International humanitarian law

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

International humanitarian law (IHL) is the law that regulates the conduct of war (jus in bello). It is that branch of international law which seeks to limit the effects of armed conflict by protecting persons who are not participating in hostilities, and by restricting and regulating the means and methods of warfare available to combatants. 

 

IHL is inspired by considerations of humanity and the mitigation of human suffering. "It comprises a set of rules, established by treaty or custom, that seeks to protect persons and property/objects that are (or may be) affected by armed conflict and limits the rights of parties to a conflict to use methods and means of warfare of their choice". It includes "the Geneva Conventions and the Hague Conventions, as well as subsequent treaties, case law, and customary international law". It defines the conduct and responsibilities of belligerent nations, neutral nations, and individuals engaged in warfare, in relation to each other and to protected persons, usually meaning non-combatants. It is designed to balance humanitarian concerns and military necessity, and subjects warfare to the rule of law by limiting its destructive effect and mitigating human suffering.

Serious violations of international humanitarian law are called war crimes. International humanitarian law, jus in bello, regulates the conduct of forces when engaged in war or armed conflict. It is distinct from jus ad bellum which regulates the conduct of engaging in war or armed conflict and includes crimes against peace and of war of aggression. Together the jus in bello and jus ad bellum comprise the two strands of the laws of war governing all aspects of international armed conflicts.

The law is mandatory for nations bound by the appropriate treaties. There are also other customary unwritten rules of war, many of which were explored at the Nuremberg War Trials. By extension, they also define both the permissive rights of these powers as well as prohibitions on their conduct when dealing with irregular forces and non-signatories.

International humanitarian law operates on a strict division between rules applicable in international armed conflict and internal armed conflict. This dichotomy is widely criticized.

The relationship between international human rights law and international humanitarian law is disputed among international law scholars. This discussion forms part of a larger discussion on fragmentation of international law. While pluralist scholars conceive international human rights law as being distinct from international humanitarian law, proponents of the constitutionalist approach regard the latter as a subset of the former. In a nutshell, those who favor separate, self-contained regimes emphasize the differences in applicability; international humanitarian law applies only during armed conflict. On the other hand, a more systemic perspective explains that international humanitarian law represents a function of international human rights law; it includes general norms that apply to everyone at all time as well as specialized norms which apply to certain situations such as armed conflict and military occupation (i.e., IHL) or to certain groups of people including refugees (e.g., the 1951 Refugee Convention), children (the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child), and prisoners of war (the 1949 Third Geneva Convention).

Democracies are likely to protect the rights of all individuals within their territorial jurisdiction.

Two historical streams: The Law of Geneva and The Law of The Hague

Modern international humanitarian law is made up of two historical streams:

1. The law of The Hague, referred to in the past as the law of war proper; and
2. The law of Geneva, or humanitarian law.

The two streams take their names from a number of international conferences which drew up treaties relating to war and conflict, in particular the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907, and the Geneva Conventions, the first which was drawn up in 1863. Both deal with jus in bello, which deals with the question of whether certain practices are acceptable during armed conflict.

The Law of The Hague, or the laws of war proper, "determines the rights and duties of belligerents in the conduct of operations and limits the choice of means in doing harm". In particular, it concerns itself with

• the definition of combatants;
• establishes rules relating to the means and methods of warfare;
• and examines the issue of military objectives.

Systematic attempts to limit the savagery of warfare only began to develop in the 19th century. Such concerns were able to build on the changing view of warfare by states influenced by the Age of Enlightenment. The purpose of warfare was to overcome the enemy state, which could be done by disabling the enemy combatants. Thus, "the distinction between combatants and civilians, the requirement that wounded and captured enemy combatants must be treated humanely, and that quarter must be given, some of the pillars of modern humanitarian law, all follow from this principle".

The Law of Geneva

The massacre of civilians in the midst of armed conflict has a long and dark history. Selected examples include

• the massacres of the Kalingas by Ashoka in India;
• the Crusader massacres of Jews and Muslims in the Siege of Jerusalem (1099);
• the Mongol massacres during the Mongol invasions, such as the sack of Baghdad; and
• the massacre of Indians by Timur (Tamerlane),

to name only a few examples drawn from a long list in history. Fritz Munch sums up historical military practice before 1800: "The essential points seem to be these: In battle and in towns taken by force, combatants and non-combatants were killed and property was destroyed or looted." In the 17th century, the Dutch jurist Hugo Grotius, widely regarded as the founder or father of public international law, wrote that "wars, for the attainment of their objects, it cannot be denied, must employ force and terror as their most proper agents".

Humanitarian norms in history

Even in the midst of the carnage of history, however, there have been frequent expressions and invocation of humanitarian norms for the protection of the victims of armed conflicts: the wounded, the sick and the shipwrecked. These date back to ancient times.

In the Old Testament, the King of Israel prevents the slaying of the captured, following the prophet Elisha's admonition to spare enemy prisoners. In answer to a question from the King, Elisha said, "You shall not slay them. Would you slay those whom you have taken captive with your sword and with your bow? Set bread and water before them, that they may eat and drink and go to their master."

In ancient India there are records (the Laws of Manu, for example) describing the types of weapons that should not be used: "When he fights with his foes in battle, let him not strike with weapons concealed (in wood), nor with (such as are) barbed, poisoned, or the points of which are blazing with fire." There is also the command not to strike a eunuch nor the enemy "who folds his hands in supplication ... Nor one who sleeps, nor one who has lost his coat of mail, nor one who is naked, nor one who is disarmed, nor one who looks on without taking part in the fight."

Islamic law states that "non-combatants who did not take part in fighting such as women, children, monks and hermits, the aged, blind, and insane" were not to be molested. The first Caliph, Abu Bakr, proclaimed, "Do not mutilate. Do not kill little children or old men or women. Do not cut off the heads of palm trees or burn them. Do not cut down fruit trees. Do not slaughter livestock except for food." Islamic jurists have held that a prisoner should not be killed, as he "cannot be held responsible for mere acts of belligerency".

