie. Voprosy teorii i praktiki, no. 7 (69), part 2, pp. 55–58. (In Russ.)

9. Kuznetsov D.A. 2024. Sovremennaya gumanitarnaya diplomatiya: tendentsii i vyzovy [Modern humanitarian diplomacy: Trends and challenges]. In: Lebedeva M.M., Kuznetsov D.A. (eds.). Mezhdunarodnoe gumanitarnoe sotrudnichestvo [International humanitarian cooperation]. Moscow, Prospekt Publ., pp. 23–35. (In Russ.)

10. Lebedeva M.M. 2013. Aktory sovremennoi mirovoi politiki: trendy razvitiya [Actors of contemporary world politics: Trends of development]. MGIMO Review of International Relations, no. 3 (28), pp. 38–42. (In Russ.)

11. Lebedeva M.M. 2021. Gumanitarizatsiya mirovoi politiki [Humanitarization of world politics]. Polis. Political Studies, no. 4, pp. 76–87. DOI: 10.17976/jpps/2021.04.07. (In Russ.)

12. Lebedeva M.M., Ustinova M.I. 2020. Gumanitarnye i sotsial’nye voprosy v Sovete Bezopasnosti OON [The humanitarian and social agenda of the UN Security Council]. International Organizations Research Journal, no. 1, pp. 135–154. DOI: 10.17323/1996-7845-2020-01-06. (In Russ.)

13. Bogatyreva O.N., Kovba D.M., Tabarintseva-Romanova K.M. (eds.). 2021. Mnogostoronnyaya gumanitarnaya diplomatiya: universal’nyi i regional’nyi opyt [Multilateral humanitarian diplomacy: Universal and regional experience]. Moscow, Nauka Publ. (In Russ.)

14. Morozkina A. 2019. Ofitsial’naya pomoshch’ razvitiyu: tendentsii poslednego desyatiletiya [Official development aid: Trends of the last decade]. World Economy and International Relations, vol. 63, no. 9, pp. 86–92. DOI: 10.20542/0131-2227-2019-63-9-86-92. (In Russ.)

15. Otvetstvennost’ po zashchite (R2P): kontseptsiya, zhelatel’naya norma ili printsip? Interv’yu s professorom Aleksom Dzh. Bellami, Universitet Kvinslenda (Avstraliya) [R2P: Concept, aspirational norm or principle? Interview with Professor Alex J. Bellamy, University of Queensland (Australia)]. 2018. Vestnik RUDN. International Relations, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 955–964. (In Russ.)

16. Pogorel’skaya A. 2022. Normativnaya sila ES v kontekste evropeiskoi politiki razvitiya [The EU normative power in development policy]. Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. International Relations, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 456–474. DOI: 10.21638/spbu06.2021.406. (In Russ.)

17. Kuznetsov D.A. (ed.). 2022. Praktika sovremennoi gumanitarnoi diplomatii [Practice of modern humanitarian diplomacy]. Moscow, Editus Publ. (In Russ.)

18. Rozhkova L.V., Kolodyazhnaya D.I. 2018. Gumanitarnaya interventsiya v mirovoi politike [Humanitarian intervention in world politics]. Vestnik Penzenskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta, no. 1 (21), pp. 45–49. (In Russ.)

19. Tabarintseva-Romanova K.M. 2020. Zontichnaya kontseptsiya diplomatii v mezhdunarodnom diskurse [Umbrella concept of diplomacy in international discourse]. Diplomaticheskaya sluzhba, no. 3, pp. 66–72. DOI: 10.33920/vne-012003-09. (In Russ.)

20. Tabarintseva-Romanova K.M. 2021. Mezhdunarodnoe gumanitarnoe sotrudnichestvo: zarubezhnye podkhody k izucheniyu i realizatsii [International humanitarian cooperation: Foreign approaches to studying and realization]. Comparative Politics Russia, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 31–46. DOI: 10.24411/2221-3279-2021-10038. (In Russ.)

