Impartiality and neutrality

In humanitarian

Introduction (250)

Since the dawn of history, humanitarian principles have been the core of mankind existence.
Philanthropy, helping others and charity was strong influential elements in every civilization
throughout history. Religions and traditions also emphasize on the urge to help and protect the
vulnerable people in society, such as widows, sick, orphans and disabled.

Social institutions were settled over the world to care for vulnerable people in the society before
the birth of international humanitarian law. For instance, Phoenicians and ancient Egyptians
stored seeds and grains to feed poor people during times of drought  . Also in Europe, the
monasteries provided help and food to travelers and poor.

However, the Modern development of humanitarianism is generally dated to the mid-nineteenth

century, when a remarkable reform movement grew up in Europe and North America, largely out
of the Christian evangelical tradition of service. At that time civil society actors were challenging
the institution of slavery and undertaking the reform of hospitals, mental institutions, and prisons.
Nursing made its appearance as a profession with Florence Nightingale, who set off to care for
British soldiers wounded during the Crimean War, and Clara Barton, who worked with the
wounded and missing during the U.S. Civil War. At the height of the colonial period, thousands of
missionaries and evangelists set off for distant lands, bringing the Gospel but also education and
health care with them. By the end of the century, philanthropy was in full swing, with wealthy
industrialists forming foundations as “private organizations with public purposes.” The Industrial
Revolution also was in full swing during the nineteenth century, permitting the production of new
weapons that made wars more deadly, and mass conscription increased the proportion of the
population at risk in war. Wars between European states and the U.S. Civil War produced
millions of casualties. Battlefield medical treatment was primitive, and most wounded in battle
simply died. Prisoners of war were treated poorly. The U.S. Civil War produced more than
400,000 Union and Confederate prisoners, many of whom died in appalling conditions.13 Major
military powers reportedly provided more veterinarians to care for horses than doctors to care for
soldiers wounded in battle.

