1.

HUMANITARIAN PRINCIPLES
There are essentially four humanitarian principles.
The first one is the principle of humanity, which is about the life and dignity of the
population.
Somehow, at the exclusion of other priorities, having to do with their rights, their
environment, their family, their tribes, their nation, nationalism, and patriotism.
The point here is how humanitarian action has to focus its attention on maintaining
life, preserving life and dignity of population.
The second principle is impartiality.
To achieve this goal, this assistance and protection must focus on the most
vulnerable group and their highest needs.
The third principle is neutrality.
Neutrality is about not taking side to the hostilities.
It's a form of guarantee of impartiality.
By not taking sides you guarantee that your assistance is strictly impartial and
purely humanitarian.
And finally it's independence.
The principle of independence is not so much an absolute principle that you should
not have any dependencies.
On the contrary, you have a lot of dependencies personally and institutionally.
Organizations live through their dependencies with donors, with constituents, with
stakeholders.
It's how you manage this dependency in a professional way that your decision
making, the integrity of your decision making is preserved.
Professionals can take the decisions about the planning of their operations on
professional terms.
Scientific evaluations are being used to measure the efficiency and the success of
your operations.
And everybody can see that this organization is run by professionals and they cannot
be accused of being manipulated or becoming dependent on other forces that dictate
the decision of this organization.
So these are the four humanitarian principles that provide the guarantee that when
you operate in very sensitive environments, such as a battlefield or conflict area, you
can claim to be humanitarian.

You can hope to be perceived as neutral and impartial as a way you can have access
to population affected by hostilities in realtime.
# INTRODUO
In this course, we will explore the principles that guide humanitarian response to
armed conflict and natural disaster, and consider the challenges of implementing
these core principles in humanitarian practice and operations.
The humanitarian principles are rooted in both international humanitarian
law and practice. They provide the foundation for humanitarian action in the field,
and are critical for distinguishing humanitarian actors from other actors,
gaining acceptance for humanitarian presence and operations in crisis settings, and
enabling humanitarian access to populations in need as well as the security of
humanitarian personnel and their beneficiaries.
The humanitarian principles are:

Humanity: Human suffering must be addressed wherever it is found.

The purpose of humanitarian action is to protect life and health and ensure
respect for human beings.

Impartiality: Humanitarian action must be carried out on the basis of need

alone, giving priority to the most urgent cases of distress and making no
distinctions on the basis of nationality, race, gender, religious belief, class or
political opinions.

Neutrality: Humanitarian actors must not take sides in hostilities or

engage in controversies of a political, racial, religious or ideological
nature.

Independence: Humanitarian

action

must

be

autonomous

from

the

political, economic, military or other objectives that any actor may hold
with regard to areas where humanitarian action is being implemented.
In this section, we will look at the meaning of each of these principles in greater
detail, and begin to explore challenges and dilemmas arising from the implementation
of these principles in the field.
# HUMANITY
So the principle of humanity is about how to preserve and maintain life and dignity of
population affected by armed conflict.
And as it's being implemented, of course it raise a number of questions and
challenges.

Questions arise about protracted conflict. Humanitarian action has been conceived
as if conflict is of the limited duration.
That you help people cope with conflict as being a parenthesis to peace. People are
being affected by conflict, you help them to cope with minimalist assistance.
Food, healthcare, some protection from displacement, and so on, of course protection
from the effect of hostilities, not to be targeted.
And then things will sort themselves out politically and peace will come back. Well, in
situation where the conflict becomes protracted, it may last months, years, if not
decades.
Humanitarian assistance appears to be insufficient. Life and dignity is not
sufficient to maintain the society, to maintain industry, to maintain development, to
maintain the system of rights.
Rights to education, rights to health, rights to a normal life. And often humanitarian
organization are the only organization who manage to have access to these
environments because of the requirements of impartiality and neutrality and
independence.
So humanitarian organization, for example, in Northern Mali. Very few actually have
access to these areas because they are highly contested.
And a conflict may last years, if not decades, like in Somalia, in the Sudan, where you
have conflict that seems to be endless.
And in these circumstances, the principle of humanity appears almost as a shackle. It
says, humanitarian organization brings food, brings emergency health care, but what
do you do with displaced children, without education, for months and years?
Where in fact education is increasingly seen as a humanitarian need of a whole
generation.
But yet, if you enter into this development question that says, well humanitarian
organization must preserve life and dignity as well as respond to the needs of
education or the right to educate, to be educated.
So who defines the curriculum? How do you describe the situation and all the issue
that goes with history and the narrative about the situation, is highly political and
highly contested.
Humanitarian organization are very uncomfortable with this notion, as we've seen in
Afghanistan.
Where humanitarian organizations were brought in to reopen schools, and school for
girls.