21. Tarasova L.N. 2011. K diskussii o pravomernosti gumanitarnoi interventsii [On the issue of legality of humanitarian intervention]. Vestnik Volgogradskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriya 5, Yurisprudentsiya, no. 1 (14), pp. 99–105. (In Russ.)

22. Tyulebekov T.B., Nechaeva E.L. 2020. Sozdanie Novogo banka razvitiya kak integriruyushchego mekhanizma stran BRICS [Establishing the New Development Bank as an integrating mechanism for the BRICS countries]. Bulletin of L.N. Gumilyov Eurasian National University. Political Science. Regional Studies. Oriental Studies. Turkology Series, no. 4, pp. 149–156. DOI: 10.32523/26166887/2020-133-4-149-156. (In Russ.)

23. Khudaykulova A.V. 2016a. Novoe v upravlenii mezhdunarodnymi konfliktami: oposredovannye voiny vmesto gumanitarnykh interventsii [Conflict management in the new century: Back to proxy wars?]. International Trends, vol. 14, no. 4 (47), pp. 67–79. DOI: 10.17994/IT.2016.14.4.47.5. (In Russ.)

24. Khudaykulova A.V. 2016b. Teorii bezopasnosti tret’ego mira [Security theories of Third World]. Vestnik RUDN. International Relations, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 412–425. (In Russ.)

25. Yudin N.O. 2024. Transnatsional’naya korporatsiya kak aktor gumanitarnoi diplomatii [TNC as an actor of humanitarian diplomacy]. Social and Humanitarian Knowledge, no. 2, pp. 147–150. (In Russ.)

26. Aaltola M. 2009. Western spectacle of governance and the emergence of humanitarian world politics. New York, Palgrave Macmillan.

27. Acharya A. 2020. From heaven to Earth: ‘Cultural idealism’ and ‘moral realism’ as Chinese contributions to global international relations. In: Qin Y. (ed.). Global IR theory. London, Routledge, pp. 158–185.

28. Alesina A., Dollar D. 2000. Who gives foreign aid to whom and why? Journal of Economic Growth, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 33–63.

29. Ali M., Banks G., Parsons N. 2015. Why donors give aid and to whom? A critique of the historical and contemporary aid allocation regime. The Dialogue, vol. X, no. 2, pp. 116–131.

30. Arvin B.M., Baum C. 2007. Tied and untied foreign aid: A theoretical and empirical analysis. Keio Economic Studies, vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 71–79.

31. Barnett М. 2013. Empire of humanity: A history of humanitarianism. Ithaca, Cornell University Press.

32. Barnett M. 2005. Humanitarianism transformed. Perspectives on Politics, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 723–740.

33. Becker B. 2020. Colonial legacies in international aid: Policy priorities and actor constellations. In: Schmitt C. (ed.). From colonialism to international aid: External actors and social protection in the Global South. Cham, Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 161–186.

34. Bell D. 2010. Ethics and world politics. Oxford, OUP.

35. Bourguignon F., Platteau J.-P. 2015. The hard challenge of aid coordination. World Development, vol. 69, pp. 86–97.

36. Bourguignon F., Sundberg M. 2007. Aid effectiveness: Opening the black box. The American Economic Review, vol. 97, no. 2, pp. 316–321.

37. Brautigam D. 2009. The dragon’s gift: The real story of China and Africa. Oxford, OUP.

38. Campbell D., Shapiro M.J. 1999. Moral spaces: Rethinking ethics and world politics. Minnesota, University of Minnesota Press.

39. Cook A., Gong L. 2021. Humanitarian diplomacy in the Asia-Pacific: Part I. Asian Journal of Comparative Politics, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 183–187. DOI: 10.1177/205789112110456.