It was in the context of terrible military casualties in warfare coupled with a growing abolitionist
and reformist movement that Henri Dunant, a Swiss entrepreneur, stumbled on the battlefield of
Solferino in 1859, where some 40,000 Austrian and Italian troops—then at war with one another
— lay wounded and dying on the battlefield. He was shocked at the carnage and enlisted women
in the neighboring villages to assist the victims on both sides. Dunant returned to his native
Geneva from Solferino, seized with the idea of creating an independent, neutral organization that
would minister to wounded soldiers on all sides of a conflict in the name of humanity. Dunant
published A Memory of Solferino, a book about his experiences, and began mobilizing support for
his idea of an independent humanitarian organization. Specifically, he called for the
establishment of local, voluntary relief committees and the protection of the volunteers.15 He
managed to bring together representatives from sixteen nations at a conference organized by the
International Committee for the Relief of the Wounded in October 1863. At the conference, the
committee was transformed into the International Committee of the Red Cross, and it adopted the
Red Cross emblem that is so well known today—the reverse of the emblem of the Swiss flag. A
year later the Swiss government convened a diplomatic conference at which the twelve nations
attending drafted and adopted the Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the
Wounded in Armies in the Field. The Convention of 1864 became the first component of what
came to be known as international humanitarian law. At the same time that Henri Dunant was
mobilizing support for voluntary relief committees, Clara Barton was serving as a nurse for the
Union army during the U.S. Civil War. Shortly after the war ended, President Abraham Lincoln
asked her to take charge of getting information on all the missing men in the Union army. She
pursued that task diligently, tracking down the names of thousands of soldiers who had died in
the war. Facing exhaustion, she traveled to Europe on her doctor’s orders in 1868 to rest and
regain her health, and there she was drawn into discussions with the brand-new ICRC and efforts
to start national societies. When she returned from Europe, she lobbied hard for U.S. recognition
of the ICRC. When the American Red Cross was founded in 1881, Barton served as its first
president. And so the Red Cross movement was born. The ICRC was established to assist
soldiers wounded in war (and others who were no longer engaged in hostilities), and national Red
Cross societies were created to assist civilians.16 Clara Barton’s work in tracing Union soldiers
became the nucleus of a large part of the ICRC’s work in tracing family members. ICRC’s
mandate to aid wounded soldiers during war expanded over time to include prisoners of war,
soldiers wounded or imprisoned during other types of armed conflict, and eventually civilians.
ICRC’s work with detainees began during World War I, when operations expanded greatly, and
the ICRC was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1917 for its efforts. The ICRC’s role as a neutral
intermediary between warring parties also gained credence during that time. After the war, ICRC
and the newly formed League of Red Cross Societies responded to the mass famine in Russia,
where 32 million people faced death from starvation.17 The same crisis in Russia would prove
pivotal in the development of the international refugee system. The League of Red Cross and
Red Crescent Societies—now the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent
Societies (IFRC)—was the umbrella group charged with coordinating the growing number of
national societies. Established with only twelve national societies in 1919, the IFRC today
encompasses 186 national Red Cross and Red Crescent societies with 97 million volunteers and
300,000 staff members. Over the years, the Red Cross movement expanded in scope and
activities. The interwar period, during which the Russian famine and later the Spanish Civil War
challenged the Red Cross to respond to widespread human need, was especially important. The
interwar years also were a time of increasing tension between the ICRC and the national Red
Cross/Red Crescent societies; while they were linked by a common name and history, in practice
there were major differences between them. The ICRC was closely tied to the Swiss state, and
from the beginning it was shaped by Swiss history, politics, and values—particularly neutrality,
which has been a principle of Swiss foreign policy since the Napoleonic wars and has served to
protect it from involvement in European wars. Over the decades, ICRC preserved the Swiss
value of neutrality—in fact, one study found that “in the more than 140 years of the ICRC’s
existence, and even with the opening of the organization’s archives, there is little evidence of the
ICRC intentionally trying to favor one state or political party—with the major political exception of
its deferring to the priorities of the Swiss state during the Second World War.”19 While the ICRC
clearly was (and is) a Swiss institution, the creation of the IFRC was driven by the American Red
Cross. As Forsythe notes, “After all, in the First World War the Americans had deployed four
times as many volunteers in the American Red Cross as the government had deployed soldiers
in the U.S. expeditionary force.”20 From the beginning, the ICRC saw the League of Red Cross
and Red Crescent Societies as a threat to its leadership and tried to limit its authority. In the end,
ICRC managed to preserve its domain—humanitarian protection in conflict situations—leaving
the less glamorous field of natural disasters to the IFRC. But relations between the two Red
Cross entities were tense for much of the last half of the twentieth century. A rapprochement
between the two came about in 1997 with the negotiation of the Seville Agreement, which spelled
out which organization would take the lead in specific circumstances and committed the two
organizations to effective collaboration in practice. While the ICRC positioned itself as a neutral
intermediary and custodian of international humanitarian law, the Red Cross/Red Crescent
societies, which had an official relationship with their national governments, were not immune to
political pressures. The history of the Red Cross/Red Crescent societies is fascinating, but
unfortunately it is beyond the scope of this book.21 Some of the themes that emerge from its
history, however, are the same issues that confront the humanitarian movement today: expansion
of mandates; tensions and turf wars between humanitarian actors; difficult political decisions
over cooperating and collaborating with governments; growth in number of staff (in 1939, on the
eve of World War II, the ICRC had three administrative staff members, but it quickly expanded to
assist more than 30 million people during the war); and questions about accountability, staff
security, and relations with partners in the international humanitarian system. The seven
organizing principles of the Red Cross/Red Crescent movement have become central to the
humanitarian enterprise. Those principles include three principles that relate exclusively to the
movement itself,22 but the other four have been hallmarks of humanitarian assistance throughout
the international community. In fact, when people refer to humanitarian action, they usually refer
to work carried out under commitment to the principles of —humanity: to prevent and alleviate
human suffering, without ulterior motives —impartiality: to relieve the suffering of individuals
solely on the basis of their needs, with no discrimination related to nationality, race, religious
beliefs, or political opinions —neutrality: to refrain from taking sides in hostilities or “engage[ing]
at any time in controversies of a political, racial, religious or ideological nature” —independence:
to maintain autonomy from governments.23 Those principles have formed the basis of many
mission statements and codes of conduct, including, for example, the ICRC’s code of conduct for
the Red Cross and Red Crescent societies and for nongovernmental organizations.24 (Chapter 6
discusses the principles and the difficulties of implementing them in the world today.) Efforts to
come up with humanitarian laws to apply during wars and conflicts have a long history. The just
war tradition emerging in the twelfth to the fifteenth centuries was based on Christian religious
tradition, the chivalric tradition (itself with roots in older understandings of warriorhood), Roman
law, and experiences with the use of force in the service of the emerging political order.25 The
Peace of God movement, which originated in southern France in the late tenth century,
represented the earliest efforts to protect persons associated with the church, peasants, and
others from looting and violence by soldiers and armed groups.26 The movement included
initiatives by local clergy to convene town councils to which nobles were invited to commit
themselves to common standards of behavior during warfare. Those initiatives were not always
successful. However, by the thirteenth century, the principle of protecting noncombatants was
firmly fixed in the canon law of the Roman Catholic Church, and subsequent development of the
idea of protecting noncombatants took place within the chivalric tradition. Knights were to fight
only other knights and were not use to arms against groups such as women, children, the elderly,
or the ill, infirm, or mentally deficient. The tradition was clear: “only people who actually take part
in war are to be treated as combatants; others, regardless of status, are non-combatants.”27
Hugo Grotius, the father of international law, emphasized the importance of protecting
noncombatants in warfare—a tradition codified in military law.28 The Geneva Conventions of
1864 and 1906 focused on combatants who have been rendered incapable of participating in
combat because of injury or illness.29 The Hague Convention (IV) Respecting the Laws and
Customs of War on Land of 1907 defines a much more extensive list of persons and property to
be protected: prisoners of war (articles 4–20); occupied territory and its inhabitants (articles 42–
56), including “public buildings, real estate, forests, and agricultural estates”; and “the property of
municipalities, that of institutions dedicated to religion, charity and education, [and] the arts and
sciences [and] historic monuments, works of art and science.”30 The convention even stipulates
that “[f]amily honour and rights, the lives of persons, and private property, as well as religious
convictions and practice, must be respected,” in occupied territory. While there is no definition of
a “noncombatant” class, there is a general understanding that civilians are not to be attacked.
International humanitarian law, also known as the law of armed conflict or law of war, is a
collection of rules that protects civilians and soldiers who are no longer participating in hostilities.
Its purpose is to limit and prevent human suffering in times of conflict. International humanitarian
law is directed primarily at states, which have a duty to respect it and ensure that it is respected.
IHL is applicable only in times of armed conflict, and it does not deal with the question of whether
the use of force by states or other actors is legal. Nor does it apply in natural disasters or in
situations in which states abuse their citizens. In other words, IHL accepts the reality that wars
will take place and seeks to mitigate the effects of war on civilians. It is a pragmatic approach, far
from pacifism, which sees war itself as evil.