Islamic law did not spare all non-combatants, however. In the case of those who refused to convert to Islam, or to pay an alternative tax, Muslims "were allowed in principle to kill any one of them, combatants or noncombatants, provided they were not killed treacherously and with mutilation".

Codification of humanitarian norms

The most important antecedent of IHL is the current Armistice Agreement and Regularization of War, signed and ratified in 1820 between the authorities of the then Government of Great Colombia and the Chief of the Expeditionary Forces of the Spanish Crown, in the Venezuelan city of santa Ana de Trujillo. This treaty was signed under the conflict of Independence, being the first of its kind in the West. 

It was not until the second half of the 19th century, however, that a more systematic approach was initiated. In the United States, a German immigrant, Francis Lieber, drew up a code of conduct in 1863, which came to be known as the Lieber Code, for the Union Army during the American Civil War. The Lieber Code included the humane treatment of civilian populations in the areas of conflict, and also forbade the execution of POWs. 

At the same time, the involvement during the Crimean War of a number of such individuals as Florence Nightingale and Henry Dunant, a Genevese businessman who had worked with wounded soldiers at the Battle of Solferino, led to more systematic efforts to prevent the suffering of war victims. Dunant wrote a book, which he titled A Memory of Solferino, in which he described the horrors he had witnessed. His reports were so shocking that they led to the founding of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) in 1863, and the convening of a conference in Geneva in 1864, which drew up the Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded in Armies in the Field.

The Law of Geneva is directly inspired by the principle of humanity. It relates to those who are not participating in the conflict, as well as to military personnel hors de combat. It provides the legal basis for protection and humanitarian assistance carried out by impartial humanitarian organizations such as the ICRC.^[24] This focus can be found in the Geneva Conventions.

Geneva Conventions

The First Geneva Convention of 1864.

 

Progression of Geneva Conventions from 1864 to 1949.

The Geneva Conventions are the result of a process that developed in a number of stages between 1864 and 1949. It focused on the protection of civilians and those who can no longer fight in an armed conflict. As a result of World War II, all four conventions were revised, based on previous revisions and on some of the 1907 Hague Conventions, and readopted by the international community in 1949. Later conferences have added provisions prohibiting certain methods of warfare and addressing issues of civil wars. 

The first three Geneva Conventions were revised, expanded, and replaced, and the fourth one was added, in 1949.

• The Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field was adopted in 1864. It was significantly revised and replaced by the 1906 version, the 1929 version, and later the First Geneva Convention of 1949.
• The Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea was adopted in 1906. It was significantly revised and replaced by the Second Geneva Convention of 1949.
• The Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War was adopted in 1929. It was significantly revised and replaced by the Third Geneva Convention of 1949.
• The Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War was adopted in 1949.

There are three additional amendment protocols to the Geneva Convention:

1. Protocol I (1977): Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts. As of 12 January 2007 it had been ratified by 167 countries.
2. Protocol II (1977): Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts. As of 12 January 2007 it had been ratified by 163 countries.
3. Protocol III (2005): Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Adoption of an Additional Distinctive Emblem. As of June 2007 it had been ratified by seventeen countries and signed but not yet ratified by an additional 68.

The Geneva Conventions of 1949 may be seen, therefore, as the result of a process which began in 1864. Today they have "achieved universal participation with 194 parties". This means that they apply to almost any international armed conflict. The Additional Protocols, however, have yet to achieve near-universal acceptance, since the United States and several other significant military powers (like Iran, Israel, India and Pakistan) are currently not parties to them.

Historical convergence between IHL and the laws of war

With the adoption of the 1977 Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions, the two strains of law began to converge, although provisions focusing on humanity could already be found in the Hague law (i.e. the protection of certain prisoners of war and civilians in occupied territories). The 1977 Additional Protocols, relating to the protection of victims in both international and internal conflict, not only incorporated aspects of both the Law of The Hague and the Law of Geneva, but also important human rights provisions.

Basic rules of IHL

1. Persons who are hors de combat (outside of combat), and those who are not taking part in hostilities in situation of armed conflict (e.g., neutral nationals), shall be protected in all circumstances.
2. The wounded and the sick shall be cared for and protected by the party to the conflict which has them in its power. The emblem of the "Red Cross", or of the "Red Crescent," shall be required to be respected as the sign of protection.
3. Captured persons must be protected against acts of violence and reprisals. They shall have the right to correspond with their families and to receive relief.
4. No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.
5. Parties to a conflict do not have an unlimited choice of methods and means of warfare.
6. Parties to a conflict shall at all times distinguish between combatants and non-combatants. Attacks shall be directed solely against legitimate military targets.

Examples

Well-known examples of such rules include the prohibition on attacking doctors or ambulances displaying a red cross. It is also prohibited to fire at a person or vehicle bearing a white flag, since that, being considered the flag of truce, indicates an intent to surrender or a desire to communicate. In either case, the persons protected by the Red Cross or the white flag are expected to maintain neutrality, and may not engage in warlike acts themselves; engaging in war activities under a white flag or a red cross is itself a violation of the laws of war. 

These examples of the laws of war address

• declarations of war;
• acceptance of surrender;
• the treatment of prisoners of war;
• the avoidance of atrocities;
• the prohibition on deliberately attacking non-combatants; and
• the prohibition of certain inhumane weapons.

It is a violation of the laws of war to engage in combat without meeting certain requirements, among them the wearing of a distinctive uniform or other easily identifiable badge, and the carrying of weapons openly. Impersonating soldiers of the other side by wearing the enemy's uniform is allowed, though fighting in that uniform is unlawful perfidy, as is the taking of hostages.