Where in fact, since the Soviet occupation, access of girls to education was a point of
the conflict.
And it still is today with some of the Mujahideen or the Jihadist movement, who will
reject education seen in the Western sense.
And we see that with Boko Haram, which also means a rejection of Western type of
education.
So it's quite difficult for a humanitarian organization to have a pragmatic
understanding of humanity.
That says well, life and dignity may need more than food and health. It may
need agricultural support, it may need reunification of families, it may need
education, and at the same time to remain neutral.
Neutral in terms of perception. That you're not coming in to open schools and
educate
children in a way that would go against one of the parties, to the conflict, or to
promote an agenda of a particular actor to the conflict.
But if you do education, of course, you have to talk about human rights as well. So,
it's very difficult for organization to navigate the tension now in protracted conflict.
The same with how you deal with local actors. You want to build a capacity and a
coping capability of local actors to be able to restore services.
Public services, health, education, transport, electricity. But often, especially in noninternational armed conflict, that is conflict within the border of a state, restoring
public services is in favor of the central state.
Or it could be in favor of the group that controls that particular region. So it plays into
the politics of the conflict by if you provide assistance to a hospital to be able to
restore its services, it may appears as promoting the control of the particular
group or entity or government over that region.
And again, life and dignity, as insufficient as it may be, appears a very conservative
norm to have access but yet insufficient to respond to the needs of the people
affected by the conflict.
# IMPARTIALITY
The principle of impartiality is about providing assistance based on needs and solely
based on needs.
It means those who are the most vulnerable should get assistance first. This
concept is drawn from international humanitarian law.

It talks specifically, for example, in Article 3 to the Fourth Geneva Convention,

that humanitarian action is about independent impartial action, that is focused
on needs of the affected population.
In practice, though, impartiality brings a number of problems. To be perceived as
being truly humanitarian, of course, you need to provide based on needs.
However, it very much depends if you have access to the population. And if you
have access, to what extent this access is being used by the parties to the
hostilities as a way to manipulate the direction of the conflict.
For example, if a party moves population out of a city and says well, now you have to
provide assistance to that displaced population in a camp.
You come and according to impartiality, you provide to those who our most in need,
evidently, those who have been displaced from the city.
But there are still people in the city and people have been displaced precisely
because rebels are in the city mixing with the population.
The government wants to force the population out as a way to screen who are the
rebels and there's a way to capture them, or in any way, to neutralize them.
And by providing this impartial assistance to those most in need, and the needs have
been created in fact by the displacement, we're in fact favoring displacement.
You're favoring cleansing, cleansing of the civilians outside the city for the conduct of
hostilities.
Which may be perceived by the rebels in the city as taking side to the hostilities.
We've seen that in many situations where, in fact, humanitarian assistance is being
used as a mean of conducting hostilities.
Therefore, you may be impartial, but the way you're impartial may complicate
your neutrality, your perception of neutrality.
And therefore, impartiality is extremely important as a way to maintain your
humanity.
But you have to be cautious with the other principles that you're still being perceive
as neutral.
In fact, you should have access to all those in needs at all times, and this is very
important to claim and to be seen as claiming it.
It's quite delicate in situations where you receive funding from a government who
says, let's help this particular group that has been displaced.
And you're not asking for full access, maybe because you don't have the capacity, or
the level of insecurity is such.