The notion of humanitarian assistance has spread dramatically after the Cold War, alongside the
number of actors providing such assistance. Humanitarian actors are expected to base their
assistance on certain fundamental humanitarian principles. They can also seek guidance for their
work in various sources of international humanitarian law.

The right to humane treatment is the essence of the International Humanitarian law (IHL). It is a
basic obligation codified in various provisions of the Geneva Conventions and its Additional
Protocols, in particular of the Fourth Geneva Convention protecting civilians and in common
governing non-international conflicts. As noted earlier (in the Overview of IHL), it is also
considered to be a norm under customary international law

The law of neutrality, which stems from state practice and the Hague Conventions, is defined in
international law as ‘the status of a state which is not participating in an armed conflict between
other states’ (Bothe, 2008, p. 571). It encompasses the right not to be ‘adversely affected’ and
the duty of non-participation. Under the Hague Convention V, humanitarian assistance for the
sick of wounded is not considered to be a violation of neutrality even if it benefits only the sick
and wounded from one party to the conflict.

In more recent times, there have been concerns that diversion of humanitarian assistance and
misuse of aid by parties to international and non-international conflicts can undermine the
neutrality of assistance, in terms of non-participation in hostilities (direct and indirect). While
neutrality is not specifically mentioned in the Geneva Conventions or Additional Protocols, there
are provisions that can relate to aspects of neutrality. Article 23 of the Fourth Geneva Convention
obliges a party to allow free passage of goods through its territory intended for the civilians of
another party to the conflict. However, this is only enforceable if the obligated party has no
reason for fearing that these goods may be diverted or that they may result in a military
advantage to the enemy. Proper control by the humanitarian organisation transporting the goods
is considered essential to ensure that the goods do not indirectly advance one side of the conflict
(Mackintosh, 2000).

Impartiality is needs-based provision of assistance, incorporating non-discrimination and the

absence of subjective distinctions (e.g. whether an individual is innocent or guilty) (Pictet, 1958
and 1979). As noted in the Overview of IHL, the principle of non-discrimination is a core
principle in IHL. Various provisions of the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocols state the
importance of equal treatment of protected persons without distinction and entitlement to
fundamental rights without discrimination.