40. Crawford N. 2002. Argument and change in world politics: Ethics, decolonization, and humanitarian intervention. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

41. Dávid-Barrett E., Fazekas M., Hellmann P. et al. 2020. Controlling corruption in development aid: New evidence from contract-level data. Studies in Comparative International Development, vol. 55, pp. 481–515.

42. Davutoğlu A. 2013. Turkey’s humanitarian diplomacy: Objectives, challenges and prospects. Nationalities Papers: The Journal of Nationalism and Ethnicity, vol. 41, no. 6, pp. 865–870.

43. De Lauri A. 2018. Humanitarian diplomacy: Research agenda. CMI Brief, no. 4, pp. 1–4.

44. Dmitrieva V.A., Kuznetsov D.A. 2024. The role of the IBSA Fund in foreign aid policies of IBSA and BRICS member states. MGIMO Review of International Relations, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 113–134. DOI: 10.24833/2071-8160-2024-1-94-113-134.

45. Doucouliagos C., Manning E. 2009. The allocation of development aid assistance: Do new donors have old motives? Proceedings of the Australasian Public Choice Conference. Burwood, Deakin University. P. 1–28.

46. Douzinas C. 2007. The many faces of humanitarianism. Parrhesia, no. 2, pp. 1–28.

47. Dreher A., Fuchs A., Nunnenkamp P. 2013. New donors. International Interactions, vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 402–415.

48. Dreher A., Nunnenkamp P., Thiele R. 2011. Are ‘new’ donors different? Comparing the allocation of bilateral aid between nonDAC and DAC donor countries. World Development, vol. 39, no. 11, pp. 1950–1968.

49. Duffield M. 2007. Development, security and unending war. Governing the world of peoples. Cambridge, Polity.

50. Duffield M. 2019. Post-humanitarianism: Governing precarity through adaptive design. Journal of Humanitarian Affairs, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 15–27.

51. Egeland J. 2013. Humanitarian diplomacy. In: Cooper A.F., Heine J., Thakur R. (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of modern diplomacy. Oxford, OUP, pp. 352–368.

52. Fuchs A., Dreher A., Nunnenkamp P. 2014. Determinants of donor generosity: A survey of the aid budget literature. World Development, vol. 56, pp. 172–199.

53. Gong L. 2021. Humanitarian diplomacy as an instrument for China’s image-building. Asian Journal of Comparative Politics, no. 3, pp. 1–15. DOI: 10.1177/20578911211019257.

54. Guillot P. 1994. France, peacekeeping and intervention. International Peacekeeping, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 30–43.

55. Haang’andu P., Béland D. 2020. Transnational actors and the diffusion of social policies: An ideational approach. In: Schmitt C. (ed.). From colonialism to international aid: External actors and social protection in the Global South. Cham, Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 305–332.

56. Halimatusa’diyah L. 2015. Zakat and social protection: The relationship between socio-religious CSOs and the government of Indonesia. Journal of Civil Society, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 79–99. DOI: 10.1080/17448689.2015.1019181.

57. Minear L., Smith H. (eds.). 2007. Humanitarian diplomacy: Practitioners and their craft. Tokyo, United Nations Press.

58. Jones S. 2015. Aid supplies over time: Addressing heterogeneity, trends, and dynamics. World Development, vol. 69, pp. 31–43. DOI: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2013.12.014.

59. Knack S., Rogers F.H., Eubank N. 2011. Aid quality and donor rankings. World Development, vol. 39, no. 11, pp. 1907–1917.

60. Knack S., Smets L. 2012. Aid tying and donor fragmentation. World Development, vol. 44, pp. 63–76. DOI: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2012.09.006.

61. Kolb R. 2003. Note on humanitarian intervention. International Review of the Red Cross, no. 849, pp. 119–134.

62. Kotilainen N. 2016. Visual theaters of suffering: Constituting the Western spectator in the age of humanitarian world politics. Helsinki, Unigrafia.

63. Lewis A.M. 2023. Humanitarian and military intervention in Libya and Syria: Parliamentary debate and policy failure. New York, Routledge.

