| |
The humanitarian imperative comes first ACFID agencies are committed to the primacy of the 'humanitarian imperative’'as outlined in the Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in Disaster Response (Sphere). By this is meant a belief that all possible steps should be taken to prevent or alleviate human suffering arising out of conflict or calamity, and that civilians so affected have a right to protection and assistance. This distinguishes humanitarian action from military objectives.
All legitimate civil-military interaction must serve this humanitarian imperative.
Respect for international humanitarian law and instruments Humanitarian agencies and personnel must ensure that their activities maintain a clear distinction between combatants and non-combatants. This distinction is reflected in the 1949 Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols of 1977, and is a key feature of the Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in Disaster Response (Sphere).
In addition, military forces must respect other bodies of international law, in particular the 1948 UN Universal Declaration on Human Rights, the 1951 UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, and the 1989 UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, in all interactions with civilians, and ensure that they accord civilians all protection due to them according to international law and the Geneva Conventions. This includes peacekeeping forces under UN authority.
Impartiality and neutrality Humanitarian agencies must ensure that any civil/military interaction does not compromise their ability to deliver assistance in an impartial manner – as highlighted in The Code of Conduct for the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement and NGOs in Disaster Relief. Impartiality is observed when humanitarian agencies deliver aid regardless of race, creed or nationality and without adverse distinction.
It should be recognised that military forces reflect varying degrees of impartiality depending on their mandate, and this may have implications for determining appropriate levels of civil-military interaction. For example, a UN force operating under a mandate from the international community may be considered to possess a higher degree of impartiality than a local force directly engaged in combat.
In addition to impartiality, a number of organisations also espouse ‘neutrality’ as a guiding principle – namely that humanitarian agencies should not act as instruments of government foreign policy. The proximity of the military has the potential to impinge on this principle.
Humanitarian space Humanitarian space is that space where humanitarian assistance is provided on the basis of need and is delivered with impartiality. Humanitarian space is 'owned' by humanitarian agencies and actors and extends from their inherent values of independence and impartiality. Military forces must minimise any movement into humanitarian space. Any such movement serves to blur the distinction between humanitarian and military actors, and increases the risk of introducing unsustainable and/or inappropriate humanitarian initiatives.
There is debate within the international community as to whether assistance provided by the military can be considered as impartial due to the difficulty, if not inability, of military forces to provide assistance on a genuinely non-discriminatory basis.
Additional complexity emerges when political intervention involving the use of military force is used to create humanitarian space.
Humanitarian agencies will assert that humanitarian activities and their co-ordination should be led by civilian actors and agencies, to ensure the primacy of humanitarian principles.
Civil-military distinction At all times a clear distinction must be maintained between civilian and military agencies/actors. Humanitarian workers must never present as military actors, and military personnel must never present as civilian humanitarian workers.
Do no harm Civil-Military interactions must be guided by a commitment to ‘do no harm’. Humanitarian agencies must take care to ensure that any potential civil-military interactions do not themselves contribute to further conflict.
Vulnerable groups Vulnerable groups such as women, children, the elderly, people with disabilities and oppressed minorities, suffer most in conflict and therefore require security in the delivery of relief assistance. Humanitarian agencies will ensure that gender considerations are a priority in the provision of security and protection.
HIV/AIDS is a particular security and protection issue for vulnerable groups in a conflict and/or disaster setting. The presence of military often leads directly and/or indirectly to the spread of HIV/AIDS. Any civil-military interaction should serve to increase the security of vulnerable groups.
Information Humanitarian workers and agencies must not engage in the gathering, or provision, of militarily sensitive information to military forces. Information should not be shared if it could, in any way, endanger communities, risk staff security or compromise the neutrality of humanitarian agencies.
Information sharing may be acceptable on the following issues:
- Security conditions affecting the humanitarian situation
- Conditions in shared space (transport, aid movements, common use airfields etc)
- General assessments of the scope of the emergency
- Protection issues for refugees and other vulnerable groups
- Evacuation Planning
The use of military resources to support humanitarian activities Decisions concerning the use of military resources – personnel and/or equipment – to support humanitarian activities must ensure that they protect both the perceived and real impartiality of humanitarian agencies. Examples of potential military support which need to be evaluated include logistical support, convoy escorts, security for food storage/delivery, and the use of guards aligned with military forces.
Where a decision is made to engage such military support of civilian humanitarian activities, humanitarian agencies must maintain transparency and honesty about such relations to all relevant parties in order to minimise any misunderstanding.
Transportation of personnel In order to preserve the distinction between combatants and non-combatants, the transportation of armed personnel and/or the prisoners of military forces by humanitarian agencies and vehicles is actively discouraged.
The transportation of humanitarian workers by military forces and vehicles is also actively discouraged.
Training and dialogue Humanitarian and military agencies/actors will benefit from an ongoing dialogue regarding respective mandates, roles and areas where interaction is and is not desirable. Both parties can benefit from mutual exchange at joint training events and other fora.
| | Back to Humanitarian and Emergencies page | | |
Julie Bishop address to Council 2010
213kb)