2. Neutrality: Humanitarian agencies must not take sides in the hostilities or in controversies based
on political, racial, religious or ideological identity (non-partisanship/independence). Transparency and
openness are key issues to keep neutrality. Neutrality for an organization that has taken on a rights-
based approach must not, however, be an obstacle to tackling human rights violations. Neutrality is
not a justification for condoning impunity or turning a blind eye to egregious human rights abuses. It
does not negate the need for some form of action, whether through strategic advocacy, simple
presence, political demarches, local negotiations, etc.

Neutrality also requires that humanitarian actors be clear about the specific and limited
circumstances in which military assets can be used: only as a last resort (where there is no
comparable civilian alternative); the operation as a whole must remain under the overall authority and
control of the responsible humanitarian organization; and any use of military assets should be clearly
limited in time and scale. The military and civil defence assets of belligerent forces should never be
used to support humanitarian activities.

3. Impartiality: aid is delivered to all those who are suffering; the guiding principle is only their need
and the corresponding right. Human rights are the basis and the framework for an assessment of
needs. This principle includes both the proportionality to need (where resources are not sufficient,
priority is always given to those most affected) as well as the principle of non-discrimination (no one
should be discriminated against based on their sex, age, ethnicity, identity, etc). It is crucial to
emphasize state responsibility in ensuring that aid is delivered in an impartial way.

The origin (500)

The humanitarian principles are derived from the core principles, which have long guided the work of the
International Committee of the Red Cross and the national Red Cross/Red Crescent Societies . 1 The principles’
centrality to the work of OCHA and other humanitarian organizations is formally enshrined in two General
Assembly resolutions. The first three principles (humanity, neutrality and impartiality) are endorsed in General
Assembly resolution 46/182, which was adopted in 1991. This resolution also established the role of the
Emergency Relief Coordinator (ERC). General Assembly resolution 58/114 (2004) added independence as a
fourth key principle underlying humanitarian action. The General Assembly has repeatedly reaffirmed the
importance of promoting and respecting these principles within the framework of humanitarian assistance.
Commitment to the principles has also been expressed at an institutional level by many humanitarian
organizations. Of particular note is the Code of Conduct for the International Red Cross and Red Crescent
Movement, and non - governmental organizations in disaster relief. The code provides a set of common
standards for organizations involved in humanitarian activities, including a commitment to adhere to the
humanitarian principles. More than 492 organizations have signed the Code of Conduct. 2 Also of note is the
Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in Humanitarian Response elaborated by the Sphere Project

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.

Neutrality: Humanitarian actors must not take sides in hostilities or engage in controversies of a political,
racial, religious or ideological nature.

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.

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.
How these principles affects the humanitarian (2000)

Traditionally, humanitarian actors have nothing to say about the justness of conflict or the legitimacy of armed
force. Their concern is to limit war’s effects on those not actively involved in fighting. To do this successfully,
humanitarian agencies have developed key values and principles to guide their actions. Humanitarian action is
inspired and motivated by the moral impulse to relieve the suffering of those caught up in conflict and
disaster. Its purpose is to save people’s lives, alleviate their suffering and protect their dignity. Because it is a
response to human need alone, humanitarian aid is offered impartially, without discrimination and irrespective
of other considerations such as the race, religion or political affiliation of those being assisted. Shared
humanity is the foundation of humanitarianism, and impartiality is the fundamental principle of humanitarian
action. As a means to ensure these fundamental values and principles, humanitarianism also needs a number
of operational principles. The first is neutrality: not taking sides in a conflict. Access to the victims of conflict
can only by secured by assuring belligerents that aid is provided impartially according to need, not to benefit
their opponents. A second key operating principle is independence, which is necessary to ensure that
humanitarian actors are able to make their own judgements and determine an impartial response to needs. To
gain access to populations in need on both sides of a conflict, the perception of neutrality is as important as its
actuality. In Iraq, this explains the reluctance of aid agencies to be too closely associated with coalition forces,
since this may make it difficult for them to deliver assistance on both sides of the conflict. The status of
humanitarian actors as independent and neutral has to be respected by the warring parties. In Iraq, the
International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) has reached agreement with both Iraqi and coalition forces
permitting it to work, for example, on restoring water supplies in the country’s second city, Basra. The
principle of neutrality is contested within the humanitarian community; some aid agencies argue that it limits
their freedom to speak out when human rights abuses are occurring, and to advocate publicly on behalf of
vulnerable civilians. In the case of Iraq, some aid agencies took a position with regard to the legality and
justness of the conflict, and condemned the coalition action on the grounds of its likely humanitarian
consequences. Other agencies took no position for or against the war, but stressed their concerns about the
possible level of civilian suffering and the need for all sides to respect international humanitarian law.