Later additions

International humanitarian law now includes several treaties that outlaw specific weapons. These conventions were created largely because these weapons cause deaths and injuries long after conflicts have ended. Unexploded land mines have caused up to 7,000 deaths a year; unexploded bombs, particularly from cluster bombs that scatter many small "bomblets", have also killed many. An estimated 98% of the victims are civilian; farmers tilling their fields and children who find these explosives have been common victims. For these reasons, the following conventions have been adopted:

• The Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects (1980), which prohibits weapons that produce non-detectable fragments, restricts (but does not eliminate) the use of mines and booby-traps, prohibits attacking civilians with incendiary weapons, prohibits blinding laser weapons, and requires the warring parties to clear unexploded ordnance at the end of hostilities;
• The Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction (1997), also called the Ottawa Treaty or the Mine Ban Treaty, which completely bans the stockpiling (except to a limited degree, for training purposes) and use of all anti-personnel land mines;
• The Optional Protocol on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict (2000), an amendment to the Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989), which forbids the enlistment of anyone under the age of eighteen for armed conflict; and
• The Convention on Cluster Munitions (2008), which prohibits the use of bombs that scatter bomblets, many of which do not explode and remain dangerous long after a conflict has ended.

International Committee of the Red Cross

Emblem of the ICRC

 

The ICRC is the only institution explicitly named under international humanitarian law as a controlling authority. The legal mandate of the ICRC stems from the four Geneva Conventions of 1949, as well as from its own Statutes. 

“	The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) is an impartial, neutral, and independent organization whose exclusively humanitarian mission is to protect the lives and dignity of victims of war and internal violence and to provide them with assistance.	”
— Mission of ICRC

Violations and punishment

During conflict, punishment for violating the laws of war may consist of a specific, deliberate and limited violation of the laws of war in reprisal. 

Combatants who break specific provisions of the laws of war lose the protections and status afforded to them as prisoners of war, but only after facing a "competent tribunal". At that point, they become unlawful combatants, but must still be "treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial", because they are still covered by GC IV, Article 5.

Spies and terrorists are only protected by the laws of war if the "power" which holds them is in a state of armed conflict or war, and until they are found to be an "unlawful combatant". Depending on the circumstances, they may be subject to civilian law or a military tribunal for their acts. In practice, they have often have been subjected to torture and execution. The laws of war neither approve nor condemn such acts, which fall outside their scope. Spies may only be punished following a trial; if captured after rejoining their own army, they must be treated as prisoners of war. Suspected terrorists who are captured during an armed conflict, without having participated in the hostilities, may be detained only in accordance with the GC IV, and are entitled to a regular trial. Countries that have signed the UN Convention Against Torture have committed themselves not to use torture on anyone for any reason. 

After a conflict has ended, persons who have committed any breach of the laws of war, and especially atrocities, may be held individually accountable for war crimes through process of law.

Key provisions and principles applicable to civilians

The Fourth Geneva Convention focuses on the civilian population. The two additional protocols adopted in 1977 extend and strengthen civilian protection in international (AP I) and non-international (AP II) armed conflict: for example, by introducing the prohibition of direct attacks against civilians. A "civilian" is defined as "any person not belonging to the armed forces", including non-nationals and refugees. However, it is accepted that operations may cause civilian casualties. Luis Moreno Ocampo, chief prosecutor of the international criminal court, wrote in 2006: "International humanitarian law and the Rome statute permit belligerents to carry out proportionate attacks against military objectives, even when it is known that some civilian deaths or injuries will occur. A crime occurs if there is an intentional attack directed against civilians (principle of distinction) ... or an attack is launched on a military objective in the knowledge that the incidental civilian injuries would be clearly excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage (principle of proportionality)."

The provisions and principles of IHL which seek to protect civilians are:

IHL provisions and principles protecting civilians

Principle of distinction

The principle of distinction protects civilian population and civilian objects from the effects of military operations. It requires parties to an armed conflict to distinguish at all times, and under all circumstances, between combatants and military objectives on the one hand, and civilians and civilian objects on the other; and only to target the former. It also provides that civilians lose such protection should they take a direct part in hostilities. The principle of distinction has also been found by the ICRC to be reflected in state practice; it is therefore an established norm of customary international law in both international and non-international armed conflicts.

Necessity and proportionality

Necessity and proportionality are established principles in humanitarian law. Under IHL, a belligerent may apply only the amount and kind of force necessary to defeat the enemy. Further, attacks on military objects must not cause loss of civilian life considered excessive in relation to the direct military advantage anticipated. Every feasible precaution must be taken by commanders to avoid civilian casualties. The principle of proportionality has also been found by the ICRC to form part of customary international law in international and non-international armed conflicts.

Principle of humane treatment

The principle of humane treatment requires that civilians be treated humanely at all times. Common Article 3 of the GCs prohibits violence to life and person (including cruel treatment and torture), the taking of hostages, humiliating and degrading treatment, and execution without regular trial against non-combatants, including persons hors de combat (wounded, sick and shipwrecked). Civilians are entitled to respect for their physical and mental integrity, their honour, family rights, religious convictions and practices, and their manners and customs. This principle of humane treatment has been affirmed by the ICRC as a norm of customary international law, applicable in both international and non-international armed conflicts.

Principle of non-discrimination

The principle of non-discrimination is a core principle of IHL. Adverse distinction based on race, sex, nationality, religious belief or political opinion is prohibited in the treatment of prisoners of war, civilians, and persons hors de combat. All protected persons shall be treated with the same consideration by parties to the conflict, without distinction based on race, religion, sex or political opinion. Each and every person affected by armed conflict is entitled to his fundamental rights and guarantees, without discrimination. The prohibition against adverse distinction is also considered by the ICRC to form part of customary international law in international and non-international armed conflict.

Women and children

Women and children are granted preferential treatment, respect and protection. Women must be protected from rape and from any form of indecent assault. Children under the age of eighteen must not be permitted to take part in hostilities.

Gender and culture

Gender

IHL emphasises, in various provisions in the GCs and APs, the concept of formal equality and non-discrimination. Protections should be provided "without any adverse distinction founded on sex". For example, with regard to female prisoners of war, women are required to receive treatment "as favourable as that granted to men". In addition to claims of formal equality, IHL mandates special protections to women, providing female prisoners of war with separate dormitories from men, for example, and prohibiting sexual violence against women.

