1.

Discuss the fundamental principles which form the bedrock of the main activities
undertaken by the Red Cross society and Red Crescent Movement. What major
challenges do they confront in the context of contemporary armed conflicts
around the world? Illustrate your answer with specific examples drawn from the
immediate past.

I. FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES

The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), established in 1863 is the
founding body of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement. ICRC
acts as the promoter and custodian of International Humanitarian Law and the
guardian of the Fundamental Principles. The ICRC is an impartial, neutral and
independent organisation. The exclusive humanitarian mission of the ICRC is to
protect the lives and dignity of the victims of war and internal violence and to provide
them with assistance. It directs and co-ordinates the international relief activities
conducted by the Movement in situations of conflict. It also endeavours to prevent
suffering by promoting and strengthening humanitarian law and universal
humanitarian principles.
The Fundamental Principles are the central point of all Red Cross and Red Crescent
thinking and policies. There are seven Fundamental Principles that are applied to
decide what action to be always taken by components of the Movement. They are as
follows:

HUMANITY
The International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, born of a desire to bring
assistance without discrimination to the wounded on the battlefield, endeavours, in its
international and national capacity, to prevent and alleviate human suffering wherever
it may be found. Its purpose is to protect life and health and to ensure respect for the
human being. It promotes mutual understanding, friendship, cooperation and lasting
peace amongst all peoples.

IMPARTIALITY
It makes no discrimination as to nationality, race, religious beliefs, class or political
opinions. It endeavours to relieve the suffering of individuals, being guided solely by
their needs, and to give priority to the most urgent cases of distress.

NEUTRALITY
In order to continue to enjoy the confidence of all, the Movement may not take sides
in hostilities or engage at any time in controversies of a political, racial, religious or
ideological nature.

INDEPENDENCE
The Movement is independent. The National Societies, while auxiliaries in the
humanitarian services of their governments and subject to the laws of their respective
countries, must always maintain their autonomy so that they may be able at all times
to act in accordance with the principles of the Movement.

VOLUNTARY SERVICE
It is a voluntary relief movement not prompted in any manner by desire for gain.

UNITY
There can be only one Red Cross or one Red Crescent Society in any one country. It
must be open to all. It must carry on its humanitarian work throughout its territory.

UNIVERSALITY
The International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, in which all Societies have
equal status and share equal responsibilities and duties in helping each other, is
worldwide.

II. CHALLENGES BY CONTEMPRORAY ARMED CONFLICTS

The major challenge that confronts the fundamental principles of Red Cross Society
and Red Crescent Movement is “Fight against terrorism”. Most recently, international
armed conflicts took place in Afghanistan and Iraq, leading to the establishment of a
US supported government in Afghanistan and to the military occupation of Iraq. Non-
international armed conflicts erupted or continued to take their human toll in Africa,
Asia, Europe, and Latin America, while military occupation and violence in the
Middle East remained a major focus of international concern. Many of these conflicts
were eclipsed by the overriding focus of the international community on the “fight
against terrorism”. While the justifications for and qualifications of some of these
situations of violence may be in dispute, there can be no disagreement about the
magnitude of human suffering that any armed violence causes.

One other major challenge would be armed violence due to which human suffering
becomes the more severe and the consequences are more difficult to overcome.
Deliberate attacks against civilians, indiscriminate attacks, forced displacement of
populations, destruction of infrastructure vital to the civilian population, use of
civilians as human shields, rape and other forms of sexual violence, torture,
destruction of civilian property and looting have been perpetrated by governmental
forces and non-state armed groups around the globe.

Another recurring problem and challenge is access to people in need of humanitarian

aid. Another example would be non-repatriation of prisoners of war contrary to the
Third Geneva Convention has shown to be a recurring serious violation. As already
mentioned above, access to populations in need of humanitarian aid remained a
constant problem, aggravating the already desperate plight of millions of people
caught up in war. New or aggravated features of contemporary violence present huge
challenges in terms of protection of civilians and international humanitarian law
application. Armed conflicts seem to have grown more complex and permanent peace
settlements more difficult to reach.

The major and serious concerning challenge is the instrumentalization of ethnic and
religious differences appears to have become a permanent feature of many conflicts.
New actors capable of engaging in violence have emerged. The fragmented nature of
conflicts in weak or failed states gives rise to a multiplication of armed actors. The
overlap between political and private aims has contributed to a blurring of the
distinction between armed conflict and criminal activities. Ever more sophisticated
technology is employed in the pursuance of war by those who possess it. The
uncontrolled availability of large quantities and categories of weapons has also
dramatically increased. Added to the confirmed trend of instrumentalization of
humanitarian activities for military or political purposes, these features make the work
of humanitarian organizations in these contexts particularly difficult.

In the ICRC’s view, the overriding legal and moral challenge presently facing the
international community is to find ways of dealing with new forms of violence while
preserving existing standards of protection provided by international law, including
international humanitarian law. Invocation of the justness of the resort to armed force,
particularly in the “war against terrorism”, has not infrequently served as a
justification for denying the applicability of the full range of international
humanitarian law norms in situations where that body of rules was undoubtedly
applicable.

The global “fight against terrorism”, regardless of how that phenomenon may be
characterized in the legal sense, has led to a re-examination of the balance between
state security and individual protections, to the detriment of the latter. The ongoing
debate on the permissibility of torture is an example.