The observance of humanitarian principles is both a matter of professional duty and a practical necessity for
humanitarian actors. Indeed, particularly in situations of high political tension, a suspicion of humanitarian
workers pursuing hidden goals could make them unwelcome for local power holders and the population.
In such contexts, the perception that an NGO is applying humanitarian principles is equally important for
gaining access and acceptance as the actual observance of those principles.
This is why ACF strongly adheres to humanitarian principles and defends them by insisting on a clear
distinction between humanitarian organizations and other actors that may deliver assistance to populations
while serving political goals e.g. military personnel or politically motivated public and private entities. Doing
so means ACF is able to continue bringing aid and to maintain its capacity to roll out other projects in the
future.
CHALLENGE 1:
Maintaining neutrality when intervening in areas of conflict

Principles at stake

Neutrality, impartiality, non-discrimination, free and direct access to victims,

professionalism

If a humanitarian actor brings assistance to populations in areas controlled by only one of the
opposing sides in a conflict, this could be perceived as a demonstration of political support. Among
the possible negative outcomes of this would be the reluctance of the rival side to allow
humanitarian access to areas under its control a hostile attitude by part of the population towards
humanitarian aid workers and an increased vulnerability to targeted attacks.

ACF ascertains its commitment to principles of neutrality and impartiality by being “needs based”: it
chooses areas of intervention solely on the basis of its own assessment of humanitarian needs,
and no distinction is made among the victims on any criteria other than their vulnerability.

However, ACF’s capacity to conduct needs assessment in the field and to deliver aid may be
limited by security considerations.

Although ACF can carry out activities in a situation of on-going hostilities, it does not operate in
places where there is a real physical danger for its staff or for the goods that are essential for
effective implementation of its humanitarian programmes. Guarantees of security that can be
offered to ACF by different power holders are one factor demonstrating its neutrality and
impartiality by intervening in all places where needs exist.

In Yemen, ACF decided to focus on providing assistance to populations in government-

controlled areas when opening a new mission rather than entering unsecure parts of the
 country controlled by armed opposition. The possibility to conduct a needs assessment in
those areas is currently under discussion internally.

If ACF holds evidence of strong humanitarian needs in an insecure area, it will persist in negotiating access with
local power holders without prejudice to humanitarian principles and with minimal risk for the security of its staff.

In Somalia, in November 2011, ACF was expelled from areas controlled by the Al-Shabaab
opposition group and since then could only assist populations in government-controlled
regions. ACF has asserted its desire to provide assistance to all victims without distinction
by maintaining negotiations with the rebels in view of re-entering areas under their control
if this becomes possible.

Security restrictions could be mitigated by accessing beneficiaries through local staff and partnerships with other

NGOs. This solution can be adopted if the risk of targeted attacks exists only for certain categories of staff, such
as expatriates. However, when risk attains an unacceptable threshold for all staff, ACF withdraws from the area.

ACF can also deliver aid to certain areas through partnering with national NGOs. ACF believes that its Charter
principles of free and direct access and professionalism are not compromised as long as it can choose partners
that share its values and that an acceptable degree of accountability towards beneficiaries is ensured.

CHALLENGE 2:
Ensuring independence from political agendas of donors

Principles at stake

Independence, impartiality, professionalism

Another risk for humanitarian NGOs is to be instrumentalized by political or economic agendas of

donors. In a situation of armed conflict or social unrest, this can happen if funds are offered by
belligerent states, states that support one of the opposing sides or seek to garner influence in the
area. Accepting funds from state actors may be misinterpreted as a lack of independence and
impartiality.

When ACF must finance its programmes through external donors, it ensures its independence by
choosing donors only after careful analysis of the political context and by preventing any donor-
driven interference at programme level: all ACF projects are based on needs assessments carried
out by its teams in the field, are designed by ACF and its partners when applicable, and are directly
implemented by it or through its partners.

Additionally, ACF analyses the potential impact of each investment on its local perception.

For instance, ACF will reject financial aid from a state that has initiated or joined in a military
intervention in the country it operates in, or has political or economic interests in this intervention.

In Afghanistan, ACF has made the decision not to accept humanitarian funding from the United

States Government, which is considered a belligerent in the conflict.