And you, of course, enter and help people in terms of life, dignity, survival, coping,
psychological support.
But this help is seen as taking side to the hostilities. Therefore, impartiality may
complicate things and therefore, you need to see the extent to which impartiality
is something you need to compose under the circumstances.
For example, you may have an environment where to have access to a vulnerable
group
in a city, in a mountain, or elsewhere, those who control the territory says well, wait,
you have also to assist my people in my village somewhere.
It's somehow contravene with impartiality because these people may not have the
level of needs than the one you want to proceed to assist.
But they may have needs, too. So you may end up negotiating your access by
providing assistance not to the party themself, this is totally unacceptable.
But to some of the constituencies of that party in a way of facilitating your access, in
a way of ensuring that your access will not be hijacked.
There is one thing of taking a convoy and crossing villages and villages of miserable
people that may not be affected by the conflict for the purpose of helping the other
side.
You have to realize that your security depends on the relationship you maintain
with the environment.
Which may require that you will be assisting populations, not necessarily
affected by the conflict, but miserable, in terms of hunger, destitution,
healthcare.
You may need to provide some assistance, all the way, as a way of getting access to
the population that is most in need.
For purists of the principle, they would say this assistance was not based on needs,
but it was based on consideration of security and access.
Well let's be so. In circumstances that dictate that you need to negotiate your
access, you will be probably negotiating your impartiality.
But it has to be done in an explicit way, in a transparent way, as a way to say
that's how we can maintain the security and integrity of our access, is by helping
more people than intended at first.
Now, the question arise, but is there in fact a right of assistance? Well, in
humanitarian law, the right of assistance actually doesn't exist.

Although there's a political project to enhance this right and to talk about it. There's
almost a convergence of discourse about human rights and humanitarian law. And
talk continuously about the right to assist or the right of the population to get
assistance.
And it's true, debates on international law wants to portray that right as
preeminent, as being in the avant garde of international law.
But in strictly speaking in international treaty, this right of assistance or the right to
assist actually doesn't exist.
The rights and obligation pertains to the parties to the conflict. The
population in itself doesn't have rights under IHL.
It benefits from IHL, but it doesn't carry rights and obligation as it does in
international human rights.
Therefore, there's not per se a right to assistance in humanitarian law. There's a
right to assistance in human rights, that is, a right to be assisted by your
government.
And some argues armed groups carry some human rights obligations. But strictly
speaking, governments have an obligation to assist, government of the national
territory.
Government from other territory is still a debated question. If you have a
famine in Somalia, to what extent, Sweden, or the United States, or Japan have an
obligation to assist is highly questionable.
In General Assembly resolution, they have tried to work this out, dealing with this
issue, is there a right to assistance or the right to assist?
And how it all being mixed with a sense of intervention and preservation of
sovereignty?
As we speak now, many countries, not of the least India, China, Brazil, Mexico,
consider that this right to assist or the right of assistance doesn't go beyond
the jurisdiction of each member state taken individually.
It may be the Security Council under Chapter VII, which may take a compulsory
decision where there's a right to intervene. But it's not, per se, a right of the people
to be assisted.
# NEUTRALITY
The principal of neutrality is about not taking side in a conflict and especially not
being perceived as taking side in a conflict, and not taking side in a conflict is
about the issue at conflict.

That is you have two parties, a state, another state or a state and a non-state arm
groups are at conflict about political issues.
They want to impose their will on the other side by the use of force and these issues
are the politically charged environment in which humanitarian organization
operate.
To be neutral is to operate in this environment and not to be perceived as taking side
on these issues with one of the parties, and this requirement is especially important
for the integrity, and the security of staff in this environment.
Because imagine if you are perceived as taking sides, you may claim to be neutral,
but your seen in the battlefield as an element favoring the other side.
You're likely to be attacked, you're likely to become a target of an attack much more
than if you are perceived as not taking side as being strictly impartial in your
assistance and strictly mutual and humanitarian in essence in your mission.
So, the point here is to see that neutrality cannot be claimed. It has to be granted
and it goes back to the concept of neutrality from the Concert of Europe of
1815 and the notion of neutrality of Switzerland, for example, where Europe
wanted to create a neutral space to end the conflict.
We see the Swiss as being neutral, but before 1815, they were nothing, but
participants, belligerents in the armies all over Europe.
Swiss were the best mercenaries in Europe. One of the General of Napoleon was a
Swiss.
So Switzerland was granted neutrality with the promise that they would not engage in
hostility, not taking side and the concept of neutrality came from that notion.
It is no surprise that the Geneva Convention and a concept of neutrality arise from
the Swiss experience is that you can demonstrate your neutrality by not taking side,
and then you have the privilege of neutrality.
That is you're not considered to taking side. Therefore, you cannot be
attacked. Your convoys are protected.
You're not seen as an asset of the belligerence. So as far as humanitarian actors are
concerned, to be neutral is to be seen by the parties as providing strictly
humanitarian and impartial assistance and preserving yourself from the effect of
hostilities.
Of course, in practice this brings a number of difficulties. Because at the same time,
you have agencies and governments who provide assistance based on a security and
political agenda.