64. Maxwell D., Gelsdorf K. 2019. Understanding the humanitarian world. London, Routledge.

65. Minor A.D. 2014. Faith in finance: The role of Zakat in international development. Austin, The University of Texas at Austin. Master of Arts and Master of Global Policy Studies, Dissertation.

66. Mol R. et al. 2022. India’s health diplomacy as a soft power tool towards Africa: Humanitarian and geopolitical analysis. Journal of Asian and African Studies, vol. 57, no. 6, pp. 1109–1125. DOI: 10.1177/0021909621103953.

67. Morales H. 2017. Ayuda Oficial al Desarrollo de Cuba en el Mundo. Guatemala.

68. Narang N. 2015. Assisting uncertainty: How humanitarian aid can inadvertently prolong civil war. International Studies Quarterly, no. 59, pp. 1–12. DOI: 10.1111/isqu.12151.

69. Palagashvili L., Williamson C.R. 2021. Grading foreign aid agencies: Best practices across traditional and emerging donors. Review of Development Economics, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 654–676. DOI: 10.1111/rode.12747.

70. Panajoti T. 2009. Humanitarian crises and world politics: The conflict between ethics and pragmatism in humanitarian intervention decisions. Critique: A Worldwide Journal of Politics, fall/spring, pp. 77–98.

71. Panda J.P. 2016. Institutionalizing the African reach: Reviewing China’s and India’s multilateral drives. Journal of Asian and African Studies, no. 6, pp. 1–20. DOI: 10.1177/0021909615622348.

72. Paulo S., Reisen H. 2010. Eastern donors and Western soft law: Towards a DAC donor peer review of China and India? Development Policy Review, vol. 28, no. 5, pp. 535–552.

73. Puri J., Aladysheva A., Iversen V. et al. 2017. Can rigorous impact evaluations improve humanitarian assistance? Journal of Development Economics, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 519–542. DOI: 10.1080/19439342.2017.1388267.

74. Ratajczak M., Broś N. 2023. Humanitarian diplomacy: The case of Switzerland and Sweden. Politeja, no. 82, pp. 143–163. DOI: 10.12797/Politeja.20.2023.82.08.

75. Régnier P. 2011. The emerging concept of humanitarian diplomacy: Identification of a community of practice and prospects for international recognition. International Review of the Red Cross, vol. 93, no. 884, pp. 1211–1237.

76. Round J.I., Odedokun M. 2004. Aid effort and its determinants. International Review of Economics & Finance, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 293–309.

77. Seybolt T.B. 2009. Harmonizing the humanitarian aid network: Adaptive change in a complex system. International Studies Quarterly, vol. 53, pp. 1027–1050.

78. Steinwand M.C. 2015. Compete or coordinate? Aid fragmentation and lead donorship. International Organization, vol. 69, no. 2, pp. 443–472. DOI: 10.1017/S0020818314000381.

79. Straus O.S., Wheeler E.P., Ion T.P. et al. 1912. Humanitarian diplomacy of the United States. Proceedings of the American Society of International Law at Its Annual Meeting (1907–1917), vol. 6, pp. 45–59.

80. Tokatlian J.G. 2011. Latinoamérica y sus ‘alianzas’ extrarregionales: entre el espejismo, la ilusión y la evidencia. In: Wollrad D., Maihold G., Mols M. (eds.). La agenda internacional de América Latina: Entre nuevas y viejas alianzas. Buenos Aires, Nueva Sociedad, SWP, Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, pp. 139–160.

81. Vickers B. 2013. Africa and the rising powers: Bargaining for the ‘marginalized many’. International Affairs, vol. 89, no. 3, pp. 673–693. DOI: 10.2307/23473849.

82. Yaffe H. 2023. Cuban medical internationalism: A pradigm for South– South cooperation. International Journal of Cuban Studies, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 203–224. DOI: 10.13169/intejcubastud.15.2.0203.