Rethinking the role of humanitarian principles in armed conflict

This final paper of the Chatham House Sanguine Mirage project explores options for a radical reassessment of the humanitarian principles in relation to the international humanitarian system. Host and donor governments, non-state armed groups (NSAG), local communities, peacebuilding and development agencies, UN agencies, components of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, and international and national NGOs all have parts to play in this process. Current accountability processes within the international humanitarian system are self-referential and disconnected, focusing on the targets of humanitarian organizations rather than on the aspirations of those they purport to serve. The establishment of an independent international panel to commission audits of UN humanitarian assistance programmes in specific countries could provide clearer accountability to both member states and recipients of assistance. These audits could be overseen by the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC). In settings where belligerents prevent humanitarian organizations from operating in accordance with humanitarian principles, these organizations must frequently contend with issues that they are ill-equipped to resolve. Situations like this demonstrate what some refer to as an ‘ethics gap’ – a failure to submit key policy dilemmas to a structured ethical decision-making process. The introduction of a structured ethical decision-making process for such dilemmas would ensure that all critical factors influencing possible outcomes are considered. Accomplishing this will require a major shift in approach within the humanitarian community, as well as new processes supported by ethicists and staff training programmes. In some contexts, humanitarian assistance acts as an inadequate substitute for much-needed political engagement to bring conflicts to an end. While peacemaking requires concerted action on several levels, an important component of any initiative should be efforts to put an end to breaches of international humanitarian law (IHL). To achieve this, states parties need to fulfil their responsibilities under Common Article 1 of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 to ensure that IHL is respected in all armed conflicts. These breaches of IHL include belligerents preventing humanitarian actors from operating in accordance with humanitarian principles. In recent years, donor governments have established several forums to discuss humanitarian work, for example, the Good Humanitarian Donorship (GHD) initiative. However, despite the agreements reached in the Grand Bargain of 2016, individual donor governments still impose different conditions on the use of their funds. Better coordination among donors has become at least as urgent as better coordination among humanitarian organizations. With appropriate management reforms, the GHD initiative can develop consistent messaging with donor governments that prioritize the needs of local populations. A culture of ‘humanitarian exceptionalism’ undermines the willingness of humanitarian organizations to appreciate the importance of a coordinated response. When organizations assert that the ‘humanitarian imperative’ removes any obligation for them to engage with the national or local authorities in conflict contexts, or even claim that it allows them to ignore the law, this exceptionalism can easily fuel behaviour that undermines the agency and capacities of populations affected by armed conflict.