Hostname: page-component-5db58dd55d-4jdj6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-06-30T14:35:44.189Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Unfinished Critique and the Duality of Humanitarian Digital Technologies – ADDENDUM

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 June 2026

Larissa Fast Open the ORCID record for Larissa Fast [Opens in a new window]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content. As you have access to this content, full HTML content is provided on this page. A PDF of this content is also available in through the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Information

Type
Addendum
Information
Ethics & International Affairs , First View , pp. 1
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - SA
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the same Creative Commons licence is used to distribute the re-used or adapted article and the original article is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press or the rights holder(s) must be obtained prior to any commercial use.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2026. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs

The author regrets that the following conflict of interest statement was missing from the published article:

“In this review essay, I discuss Kristin Bergtora Sandvik’s book Humanitarian Extractivism (Manchester University Press, 2023). I was part of the core team on the research project that undergirded much of the monograph, and provided feedback on many of the ideas Sandvik elaborates in the book.”

References

Larissa, Fast, “Unfinished Critique and the Duality of Humanitarian Digital Technologies,” Ethics & International Affairs 39, no. 4 (2025), pp. 389–403. doi:10.1017/S0892679426100355Google Scholar