One of the best ways to stabilize the situation, to gain the trust of the population is to
provide assistance, is to reopen schools, hospitals, is to allow a normal life to be
restored.
And how can you be seen as neutral if you take side to these situations, particularly is
the dilemma of working under occupation, for example.
And was a very salient case in Iraq under US and British occupation in the early
2000

where

the

UN,

as

humanitarian

organization

was

providing

assistance.
And yet, participating to the reestablishment of services under US and
British occupation.
They found themselves targetable not in an illegal sense, but in political and
security sense.
It was targeted and attack took place against a Canal Hotel. Over 20 people died and
it became a watershed moment.
A realization that neutrality is a critical factor of security and integrity of humanitarian
operation, but it has its limits.
Because if you rely on the perception of the parties, you do not control that
perception.
It may be the color of your skin, your religion.
The fact that you speak English or the fact that you have local connections. Any
means and method may be perceived, as a construction of taking side.
It's critically important that to see neutrality as a relationship to be maintained, as a
trust that they keep granting this license to operate despite the fact that you're
bringing resources to the conflict.
Food is a great asset in conflict. First, it can serve to feed the military or the armed
group, but it all can also be sold on markets, on which you can buy weapons.
So, those who bring food or medicine have to see that you're bringing resources and
neutrality is the guarantee you're being given that these resources will be used
strictly on impartial humanitarian needs. And in this context, you are given the
possibility to operate.
# INDEPENDENCE
The principle of independence provides the guarantee that decision-making in the
organization in terms of planning, evaluation, measure of success are done
in professional terms and they are open to critique.

They are transparent. They can be looked at and we can understand why this
organization for the sake of its principle of humanity, and partiality, and
neutrality had to focus on a particular priority or method.
So, independence should not be seen as an exclusion of dependencies. You see
organization are like biological organism.
They live in environment. They need a level of communication, interdependencies to
grow, to operate.
You need staff, you need resources, you need funding. These resources and these
dependencies are inevitable.
They

require

certain

communication

and

interdependency

with

your

environment while at the same time, you need to have processes within this cell,
within this organism, the processes to maintain a sense of direction, a sense of
priorities.
That is the core mission of the organization and these mechanisms have to be
physical.
That what is independence, especially in the humanitarian field. That is independence
provides the guarantee that you're truly neutral, truly impartial and truly
humanitarian as an organization.
You may, of course, have agencies of governments, for example, that will want to
operate in the humanitarian field and will try to provide impartial assistance, will try
to remain neutral as much as possible.
The question is not so much where their funding is coming, not so much whose the
ultimate authority of this organization, but to the extent to which

it can

demonstrate, that the decision making, the priority, the planning, the
evaluation to the way the organization works is on professional terms.
And it is open to scrutiny for people to come and see that there was independence in
the decision-making of this organization.
And of course, it raises a number of issues and challenges. Because in this context of
interdependency, how can you limit the dependencies in a way of maintaining
your independence?
It's also a point of critique. Organization will always look at the others, as being not
so independent.
It's very interesting to see NGOs looking at the United Nations and says, United
Nation is not truly independent, because they have government on their boards.