The reality of women's and men's lived experiences of conflict has highlighted some of the gender limitations of IHL. Feminist critics have challenged IHL's focus on male combatants and its relegation of women to the status of victims, and its granting them legitimacy almost exclusively as child-rearers. A study of the 42 provisions relating to women within the Geneva Conventions and the Additional Protocols found that almost half address women who are expectant or nursing mothers. Others have argued that the issue of sexual violence against men in conflict has not yet received the attention it deserves.

Soft-law instruments have been relied on to supplement the protection of women in armed conflict:

• UN Security Council Resolutions 1888 and 1889 (2009), which aim to enhance the protection of women and children against sexual violations in armed conflict; and
• Resolution 1325, which aims to improve the participation of women in post-conflict peacebuilding.

Read together with other legal mechanisms, in particular the UN Convention for the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), these can enhance interpretation and implementation of IHL. 

In addition, international criminal tribunals (like the International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda) and mixed tribunals (like the Special Court for Sierra Leone) have contributed to expanding the scope of definitions of sexual violence and rape in conflict. They have effectively prosecuted sexual and gender-based crimes committed during armed conflict. There is now well-established jurisprudence on gender-based crimes. Nonetheless, there remains an urgent need to further develop constructions of gender within international humanitarian law.

Culture

IHL has generally not been subject to the same debates and criticisms of "cultural relativism" as have international human rights. Although the modern codification of IHL in the Geneva Conventions and the Additional Protocols is relatively new, and European in name, the core concepts are not new, and laws relating to warfare can be found in all cultures. 

ICRC studies on the Middle East, Somalia, Latin America, and the Pacific, for example have found that there are traditional and long-standing practices in various cultures that preceded, but are generally consistent with, modern IHL. It is important to respect local and cultural practices that are in line with IHL. Relying on these links and on local practices can help to promote awareness of and adherence to IHL principles among local groups and communities.

Durham cautions that, although traditional practices and IHL legal norms are largely compatible, it is important not to assume perfect alignment. There are areas in which legal norms and cultural practices clash. Violence against women, for example, is frequently legitimised by arguments from culture, and yet is prohibited in IHL and other international law. In such cases, it is important to ensure that IHL is not negatively affected.

Humanitarian principles

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There are a number of meanings for the term humanitarian. Here humanitarian pertains to the practice of saving lives and alleviating suffering. It is usually related to emergency response (also called humanitarian response) whether in the case of a natural disaster or a man-made disaster such as war or other armed conflict. Humanitarian principles govern the way humanitarian response is carried out. 

Humanitarian principles are a set of principles that governs the way humanitarian response is carried out. The principle is central to establishing and maintaining access to affected populations in natural disasters or complex emergency situations. In disaster management, compliance with the principles are essential elements of humanitarian coordination. The main humanitarian principles have been adopted by the United Nations General Assembly. The four guiding principles are Humanity, Neutrality, Impartiality and Independence.

Defining principles

The core principles are defining characteristics, the necessary conditions for humanitarian response. Organizations such as military forces and for-profit companies may deliver assistance to communities affected by disaster in order to save lives and alleviate suffering, but they are not considered by the humanitarian sector as humanitarian agencies as their response is not based on the core principles.

Core humanitarian principles

Humanity

The principle of humanity means that all humankind shall be treated humanely and equally in all circumstances by saving lives and alleviating suffering, while ensuring respect for the individual. It is the fundamental principle of humanitarian response.

The purpose of humanitarian action is to protect life, health and ensure respect for human beings. It also promotes mutual understanding, cooperation, friendship and peace among all people. According to the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent movement, the principle of humanity includes: • It recalls the origin of the movement: a desire to assist without discrimination to the wounded during conflict. • It recalls the double dimension of the movement: national and international one. • To protect life and health • To define the purpose of the movement 

Humanitarian Imperative

The Code of Conduct for the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement and NGOs in Disaster Relief (RC/NGO Code) introduces the concept of the humanitarian imperative which expands the principle of humanity to include the right to receive and to give humanitarian assistance. It states the obligation of the international community "to provide humanitarian assistance wherever it is needed."

Impartiality

Provision of humanitarian assistance must be impartial and no discrimination on the basis of nationality, race, gender, religion, political opinion or class. It must be based on need alone. Priority most be given to the most urgent cases of distress.

To treat everyone the same way without consideration for the level of suffering or the urgency would not be equitable. Impartiality means that the only priority that can set in dealing with people that need help must be based on need and the order of relief must correspond to the urgency.

For most non-governmental humanitarian agencies (NGHAs), the principle of impartiality is unambiguous even if it is sometimes difficult to apply, especially in rapidly changing situations. However, it is no longer clear which organizations can claim to be humanitarian. For example, companies like PADCO, a USAID subcontractor, is sometimes seen as a humanitarian NGO. However, for the UN agencies, particularly where the UN is involved in peace keeping activities as the result of a Security Council resolution, it is not clear if the UN is in position to act in an impartial manner if one of the parties is in violation of terms of the UN Charter.

Neutrality

For International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, neutrality means not to take sides in hostilities or engage at any time in controversies of a political, racial, religious or ideological nature.

The principle of neutrality was specifically addressed to the Red Cross Movement to prevent it from not only taking sides in a conflict, but not to "engage at any time in controversies of a political, racial, religious or ideological nature." Neutrality can also apply to humanitarian actions of a state. "Neutrality remains closely linked with the definition which introduced the concept into international law to designate the status of a State which decided to stand apart from an armed conflict. Consequently, its applications under positive law still depend on the criteria of abstention and impartiality which have characterized neutrality from the outset."

The application of the word neutrality to humanitarian aid delivered by UN agencies or even governments can be confusing. GA Resolution 46/182 proclaims the principle of neutrality, yet as an inter-governmental political organization, the UN is often engaged in controversies of a political nature. According to this interpretation, the UN agency or a government can provide neutral humanitarian aid as long as it does it impartially, based upon need alone.

