IRIN Web Special on Civilian Protection in Armed Conflict

The role of aid agencies

On the other side of this equation, humanitarian agencies are bound by principles of neutrality, impartiality and independent action in the conflict situations - foregoing political engagement in order to safeguard access for humanitarian assistance.

The nature of this is captured in the idea of 'humanitarian principles', which derive from international humanitarian law. These at once establish the non-aligned role of (neutral, impartial, independent) humanitarian agencies in situations of violence and protect the "humanitarian space" required by agencies to assure the safety and well-being of civilians (and other categories of 'protected persons').

These are sometimes further elaborated in ad hoc ground rules, Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs), or other arrangements which establish a basis for "principled humanitarian action" - setting out expectations and responsibilities of different parties in implementing humanitarian principles in a particular situation, thereby controlling the conduct of war and allowing for the coordination of humanitarian activity.

Such agreements initially focused on the behaviour expected and required of armed groups but the mutuality of the agreements has since become a focus for the obligations, and accountability mechanisms, of humanitarian agencies as well.

However, there are also voices of caution within the humanitarian community about over-stretch of agencies' mandates, responsibilities and abilities - especially as political actors have "backed off" from certain situations - and of getting involved in areas where the humanitarian imperative is clouded, and the protection afforded under IHL less clear.

"Physical protection is a matter of power - of police, armies or whatever - and no NGO or humanitarian organisation will be able to provide physical protection to people that are going to be bombed," Francoise Bouchet-Saulnier, legal counsel of MSF, told IRIN.

"When IHL refers to protection, it refers to the defence of the legal status and the rights of civilians, and other 'protected persons', in times of conflict. It states different kind of responsibilities for the respect of these rights: armies and belligerents should refrain from attacking civilians directly and should not deprive them from relief.

"Humanitarian organisations have to monitor the level of protection given or refused by the belligerents to civilians and to provide necessary relief to civilians."

If it is an aim of war to forcibly displace people, there is no way - except by force - that you can stop this, Bouchet-Saulnier noted. What humanitarian organisations can do is bear witness to the pattern of violence imposed on populations and, in so doing, doing so, "trigger other mechanisms of responsibility that are not humanitarian but, rather, political or military."

Similarly, a senior policy worker spoke told IRIN of the danger, especially since the Rwandan genocide in 1994, of humanitarian organisations rushing to fill the vacuums left in many crises by political actors - thus, overreaching themselves in terms of responsibilities and mandate, and dangerously blurring the distinction between humanitarian and political actions that it had taken so long to establish.

Culture of protection

Unfortunately, the global "culture of protection" of civilians called for by UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan is still a distant prospect. In short, civilians are in dire need of protection and assistance in crisis situations around the world.

Addressing the UN Security Council in November 2002, Annan spoke of practical actions required for the protection of civilians, including the need to: secure humanitarian access; separate clearly civilians and combatants; and re-establish swiftly the rule of law, justice and reconciliation during post-conflict transitions.

The Secretary-General also highlighted three new and significant challenges faced by humanitarian actors and the international community in conflict environments. Gender-based violence, the harmful consequences of the commercial exploitation of conflict, and the escalating threat of global terrorism were also cited as concerns.

IHL emerged from efforts to address the limits of war between state actors and its relevance today has been challenged in recent years given the changing nature of and parties to war.

War crimes against civilians, often but by no means exclusively carried out by armed non-state actors, and the impunity these groups appear to feel - apparently confident that they will never be called to account for their deeds - is a particular threat to the perception and relevance of IHL in armed conflicts, according to humanitarian observers.

There are wholesale denials of humanitarian access, intimidation, kidnapping and targeting of aid workers, inadequate government efforts to protect civilians or bring the perpetrators of crimes to justice, and a slew of other challenges to IHL.

Apart from terrorism, which is a clear and deliberate threat to non-combatants and a violation of IHL, the US 'war on terrorism' (as presented mainly by the US government, but also by other state parties) threatens the whole IHL system, according to Francoise Bouchet-Saulnier, legal counsel of Medecins Sans Frontieres.

"This concept opens up a time of long-lasting war, while refusing to respect the legal framework for wartime," she told IRIN.

"It's very tricky to try to create a new kind of war (which will be 'the war against terrorism', which is a non-existing body of law) that creates an empty space, rather than creating a framework for this action," she said.

The key point is that if you resort to the use of armed forces, whoever you are, then international humanitarian law automatically applies, Bouchet-Saulnier added.

Analysts have also identified the possible co-option of humanitarianism for political ends as a real challenge to humanitarian agencies working on the ground to implement IHL.

In 'A Bed for the Night', journalist David Rieff highlights the dangers of humanitarians, despite the best of intentions, often sacrificing the core principle of impartiality - the provision of assistance to vulnerable people on the basis of need - in a misguided effort to expand the sway of democracy and human rights.

There is a real danger, especially in times of large-scale war, of humanitarian agencies accepting the militarisation of their role and becoming little more than sub-contractors to governments of military-political blocs.

Another challenge is that, in certain crises, a wide range of activities may be carried out under the banner of humanitarian action or 'relief', some of which run counter to traditional ideas about humanitarianism, including independence, impartiality and independent action.

"Today, the word humanitarian is a label that tends to be used for a wide variety of activities undertaken by actors who do not meet the humanitarian law concept of an 'impartial humanitarian organisation'… operating under very different forms and legal conditions," according to Francoise Bouchet-Saulnier of MSF.

In southern Sudan, for instance, observers have noted a wide range of nongovernmental actors, including profit-making corporations, and with different religious, political and economic motivations, working to different ends yet variously describing their work as humanitarian - thereby blurring the humanitarian imperative.

Work outside established humanitarian principles - by agencies with varied motivations and operating procedures, not all grounded in IHL - could have serious negative consequences, whether by escalating conflict itself or by eroding the tense, fragile relationship between belligerents and humanitarian actors that humanitarian principles define.

But humanitarian law has ample provision for dealing with modern methods of warfare, the issue of non-state actors, the threat of terrorism and other aspects of armed conflict, according to its advocates.

The challenge is to have those provisions respected and put into practice by all, according to ICRC president Jakob Kellenberger. The laws of war do not put obstacles in the way of fighting crime and terror, he says; they identify serious crimes and demand punishment for them.

The question, as far as the ICRC is concerned, is not "does the law work?" but "do we want it to work?"

Respect for IHL must be complemented by actions to address the causes and effects of conflicts, such as poverty, inequity, intolerance and discrimination, and to promote humanitarian values of tolerance, non-violence and peace, according to Manuel Suarez del Toro of the IFRC.

"We need to work at creating a culture of respect, understanding and lasting peace," said Suarez Del Torno. "And in the event of a crisis or conflict, we must urge all parties to use dialogue and negotiation as a means to resolve conflicts, not violence."

[Ends]