Humanitarian principles

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.[2]

The purpose of humanitarian action is to protect life and 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 [3]

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."[4]

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 must 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.[3]

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.[5]

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."[6]

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.[7]

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.

While neutrality is an important principle in the work of Humanitarian Aid, there is a long-standing controversy in the field on how it should be implemented.[8]

The humanitarian principle of neutrality was formally established in 1991 by the UN General Assembly resolution 46/182. The principles were developed from the core principles used by the International Committee of the Red Cross and the National Red Cross/Red Crescent Societies.[9] OCHA, the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, defines neutrality as, “Humanitarian actors must not take sides in hostilities or engage in controversies of a political, racial, religious or ideological nature”.[9] This means that humanitarian workers should not take sides in a conflict.[10] In a conservative interpretation, it also means that humanitarian workers do not speak out about what they see, even in the case of egregious human rights violations, including genocide.[10] There are reasons that some prefer, and utilize, the more conservative interpretation of neutrality. First, some feel that a commitment to staying silent about what they witness allows them to access people in the most need of aid. Otherwise, leaders in areas of conflict may not permit humanitarian workers access to provide aid.[11] Staying silent can also act as a measure of protection for aid workers, further ensuring that aid is provided to those most in need.[11][12] Lastly, some argue that staying silent is a way to ensure no discrimination in humanitarian aid. For this argument, choosing sides during a conflict amounts to discrimination, and works against the fundamental principles of humanitarian aid.[11]

The other side of the debate highlights the moral imperative to speak up against egregious violations of human rights.[12] Organizations on this side tend to also promote an understanding of the difference between neutrality and impartiality, another humanitarian principle. MSF, for example, explains that impartiality ensures that aid workers only consider a person’s need in giving aid, and do not discriminate against someone because of their “nationality, race, gender, identity, religious beliefs, class or political opinions”.[12][13] On the other hand, neutrality “means not taking sides”.[12] However, MSF explicitly states that they will speak out about massive human rights violations, including genocide. They argue that the needs of the people experiencing mass violence come above the principle of neutrality.[12] In this, they do not violate impartiality, and continue to provide humanitarian aid to individuals who need it most, regardless of sides.[12][13]

Two of the major players in this debate are the International Committee of the Red Cross/Red Crescent Societies (ICRC), and Médecins sans Frontières (MSF) (also known as Doctors Without Borders). Historically, the ICRC has been completely neutral, unwilling to speak out about what they were seeing, in hopes of maintaining their ability to provide aid.[10] A good example of this is WWII, where ICRC failed to publicize and condemn the Nazi genocide.[14] This is part of what sparked the continuing debate. However, since the 1990s, the ICRC has amended its interpretation of neutrality, and promote public denouncement of serious violations of humanitarian law.[10] MSF, on the other hand, never adopted the policy of absolute confidentiality, and considers “‘bearing witness’ to the plight of victims as an additional measure of protection”.[10] While they uphold the principle of neutrality, they state that, “impartiality and neutrality are not synonymous with silence”.[15]

This issue is still widely contested in the humanitarian field. In a 2020 opinion piece, Hugo Slim argues that legally, operationally, and morally, it is acceptable for humanitarians to take sides.[8] He states, “Neutral humanitarianism is not necessarily ethically desirable when we see people as enemies for good reasons. Is it reasonable to expect a Syrian aid worker to be neutral while her community is being bombed? Is it moral for humanitarians to stay neutral in the face of injustice or genocide?” [8]

Others argue, “neutrality is very important in the provision of humanitarian assistance as it provides humanitarian actors, such as the ICRC, with the humanitarian space needed to provide relief to as many victims of crisis as possible without discrimination, whilst also allowing aid workers to carry out their duties safely and to the best of their abilities.” [11]

As the field of humanitarian aid continues to professionalize, so do the definitions and implementations of its principles.

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.[3]

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.[16]

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.

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

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.[28]