Today, the word neutrality is widely used within the humanitarian community, usually to mean the provision of humanitarian aid in an impartial and independent manner, based on need alone. Few international NGOs have curtailed work on justice or human rights issues because of their commitment to neutrality.

Independence

Humanitarian agencies must formulate and implement their own policies independently of government policies or actions. Humanitarian agencies, although there are auxiliaries in the humanitarian services and subject to the laws of their countries, must maintain their autonomy from political, economic, military or any other others and to be able at all times to act in accordance with the humanitarian principles.

Problems may arise because most NGHAs rely in varying degrees on government donors. Thus for some organizations it is difficult to maintain independence from their donors and not be confused in the field with governments who may be involved in the hostilities. The ICRC, has set the example for maintaining its independence (and neutrality) by raising its funds from governments through the use of separate annual appeals for headquarters costs and field operations.

Additional humanitarian principles

In addition to the core principles, there are other principles that govern humanitarian response for specific types of humanitarian agencies such as UN agencies, the Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, and NGOs.

Proselytism

The provision of aid must not exploit the vulnerability of victims and be used to further political or religious creeds. All of the major non-governmental humanitarian agencies (NGHAs) by signing up to the RC/NGO Code of Conduct have committed themselves not to use humanitarian response to further political or religious creeds.

Universality

Equal status and share of responsibilities and duties in helping each other. Solidarity with regard to decision-making regardless of their size or wealth.

Origin of Humanitarian principles

The humanitarian principles originated from the work of the International Committee of Red Cross and the National Red Cross/Red Crescent Societies. The core principles guided the work of these organizations before it was adopted by the United Nations. In 1991, the first three principles (humanity, neutrality and impartiality) were adopted and endorsed in the General Assembly resolution 46/182. The General Assemble resolution of 1991 also led to the establishment of the role of the Emergency Relief Coordinator (ERC). In 2004, the General Assembly resolution 58/114 added independence as the fourth core principle essential to humanitarian action. The fourth principle was as result of co-opting of humanitarian assistance in highly politicized context to address challenges faced in preserving independence for local partners and in relation to targeting of beneficiaries and the delivery of need based services in affected areas. These principles have been adopted by many international humanitarian organizations working with affected populations in disaster crisis.

The Inter-Agency Standing Committee has the responsibility of upholding humanitarian principles globally. This is the body responsible for bringing together UN agencies, Red Cross Movement and NGOs working in humanitarian action.

Principles based on field experience in emergencies

All of the above principles are important requirements for effective field operations. They are based on widespread field experience of agencies engaged in humanitarian response. In conflict situations, their breach may drastically affect the ability of agencies to respond to the needs of the victims. 

If a warring party believes, for example, that an agency is favoring the other side, or that it is an agent of the enemy, access to the victims may be blocked and the lives of humanitarian workers may be put in danger. If one of the parties perceives that an agency is trying to spread another religious faith, there may be a hostile reaction to their activities.

Sources

The core principles, found in the Red Cross/NGO Code of Conduct and in GA Resolution 46/182 are derived from the Fundamental Principles of the Red Cross, particularly principles I (humanity), II (impartiality), III (neutrality—in the case of the UN), and IV (independence).

Humanitarian accountability

Accountability has been defined as: "the processes through which an organisation makes a commitment to respond to and balance the needs of stakeholders in its decision making processes and activities, and delivers against this commitment." Humanitarian Accountability Partnership International adds: "Accountability is about using power responsibly."

Article 9 of the Code of Conduct for the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement and NGOs in Disaster Relief states: "We hold ourselves accountable to both those we seek to assist and those from whom we accept resources;" and thus identifies the two major stake holders: donors and beneficiaries. However, traditionally humanitarian agencies have tended to practice mainly "upward accountability", i.e. to their donors.

The experience of many humanitarian agencies during the Rwandan Genocide, led to a number of initiatives designed to improve humanitarian assistance and accountability, particularly with respect to the beneficiaries. Examples include the Sphere Project, ALNAP, Compas, the People In Aid Code of Good Practice, and the Humanitarian Accountability Partnership International, which runs a "global quality insurance scheme for humanitarian agencies."

Additional principles

The RC/NGO Code also lists a number of more aspirational principles which are derived from experience with development assistance.

• Agencies should operate with respect to culture and custom
• Humanitarian response should use local resources and capacities as much as possible
• The participation of the beneficiaries should be encouraged
• Emergency response should strive to reduce future vulnerabilities
• Agencies should be accountable to both donors and beneficiaries
• Humanitarian agencies should use information activities to portray victims as dignified human beings, not hopeless objects

The right to life with dignity

The Sphere Project Humanitarian Charter uses the language of human rights to remind that the right to life which is proclaimed in both the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights is related to human dignity.

Vulnerability and behavioral issues

Humanitarian principles are mainly focused on the behavior of organizations. However a humane response implies that humanitarian workers are not to take advantage of the vulnerabilities of those affected by war and violence. Agencies have the responsibility for developing rules of staff conduct which prevent abuse of the beneficiaries.

Sexual exploitation and abuse

One of the most problematic areas is related to the issue of sexual exploitation and abuse of beneficiaries by humanitarian workers. In an emergency where victims have lost everything, women and girls are particularly vulnerable to sexual abuse.

A number of reports which identified the sexual exploitation of refugees in west Africa prodded the humanitarian community to work together in examining the problem and to take measures to prevent abuses. In July 2002, the UN's Interagency Standing Committee (IASC) adopted a plan of action which stated: Sexual exploitation and abuse by humanitarian workers constitute acts of gross misconduct and are therefore grounds for termination of employment. The plan explicitly prohibited the "Exchange of money, employment, goods, or services for sex, including sexual favours or other forms of humiliating, degrading or exploitative behaviour." The major NGHAs as well the UN agencies engaged in humanitarian response committed themselves to setting up internal structures to prevent sexual exploitation and abuse of beneficiaries.

