Ambitions to fulfil accountability demands in humanitarian action are high, including for protection activities in armed conflict settings. However, from a Dunantist position, meeting accountability demands is often not only unsatisfactory for practical reasons, but is also inappropriate in view of humanitarian principles and flawed from related ethical perspectives. Regarding accountability primarily as a technical exercise, rather than as being linked to ethical perspectives on humanitarianism and its principles, may thus inadvertently contribute to reduced acceptability of, and ultimately reduced access for, humanitarian actors. Dunantist actors wishing to stay true to their ethical approach need new ways of thinking about accountability, a reflection which can serve as an example for an ongoing need to consider differences between actors within the humanitarian–development nexus.

中文翻译：

---

更多的人道主义责任，更少的人道主义准入？关于冲突环境中保护活动问责制的替代想法

在人道主义行动中满足问责要求的雄心很高，包括在武装冲突环境中的保护活动。然而，从杜南主义者的立场来看，满足问责要求往往不仅由于实际原因不能令人满意，而且从人道主义原则来看也是不合适的，从相关的伦理角度来看也是有缺陷的。因此，将问责制主要视为一项技术工作，而不是与人道主义及其原则的伦理观点相联系，可能会无意中导致人道主义行动者的可接受性降低，并最终减少人道主义行动者的准入。希望忠于其道德方法的杜南主义者需要以新的方式思考问责制，