When ACF works in a country where multi-national military operations are taking place, ACF has
accepted funds from troop-providing states for projects carried out outside areas of troop
deployment.

ACF obtained financial aid from France for projects in Afghanistan in areas where French
troops were not stationed but refused to work in areas under French military control.

Similarly, ACF will avoid accepting funding for projects in conflict-affected geographical areas from
states that offer political, economic or military support to one of the opposing parties.

For this reason, ACF has not used US funds for its projects in Occupied Palestinian Territory, in

Somalia until 2012 and in Yemen until 2013.

The same considerations may prompt ACF to decline financial aid proposed at a politically or militarily tense moment.

ACF refused to participate in UN-sponsored humanitarian programs in Hudur, Somalia in

the aftermath of Somali and Ethiopian forces taking it over from al-Shabaab rebels in
March 2012. Although ACF had previously struggled to obtain air transport facilities for
rolling out assistance programmes in another town in the same region, launching them
right after the military takeover of Hudur would have created a risk for ACF to be
associated with the Somali and Ethiopian military.
 Despite those precautions, ACF may find itself in a situation where it indirectly becomes a recipient of aid that would
otherwise be declined. ACF can accept such aid as long as it comes from independent sources, does not bear labels
negatively perceived by local population and power holders and does not affect their perception of ACF.

In Afghanistan, ACF used food stocks of the UN World Food Program, which is partly financed
by the

United States Agency for International Development (USAID).

In eastern Chad in 2008, during EUFOR intervention, ACF was receiving EU funds to
support its operations. ACF requested that its programmes on the field be exempt from any
EU visibility, which was granted after discussion.

CHALLENGE 3:
Standing firm by humanitarian principles when relating with
local power holders

Principles at stake

Impartiality, independence, transparency, professionalism

In order to secure access to vulnerable populations, ACF has to enter into dialogue with political
actors that hold control of the geographical areas concerned. In doing so, ACF takes precautions
to maintain a necessary distance so as not to prejudice its neutrality and its real and perceived
independence.

All contacts with state and non-state stakeholders are limited to negotiating access and security for
ACF staff, the civil population and public spaces. The form of this communication is adapted to the
nature of its interlocutors and to the context.
Finally, in relation with all power holders, ACF by principle refuses to pay bribes to access the field.
It has developed a strict anti-corruption policy in this regard.

Relations with state authorities

State authorities have a right under international law to refuse NGOs access to their territory or to
make humanitarian operations subject to conditions and restrictions. To respect this right, ACF
always requests the state’s authorization for launching its programmes and seeks to comply with
local legislation and indications given by the authorities. However, this comes with many
challenges.

The humanitarian imperative comes first

ACF will not agree to deliberately deprive part of a population of needed assistance in the country
where it is authorized to operate.

In Bangladesh and Myanmar, ACF has been assisting the persecuted Rohingya population
despite disapproval by state authorities.

In Afghanistan, during the rule of the Taliban, ACF refused to abide by laws forbidding
bringing assistance to women.

Transparency cannot prejudice humanitarian principles

ACF seeks to maintain access to beneficiaries by being transparent with state authorities, in
compliance with domestic laws and regulations. For this reason, ACF can provide information
about its assistance programmes to state officials and allow them to visit its programme sites. By
doing so, ACF will be careful not to violate humanitarian principles, not to create more harm and
not put at risk the perception of it by local population as an impartial actor.

ACF is sometimes requested to disclose confidential information about its staff and beneficiaries. Sharing sensitive
personal data, particularly in countries where a part of the population suffers from discrimination or persecution,
could have grave consequences for the individuals concerned. This is why ACF protects the personal data of its
beneficiaries and carefully analyses what information about its staff can be communicated to state authorities.

ACF refused to share information about ethnicity and religion of its aid workers to the
government of Myanmar where part of its staff belongs to a discriminated minority.

ACF refused to provide the list of its beneficiaries to authorities in the Gaza Strip.
Humanitarians should not be mistaken for the military

A common condition imposed by state authorities in contexts of armed conflict or high-level violence
is for humanitarian staff to be accompanied by military escorts in insecure areas. Yet, being seen side
by side with the military would make humanitarian workers look like part of state military forces. ACF
insists on strict distinction between military personnel and humanitarian staff. In this it relies, as a
primary reference, on the Guidelines on the use of foreign military and civil defence assets in disaster
relief (the “Oslo guidelines”) developed by the United Nations Office for the Coordination of
Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA).