Compliance

Substantial efforts have been made in the humanitarian sector to monitor compliance with humanitarian principles. Such efforts include The People In Aid Code of Good Practice, an internationally recognised management tool that helps humanitarian and development organisations enhance the quality of their human resources management. The NGO, Humanitarian Accountability Partnership International, is also working to make humanitarian organizations more accountable, especially to the beneficiaries.

Structures internal to the Red Cross Movement monitor compliance to the Fundamental Principles of the Red Cross.

The RC/NGO Code is self-enforcing. The SCHR carries out peer reviews among its members which look in part at the issue of compliance with principles set out in the RC/NGO Code

Humanitarian aid

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A soldier gives a young Pakistani girl a drink of water as they are airlifted from Muzaffarabad to Islamabad.

 

A young Afghan girl clenches her teddy bear that she received at a medical clinic at Camp Clark in Khost Province.

 

Humanitarian aid is material and logistic assistance to people who need help. It is usually short-term help until the long-term help by government and other institutions replaces it. Among the people in need are the homeless, refugees, and victims of natural disasters, wars and famines. Humanitarian aid is material or logistical assistance provided for humanitarian purposes, typically in response to humanitarian relief efforts including natural disasters and man-made disaster. The primary objective of humanitarian aid is to save lives, alleviate suffering, and maintain human dignity. It may therefore be distinguished from development aid, which seeks to address the underlying socioeconomic factors which may have led to a crisis or emergency. There is a debate on linking humanitarian aid and development efforts, which was reinforced by the World Humanitarian Summit in 2016. However, the approach is viewed critically by practitioners.

Humanitarian aid aims to bring short term relief to victims until long term relief can be provided by the government and other institutions. Humanitarian aid considers “a fundamental expression of the universal value of solidarity between people and a moral imperative”. Humanitarian aid can come from either local or international communities. In reaching out to international communities, the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) of the United Nations (UN) is responsible for coordination responses to emergencies. It taps to the various members of Inter-Agency Standing Committee, whose members are responsible for providing emergency relief. The four UN entities that have primary roles in delivering humanitarian aid are United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the United Nations Refugee Agency (UNHCR), the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) and the World Food Programme (WFP).

According to The Overseas Development Institute, a London-based research establishment, whose findings were released in April 2009 in the paper "Providing aid in insecure environments:2009 Update", the most lethal year in the history of humanitarianism was 2008, in which 122 aid workers were murdered and 260 assaulted. The countries deemed least safe were Somalia and Afghanistan. In 2012, Humanitarian Outcomes reported that the countries with the highest incidents were: Afghanistan, South Sudan, Syria, Pakistan and Somalia.

History

Origins

The beginnings of organized international humanitarian aid can be traced to the late 19th century. The most well known origin story of formalized humanitarian aid is that of Henri Dunant, a Swiss business man and social activist, who upon seeing the sheer destruction and inhumane abandonment of wounded soldiers from the Battle of Solferino in June 1859, cancelled his plans and began a relief response. Despite little to no experience as a medical physician, Dunant worked alongside local volunteers to assist the wounded soldiers from all warring parties, including Austrian, Italian and French casualties, in any way he could including the provision of food, water and medical supplies. His graphic account of the immense suffering he witnessed, written in his book “A Memory of Solferino”, became a foundational text to modern humanitarianism.

A Memory of Solferino changed the world in a way that no one, let alone Dunant, could have foreseen nor truly appreciated at the time. To start, Dunant was able to profoundly stir the emotions of his readers by bringing the battle and suffering into their homes, equipping them to understand the current barbaric state of war and treatment of soldiers after they were injured or killed; in of themselves these accounts altered the course of history. Beyond this, in his two-week experience attending to the wounded soldiers of all nationalities, Dunant inadvertently established the vital conceptual pillars of what would later become the International Committee of the Red Cross and International Humanitarian Law: impartiality and neutrality. Dunant took these ideas and came up with two more ingenious concepts that would profoundly alter the practice of war; first Dunant envisioned a creation of permanent volunteer relief societies, much like the ad hoc relief group he coordinated in Solferino, to assist wounded soldiers; next Dunant began an effort to call for the adoption of a treaty which would guarantee the protection of wounded soldiers and any who attempted to come to their aid.

After publishing his foundational text in 1862, progress came quickly for Dunant and his efforts to create a permanent relief society and International Humanitarian Law. The embryonic formation of the International Committee of the Red Cross had begun to take shape in 1863 when the private Geneva Society of Public Welfare created a permanent sub-committee called “The International Committee for Aid to Wounded in Situations of War”; composed of five Geneva citizens, this committee endorsed Dunant’s vision to legally neutralize medical personnel responding to wounded soldiers. The constitutive conference of this committee in October 1863 created the statutory foundation of the International Committee of the Red Cross in their resolutions regarding national societies, caring for the wounded, their symbol, and most importantly the indispensable neutrality of ambulances, hospitals, medical personnel and the wounded themselves. Beyond this, in order to solidify humanitarian practice, the Geneva Society of Public Welfare hosted a convention between August 8 and 22, 1864 at the Geneva Town Hall with 16 diverse States present, including many governments of Europe, the Ottoman Empire, the United States of America (USA), Brazil and Mexico. This diplomatic conference was exceptional, not due to the number or status of its attendees but rather because of its very raison d'être. Unlike many diplomatic conferences before it, this conference’s purpose was not to reach a settlement after a conflict nor to mediate between opposing interests; indeed this conference was to lay down rules for the future of conflict with aims to protect medical services and those wounded in battle.

The first of the renowned Geneva Conventions was signed on August 22, 1864; never before in history has a treaty so greatly impacted how warring parties engage with one another. The basic tenants of the convention outlined the neutrality of medical services, including hospitals, ambulances and related personnel, the requirement to care for and protect the sick and wounded during conflict and something of particular symbolic importance to the International Committee of the Red Cross: the Red Cross emblem. For the first time in contemporary history, it was acknowledged by a representative selection of states that war had limits. The significance only grew with time in the revision and adaptation of the Geneva Convention in 1906, 1929 and 1949; additionally supplementary treaties granted protection to hospital ships, prisoners of war and most importantly to civilians in wartime.