Well, many NGOs have government as donors. They may have civil society. They may
have individual on their boards, but they actually depend often on funding from
governments.
And you have NGO's who depend only on philanthropic funding will look at NGOs that
depend on governments and say, we are truly independent, because look at what the
other NGO's are.
So we always use the term independence as a way to criticize others and rarely look
at ourselves, ourselves to says, how can we prove that we are truly independent?
This is where the sense professionalism, the community of professionals as much as it
may matter in terms of health, medical assistance, water, in terms of protection, in
terms of negotiation and so on.
That we can demonstrate that our organization is functioning, is operating at the
highest level of professionalism that is ready to be scrutinized by other professionals
and confirm that this is a standard operating procedure.
This is how the operation takes place. It's a form of an international standard of
operating in humanitarian action.
We could see also in terms of political perception to see that organization coming
from particular countries being the US or the West, or coming from Islamic
environment.
Maybe more suspicious. Meaning, suspected, I would say of lack of independence.
Here again, depending where you operate, you have to take on your own the
demonstration of your independence by opening channel of dialogue with the
local stakeholders, with the professionals.
For example, medical groups, medical corporations, hospitals, engineers, you have to
reach out to the professionals in situations.
It can be merchants. It can be traders. It can be civil servants. You have to reach out
and to invite them to examine the way you operate not as a matter of lack of
confidentiality, simply as a matter of professionalism, again, to demonstrate in
their own eyes and they will be your best advocate to prove the independence of your
organization.
2. INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW
International humanitarian law (IHL) is the set of international legal rules
that governs situations of armed conflict and occupation. It is also known as the
laws of war, or the law of armed conflict.

Balancing between humanity and military necessity, states agreed to a

minimum set of standards for warfare. But many were reluctant to accept
restrictions on their sovereignty or internal affairs. As a result, IHL imposes only very
limited restrictions on how parties can conduct wars. It primarily governs
conflicts between countries, known as international armed conflicts.
While all IHL regulations apply to these international armed conflicts, fewer rules
apply to internal conflicts, like civil wars. These internal conflicts are known
as non-international

armed

conflicts. With

the

growing

number

of

non-

international armed conflicts and non-state armed groups today, however, more of
the rules of IHL have been extended to non-international conflicts through
the development of treaties and customary law.
# IHL AND THE HUMANITARIAN PRINCIPLES
Both IHL and the humanitarian principles share the ultimate objectives of reducing
suffering and protecting human life and dignity during armed conflict. Yet it is
important to understand the difference between IHL and the humanitarian
principles, and how they affect humanitarian action.
First, IHL and the humanitarian principles derive from different sources. As weve
seen, the humanitarian principles arose primarily out of practice, rather than
law. They are not legally binding, but rather serve as a professional standard,
and ethical and operational framework for humanitarian action. As with the
humanitarian principles, the development of IHL is largely a product of the 19th
and 20th centuries. While militaries had long before adopted customary rules and
practices to reduce unnecessary suffering in warfare, states began to codify these
rules through written treaties beginning in the mid-19th century. This includes
the First Geneva Convention of 1864, which placed an emphasis on humanity in
warfare and established the International Committee of the Red Cross as the
custodian

of

the

Convention.

Subsequently,

the 1899

&

1907

Hague

Conventions established restrictions on the means and methods of warfare by

prohibiting certain tactics, strategies and weapons of war. The horrors of World War
I and II provided a further motivation for states to agree on a minimum standard of
rules that all parties to a conflict could accept. What emerged were the four Geneva
Conventions of 1949 and their three Additional Protocols, which form the
foundation of contemporary IHL. Since the adoption of the Geneva Conventions,
states have also concluded other international agreements regulating armed
conflict, including a series of weapons conventions; and conventions

expanding protections in armed conflict. While international humanitarian law is

not the source of the humanitarian principles, it does recognize and reinforce some of
the principles in defining and regulating the provision of humanitarian assistance.
Second, IHL and the humanitarian principles have a different scope and audience.
The humanitarian principles are addressed to humanitarian actors that is,
individuals and organizations providing protection and assistance during natural
disasters and armed conflicts. In contrast, international humanitarian law applies
during situations of armed conflict only. It is binding on all parties to an armed
conflict, including states and non-state armed groups. IHL does not apply to
peacetime natural disasters to which humanitarian aid workers may also respond.
# BASIC PRINCIPLES OF IHL
Now that you are familiar with the relationship between the humanitarian principles
and international humanitarian law, lets look at the rules and principles of IHL in
more detail.
Recall that IHL is the set of international legal rules that governs situations of armed
conflict and occupation. It aims at reducing human suffering in wartime by balancing
between humanity and military necessity. IHL establishes a minimum standard of
rules for the methods and means of warfare, and protects persons who are not, or
are no longer, participating in hostilities, such as civilians and prisoners of
war. It also regulates the conditions of detention in wartime, as well as
situations of occupation.
The basic principles of IHL are:

Distinction between

combatants

and

civilians,

which

requires

that

belligerents must distinguish at all times between civilians and civilian

objects on the one hand, and military objectives on the other. Attacks
may only be directed against military objectives;

Proportionality in attacks, which requires that parties limit the anticipated

collateral damage or harm to civilians arising from an attack;

The notion of military necessity, which permits armed forces to consider the
practical requirements of a situation when planning attacks;

The requirement to take all feasible precautionary measures to avoid

civilian casualties and to minimize the collateral damage and injuries
caused by an attack; and finally,

The prohibition of means or methods of warfare that are of a nature to

cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering, or weapons that

cause widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural

environment.
# PROTECTED PERSONS AND OBJECTS
IHL seeks to protect civilians and civilian objects during wartime. It affords general
protection to civilians and civilian objects, meaning that they may not be the
object of attack. IHL protects all civilians not taking active part in hostilities. In
addition to this general protection, IHL also affords special protections for
certain categories of individuals and objects in armed conflict.
Civilian objects afforded special protection include:

Cultural property and places of worship

Objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population (such as

crops, livestock or drinking water installations)

Works and installations containing dangerous forces (such as dams, dykes

or nuclear power plants)

Civil defense organizations and personnel

The environment

Members of the civilian population afforded special protection include:

Sick, wounded or shipwrecked soldiers

Prisoners of war and other detainees

Religious personnel

Women, and mothers in particular

Children

Refugees and internally displaced persons

Missing persons

Journalists

IHL also affords special protections to humanitarian actors, including:

Medical personnel, units, transports and equipment

Red Cross/Red Crescent personnel, and other humanitarian workers

Peacekeeping personnel

In order to limit human suffering in wartime, IHL restricts the means and methods
of warfare. Means of warfare refers to the weapons used, which may be legal,
restricted in certain circumstances, or illegal. Methods of warfare refers to the
ways in which weapons are used, including military tactics and strategies. In
accordance with the basic principles of IHL outlined earlier, IHL prohibits means and

methods of warfare that cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering,

or that are incapable of distinguishing between civilians and military targets.
# INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL LAW AND ENFORCEMENT
Certain serious violations of IHL are considered international crimes, which
entail individual criminal responsibility. These include:

War crimes, or serious violations of the laws and customs of war

committed during armed conflict. These include rape, starvation of civilians,
the recruitment of child soldiers, and so-called grave breaches of the
Geneva Conventions in international armed conflicts (such as torture,
biological experiments, extensive destruction of property, deportation
or the taking of hostages);

Crimes against humanity, including torture, rape, enslavement, unlawful

imprisonment committed as part of widespread or systematic attack
directed against a civilian population; and

Genocide, which refers to acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole

or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.

Even when it comes to international law, states have the primary responsibility
to implement and enforce the law. In the case of an armed conflict, states have
an obligation to respect and ensure respect for IHL. This

includes

implementing IHL in their domestic laws, and investigating and prosecuting

war crimes committed by their own nationals. All states are also required to
prosecute grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, regardless of the
nationality of the perpetrators.
Though the

state

retains

the

primary

responsibility for

implementation

and

enforcement, international and hybrid mechanisms also exist to enforce IHL.

These include:

International criminal tribunals (such as for the tribunals for the former
Yugoslavia and Rwanda)

The International Criminal Court (ICC)

Hybrid courts and tribunals (such as the ones for Cambodia, Timor Leste,
and Sierra Leone)

Many countries have also employed non-judicial mechanisms to deal with

international crimes and atrocities, and to promote peace and reconciliation
in the aftermath of conflict. These include:

Truth and reconciliation commissions

Remediation, reparations and compensation to victims

Memorials and monuments

Public apologies

Institutional reforms