Careful to avoid doubts about its impartiality, ACF rejects military escorts, even at the cost of delaying
humanitarian assistance. It can, only in exception, temporarily rely on the help of the military for
rescuing its staff from insecure areas. In the past, ACF has used military escorts on a few occasions
when the escorts were imposed as an obligatory security measure on all humanitarian actors
operating in the area, such as the Chechen republic in Russian Federation. Yet, the increasingly
suspicious attitude of armed groups towards international NGOs observed in recent years makes this
practice highly undesirable and dangerous.

In exceptional circumstances, when armed protection is essential for the security of its staff,
ACF prefers to maintain security by means other than relying on the military. In Somalia, for
example, ACF has recently used the services of private security companies.

For the same reasons, ACF abstains from participating in programmes lead by or involving military structures.

ACF has not cooperated with Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs) in Afghanistan and
has been critical of establishment of UN integrated missions in Afghanistan and Somalia.

Relations with non-state armed groups

To secure access to beneficiaries, ACF might also need to engage with non-state armed groups.
These contacts are limited to negotiating access and security for humanitarian staff and will not take
place if the access and security can be obtained otherwise, for example, if beneficiaries assume the
negotiations on their own. This is where the importance of gaining acceptance among the population
by strong adherence to humanitarian principles comes into play.

In Afghanistan, ACF has been operating in areas controlled by Taliban and other armed
groups fully relying on mediation of local communities.
ACF might agree to inform opposition groups about the movement of its staff but under no
circumstances will it accept to be physically protected by their armed fighters. Like military escorts,
such protection would be too detrimental for ACF’s image.

In Central African Republic, at the end of a civil war in spring 2013, the generalized social
insecurity in the town of Bossangoa created a risk for ACF’s base of being looted. As ACF
realized that there was no other way to secure its base than to have it protected by armed
fighters belonging to the group that had just overthrown the CAR government, it chose to
evacuate the base. The use of armed guards belonging to whatever conflicting party, be it a
party that was about to take place of official state authorities, would have been incompatible
with the principle of impartiality.

CHALLENGE 4:
Finding the right balance between the humanitarian imperative
and speaking out about specific situations

Principles at stake

Neutrality, impartiality, professionalism

In situations of armed conflict or social unrest, ACF teams are often the witnesses of obstacles to
access as a means to prevent aid from reaching populations, or of grave violations of human
rights. As stated in its Charter, ACF can denounce such abuses; yet, it will have to weigh the risks
between the moral duty of condemning violations and consequently running the risk of being
expelled from the area with not publicly reacting to them for the sake of maintaining assistance
programs for the affected population.

To make the right choice, ACF has to consider the situation on the ground: first, is there any
humanitarian NGOs present in the area able to provide professional assistance if ACF is expelled;
would ACF actions put at risk the humanitarian actions of other actors; how have the violations
been witnessed and whether the international community is aware of them through media
coverage, etc.
 Driven by the humanitarian imperative, ACF is primarily concerned with being able to maintain its
assistance operations. Yet, even if it prioritises continuing to provide life-saving assistance over
publicly denouncing violations, it can still alert organizations whose mandate consists in defending
human rights.

So far, ACF has only denounced violations directly related to its humanitarian mandate. As an impartial
organization, it avoids making condemnatory statements against parties to conflicts but it can offer its professional
assessment of the impact of hostilities on the humanitarian situation and its ability to access affected populations.

In Ivory Coast in 2011, as a civil war was underway, ACF witnessed a massacre in
Duékoué town. The massacre provoked displacement of population and ACF chose to
inform the international community about the substantial humanitarian risks created by it.

In Mali in January 2013, as international forces began their intervention, ACF immediately
issued a public warning that the closure of commercial routes due to military operations
could result in a food crisis in northern part of the country.

In cases of critical incidents involving its staff in the field, ACF has had to make difficult choices
between maintaining programmes in the field and pursuing justice for the victims.

In Sri Lanka in 2008, further to the killings of its 17 aid workers in Muttur in 2006, ACF
decided to pull out of the country in order to publicly criticize the lack of progress in the
investigations.

In Burundi in 2008, following the murder of one member of staff, ACF decided to close
down all programmes in country to be able to follow judicial procedures.

CHALLENGE 5:

Minimizing potential negative impact of operations

Principles at stake

Do no harm/do less harm, neutrality, impartiality, non-discrimination

ACF is increasingly measuring its activities against the do no harm/do less harm principle, which
means avoiding or minimizing negative effect that may be produced by humanitarian programs. It
is particularly important to keep this principle in mind in a context of armed conflict or social tension
in order to avoid sparking or exacerbating violence and putting the beneficiaries at risk.