The International Committee of the Red Cross exists to this day as the guardian of International Humanitarian Law and as one of the largest providers of humanitarian aid in the world.

Another such examples occurred in response to the Northern Chinese Famine of 1876–1879, brought about by a drought that began in northern China in 1875 and lead to crop failures in the following years. As many as 10 million people may have died in the famine.

A contemporary print showing the distribution of relief in Bellary, Madras Presidency. From the Illustrated London News (1877)

 

British missionary Timothy Richard first called international attention to the famine in Shandong in the summer of 1876 and appealed to the foreign community in Shanghai for money to help the victims. The Shandong Famine Relief Committee was soon established with the participation of diplomats, businessmen, and Protestant and Roman Catholic missionaries. To combat the famine, an international network was set up to solicit donations. These efforts brought in 204,000 silver taels, the equivalent of $7–10 million in 2012 silver prices.

A simultaneous campaign was launched in response to the Great Famine of 1876–78 in India. Although the authorities have been criticized for their laissez-faire attitude during the famine, relief measures were introduced towards the end. A Famine Relief Fund was set up in the United Kingdom and had raised £426,000 within the first few months.

1980s

RAF C-130 airdropping food during 1985 famine

 

Early attempts were in private hands, and were limited in their financial and organizational capabilities. It was only in the 1980s, that global news coverage and celebrity endorsement were mobilized to galvanize large-scale government-led famine (and other forms of) relief in response to disasters around the world. The 1983–85 famine in Ethiopia caused upwards of 1 million deaths and was documented by a BBC news crew, with Michael Buerk describing "a biblical famine in the 20th Century" and "the closest thing to hell on Earth".

Live Aid, a 1985 fund-raising effort headed by Bob Geldof induced millions of people in the West to donate money and to urge their governments to participate in the relief effort in Ethiopia. Some of the proceeds also went to the famine hit areas of Eritrea.

2010s

The first global summit on humanitarian aid was held on May 23 and 24, 2016 in Istanbul, Turkey. An initiative of United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, the World Humanitarian Summit included participants from governments, civil society organizations, private organizations, and groups affected by humanitarian need. Issues that were discussed included: preventing and ending conflict, managing crises, and aid financing.

Funding

Aid is funded by donations from individuals, corporations, governments and other organizations. The funding and delivery of humanitarian aid is increasingly international, making it much faster, more responsive, and more effective in coping to major emergencies affecting large numbers of people (e.g. see Central Emergency Response Fund). The United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) coordinates the international humanitarian response to a crisis or emergency pursuant to Resolution 46/182 of the United Nations General Assembly. The need for aid is ever-increasing and has long outstripped the financial resources available.

Delivery of humanitarian aid

Truck for delivery of aid from Western to Eastern Europe

 

Humanitarian aid spans a wide range of activities, including providing food aid, shelter, education, healthcare or protection. The majority of aid is provided in the form of in-kind goods or assistance, with cash and vouchers constituting only 6% of total humanitarian spending. However, evidence has shown how cash transfers can be better for recipients as it gives them choice and control, they can be more cost-efficient and better for local markets and economies.

It is important to note that humanitarian aid is not only delivered through aid workers sent by bilateral, multilateral or intergovernmental organizations, such as the United Nations. Actors like the affected people themselves, civil society, local informal first-responders, civil society, the diaspora, businesses, local governments, military, local and international non-governmental organizations all play a crucial role in a timely delivery of humanitarian aid.

Humanitarian aid and conflict

In addition to post-conflict settings, a huge portion of aid is being directed at countries currently undergoing conflicts. However, the effectiveness of humanitarian aid, particularly food aid, in conflict-prone regions has been criticized in recent years. There have been accounts of humanitarian aid being not only inefficacious, but actually fueling conflicts in the recipient countries. Aid stealing is one of the prime ways in which conflict is promoted by humanitarian aid. Aid can be seized by armed groups, and even if it does reach the intended recipients, "it is difficult to exclude local members of local militia group from being direct recipients if they are also malnourished and qualify to receive aid." Furthermore, analyzing the relationship between conflict and food aid, a recent research shows that the United States' food aid promoted civil conflict in recipient countries on average. An increase in United States' wheat aid increased the duration of armed civil conflicts in recipient countries, and ethnic polarization heightened this effect. However, since academic research on aid and conflict focuses on the role of aid in post-conflict settings, the aforementioned finding is difficult to contextualize. Nevertheless, research on Iraq shows that "small-scale [projects], local aid spending . . . reduces conflict by creating incentives for average citizens to support the government in subtle ways." Similarly, another study also shows that aid flows can "reduce conflict because increasing aid revenues can relax government budget constraints, which can [in return] increase military spending and deter opposing groups from engaging in conflict." Thus, the impact of humanitarian aid on conflict may vary depending upon the type and mode in which aid is received, and, inter alia, the local socio-economic, cultural, historical, geographical and political conditions in the recipient countries.

Aid workers

UNICEF humanitarian aid, ready for deploying. This can be food like Plumpy'nuts or water purification tablets.

 

Wanda Błeńska, Polish leprosy expert and missionary who successfully developed the Buluba Hospital in Uganda

 

Aid workers are the people distributed internationally to do humanitarian aid work. They often require humanitarian degrees.

Composition

Bangladeshi citizens offload food rations from a US Marine CH-46E helicopter of 11th Marine Expeditionary Unit after Tropical Cyclone Sidr in 2007

 

The total number of humanitarian aid workers around the world has been calculated by ALNAP, a network of agencies working in the Humanitarian System, as 210,800 in 2008. This is made up of roughly 50% from NGOs, 25% from the Red Cross/ Red Crescent Movement and 25% from the UN system.

The humanitarian fieldworker population has increased by approximately 6% per year over the past 10 years.

