This chapter examines the different kinds of humanitarian governance that emerged in the British Empire in relationship to the colonies. One kind was organized around human rights and believed that governance was designed to ensure that the local peoples were protected from settlers and could lead to thoughts of their equality and even independence. The other kind was organized around humanitarianism and the idea that alleviating suffering, rather than building empancipation, was the extent of humanitarian governance.

Chapter 3 focuses on the problem of accountability in global governance. It follows what happens when UN sanctions powers originally designed to discipline states are used to target individuals suspected of being associated with terrorism. It provides a detailed genealogical account of the emergence of the UN1267 Office of the Ombudsperson - a procedural mechanism created by the Security Council in 2009 to provide redress to listed individuals. Most scholars argue that the Ombudsperson is an important step in the right direction towards greater human rights compliance by international organisations. This chapter challenges this narrative of global legal progress by advancing two main arguments. First, that different actors in the listing assemblage enact fundamentally different versions of the list through their practice. The ISIL and Al-Qaida list is best thought of as what STS scholars call a ‘multiple object’. Second, the Ombudsperson is an important figure of legal expertise that helps contain this multiplicity and hold the different strands of the listing assemblage together. This chapter closes by arguing that the Ombudsperson’s delisting processes and practices are primarily concerned with embedding new forms of preemptive security, aligning different actors and smoothing over conflicts of the list.