Preventing aid diversion

Aid can have a great economic value, and this can give considerable power to governments or armed actors that
are able to influence where, how and to whom it is provided. In addition, without proper control, humanitarian aid
may end up in the hands of conflicting parties instead of reaching the beneficiaries. This is why ACF carries out
internal and external monitoring in order to make sure the humanitarian aid it provides goes to the people in need.

The monitoring activities include field studies, peer reviews by other NGOs, assessments by external experts etc.

Mitigating tensions among communities

ACF tries to anticipate and mitigate social fragmentation and tensions that could arise or be
exacerbated by its assistance programs.

Equal participation of communities to needs assessment

First of all, ACF makes sure that representatives of all social, ethnic and religious groups in the
area of intervention participate in needs, and sometimes sociologic and ethnographic,
assessments.

In Afghanistan, ACF has worked on delivering water in Kabul informal settlements (KISs)
populated by different ethnicities. If representatives of all of them had not been consulted
before implementation of each project, some communities could have been deprived of
access to water, or worse, it could have sparked violence between communities.

Equal aid distribution vs. distribution on the basis of needs

Secondly, in order to avoid any possible misunderstandings, ACF explains to the population that humanitarian aid
has to be provided to the most vulnerable as a priority. Here the non-discrimination principle, which implies equal
distribution of aid among beneficiaries with similar needs, goes hand in hand with the principle of equity, according
to which assistance has to be given in priority to those who need it most.

If the humanitarian needs of one community are clearly more important than those of another, ACF
may still consider rolling out activities for each of them in order to prevent social fragmentation,
conflict and reprisals. A typical example is when ACF sets up operations in favour of displaced
populations. The mere presence of the displaced may have a deteriorating effect on the living
conditions of the host community, becoming an additional economic burden which affects the well-
being of the local population. In this case, providing humanitarian aid to all communities would not
only be needed to prevent dissent but would also come as a legitimate answer to new
humanitarian needs of the host population.

Furthermore, if tensions already exist between two communities, bringing humanitarian assistance
to one of them, be it the most vulnerable, could increase existing tensions and make ACF seem
partial.

15
 In Myanmar’s Rakhine State, ACF faced this problem, where inter-communal
violence in 2012 further polarized already tense relations. Assistance to the
relatively impoverished and violence-affected Rohingya population was seen
as exclusive by some of the Rakhine community. ACF sought to balance aid
provided to each community, adapted to their respective needs, and to
communicate on its mandate and assistance to counter rumours in an effort
to ensure aid would not be restricted and inter-communal tensions
exacerbated.

Context-sensitive staffing policy

The negative effect of humanitarian programs on inter-community relations is also

mitigated through staffing policy. ACF wants its local teams to reflect the composition
of local societies so that ACF aid workers treat all beneficiaries with equity and are
accepted by the beneficiary communities. The profile of staff is also taken into
account to manage security risks.

The predominance of a certain group in a local team can affect ACF’s acceptance by
the population and fuel tensions. Unfortunately, ACF is sometimes unable to equally
recruit from all local communities as some of them are deprived of access to
education and, consequently, lack skilled candidates.

In Chad, in order to fill local staff positions, ACF had no choice other than to
recruit people from the south where people are Christian in majority, to work
in northern regions where people are Muslim in majority, and where the level
of education is much lower. In such cases, ACF will usually try to employ
people from local communities.

Conclusion (250)

As can be seen from the examples given above, the contexts of armed conflict and
other situations of violence raise significant challenges for humanitarian NGOs to
assert and ensure the application of the humanitarian principles. As a context
sensitive organisation, ACF adapts its response and prioritises the application of the
different principles on a case by case basis. Facing these challenges frequently, ACF
uses humanitarian principles as the major guideline for making operational decisions
so it remains able to continue to bring assistance to people who need it.

ACF remains dedicated to the application of humanitarian principles as a means to

carry out humanitarian assistance while maintaining the humanitarian space
necessary to operate. Mindful that there is no uniform way to respond to a crisis and
that principled decisions are often difficult to take, ACF is convinced that it is of
utmost importance that all humanitarian actors remain committed to protecting and
applying the humanitarian principles when delivering aid.

ACF will continue to measure all of its interventions against the humanitarian
principles and calls for the humanitarian community to advocate for their respect and
protection.