Psychological Issues

Aid workers are exposed to tough conditions and have to be flexible, resilient, and responsible in an environment that humans are not psychologically supposed to deal with, in such severe conditions that trauma is common. In recent years, a number of concerns have been raised about the mental health of aid workers.

The most prevalent issue faced by humanitarian aid workers is PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder). Adjustment to normal life again can be a problem, with feelings such as guilt being caused by the simple knowledge that international aid workers can leave a crisis zone, whilst nationals cannot. 

A 2015 survey conducted by The Guardian, with aid workers of the Global Development Professionals Network, revealed that 79 percent experienced mental health issues.

Standards

During the past decade the humanitarian community has initiated a number of interagency initiatives to improve accountability, quality and performance in humanitarian action. Five of the most widely known initiatives are the Active Learning Network for Accountability and Performance in Humanitarian Action (ALNAP), Humanitarian Accountability Partnership (HAP), People In Aid, the Sphere Project and the Core Humanitarian Standard on Quality and Accountability (CHS). Representatives of these initiatives began meeting together on a regular basis in 2003 in order to share common issues and harmonise activities where possible. 

People In Aid

The People In Aid Code of Good Practice is an internationally recognised management tool that helps humanitarian aid and development agencies enhance the quality of their human resources management. As a management framework, it is also a part of agencies’ efforts to improve standards, accountability and transparency amid the challenges of disaster, conflict and poverty.

Humanitarian Accountability Partnership International

Working with its partners, disaster survivors, and others, Humanitarian Accountability Partnership International (or HAP International) produced the HAP 2007 Standard in Humanitarian Accountability and Quality Management. This certification scheme aims to provide assurance that certified agencies are managing the quality of their humanitarian actions in accordance with the HAP standard. In practical terms, a HAP certification (which is valid for three years) means providing external auditors with mission statements, accounts and control systems, giving greater transparency in operations and overall accountability.

As described by HAP-International, the HAP 2007 Standard in Humanitarian Accountability and Quality Management is a quality assurance tool. By evaluating an organisation's processes, policies and products with respect to six benchmarks setout in the Standard, the quality becomes measurable, and accountability in its humanitarian work increases. 

Agencies that comply with the Standard:

• Declare their commitment to HAP's Principles of Humanitarian Action and to their own Humanitarian Accountability Framework
• Develop and implement a Humanitarian Quality Management System
• Provide key information about quality management to key stakeholders
• Enable beneficiaries and their representatives to participate in program decisions and give their informed consent
• Determine the competencies and development needs of staff
• Establish and implement complaints-handling procedure
• Establish a process of continual improvement

The Sphere Project

 

The Sphere Project handbook, Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in Disaster Response, which was produced by a coalition of leading non governmental humanitarian agencies, lists the following principles of humanitarian action:

• The right to life with dignity
• The distinction between combatant and non-combatants
• The principle of non-refoulement

Core Humanitarian Standard on Quality and Accountability

 

Logo of the Core Humanitarian Standard

 

Another humanitarian standard used is the Core Humanitarian Standard on Quality and Accountability (CHS). It was approved by the CHS Technical Advisory Group in 2014, and has since been endorsed by many humanitarian actors such as "the Boards of the Humanitarian Accountability Partnership (HAP), People In Aid and the Sphere Project". It comprises nine core standards, which are complemented by detailed guidance notes and indicators.

While some critics were questioning whether the sector will truly benefit from the implementation of yet another humanitarian standard, others have praised it for its simplicity. Most notably, it has replaced the core standards of the Sphere Handbook and it is regularly referred to and supported by officials from the United Nations, the EU, various NGOs and institutes. 

Humanitarian Encyclopedia

The Humanitarian Encyclopedia, launched in June 2017, aims to create "a clear and comprehensive reference framework, influenced by local and contextualised knowledge … [including] analyses of lessons learned and best practices, as well as … insights for evidence-based decision and policy-making." A part of this mission will be to provide a centralised data base for defining or clarifying different understandings of key concepts in humanitarian aid. The need for this stems from the experience in Haiti in the aftermath of the 2010 earthquake, where international aid organisations pushed out local aid groups as a result of a lack of reflection and understanding of local contexts and aid concepts, making the relief effort less efficient.

Free to access, the project is expected to be completed within five years, with the first parts slated to be published online by the end of 2018.

Challenges in terminology

The terms humanitarian action, humanitarian aid, humanitarian assistance and humanitarian response are often used interchangeably in publications, common literature and in the news, and there seems to be no common understanding of either of these terms. In 2003, in an attempt to provide more clarity globally, 17 nations and various other players in the international field founded The Good Humanitarian Donorship Initiative (GHD), which states that "the objectives of humanitarian action are to save lives, alleviate suffering and maintain and protect human dignity during and in the aftermath of emergencies”.

Following this, in 2008 the UNOCHA website Relief Web published a Glossary of Humanitarian Terms, which provides a collection of definitions available in other publicly available material. This glossary cites the ALNAP definition of humanitarian action as the "assistance, protection and advocacy actions undertaken on an impartial basis in response to human needs resulting from complex political emergencies and natural hazards." However, since the glossary is not a common terminologcial framework provided by the United Nations but a collection of material from secondary sources, it can serve as an important reference point but does not solve the need for a common terminology in this field. 

The lack of a common terminology may create difficulties in properly defining, allocating and tracking humanitarian action, and makes it hard for intergovernmental organizations, non-governmental organizations or the International Red Cross Red Crescent movement to share comparable data with each other. This is particularly relevant as the lines between humanitarian and development action become increasingly blurred due to changes such as the growing emergence of protracted crises, which call for a different approach of humanitarian aid overall.

An initiative aware of this terminological challenge is the Humanitarian Encyclopedia, which aims to "collectively interrogate how humanitarian concepts are used across time, geographical contexts, organizational cultures, disciplinary backgrounds and professions". While this does not mean that a common terminology will be created, it has the potential to serve as a reference point for humanitarian actors and the general public.