Search

Protection is the core issue of all kind of internal and international displacement, migration and large human movements. Protection practitioners are the person who chooses and responses to such a matter which relates all the vital issues related to dignity and well being of refugees, migrants and displaced peoples. Protection practitioners and researchers need a lot of reading materials for their research, practice, training, analysis, module development and other purposes. So to keep them a little bit relaxed, I develop this Protection Reference Guide. The references here are collected from three module developed by PHAP (International Association of Professionals in Humanitarian Assistance and Protection). The modules are for PHAP credentialing program. The three modules are: 1. PHAP-UHE (Understanding the Humanitarian Ecosystem), 2. PHAP-ILFHA (International Legal Frameworks for Humanitarian Action), 3. PHAP-AHPP (Applying Humanitarian Principles in Practice). This Protection Reference Guide will help the researchers and practitioners to get a quick location of their materials. So they can use the materials in their work for betterment of lives and liberties of refugees, migrants and displaced people as well as other vulnerable groups of communities around the world. This Guide is also helpful for the practitioners who are planning to sit for PHAP credentialing test.

Attempts to bridge the Humanitarian-Development (HD) nexus are not new, but in recent years this idea has received renewed interest in light of the failure of traditional approaches to adequately respond to and manage complex, protracted crises. While these major policy shifts take place at the global and national levels (for example, see the 2016 World Humanitarian Summit, the Grand Bargain, the 2018 Global Compact on Refugees, or the Regional Refugee and Resilience Plan (3RP)), few studies have considered the implications that an HD approach could have on one of the core mandates of humanitarian assistance: protection. This literature review therefore examines the potential protection implications of an HD approach to complex, emergency situations. It discusses current gaps and areas for future research that were identified in our review of the literature. Highlighting both the risks and benefits that this approach could have towards the protection outcomes for affected persons, we find that these outcomes largely depend on who is involved and whose interests are prioritized in decision-making processes in an HD approach. Consequently, this approach raises additional questions that lead us to an unresolved and ongoing debate within the humanitarian sector around its role in non-traditional humanitarian situations. This debate centres around whether the humanitarian sector should maintain a needs-based approach or shift towards a rights-based approach, which in turn raises important questions about when (and which of) the humanitarian principles are relevant and what protection really means, particularly when the perspectives of other stakeholders – such as affected persons – are taken into consideration. These issues remain unresolved and become complicated by the addition of multiple actors (humanitarian, development, civilian, private, affected persons etc.) with different roles, interests and mandates in an HD approach. We therefore propose that both the humanitarian and development sectors engage with the concepts, objectives and principles behind this debate head- on, in order to strengthen our understanding of what they mean practically. As HD approaches are likely to become the new way of addressing complex crises, finding clarity on how humanitarian and development actors can work together through shared principles and objectives is critical to ensure that affected persons are adequately protected.

Despite decades of development programming for a country once upheld as a “model democracy” in Africa, Mali remains a country destabilized by extreme poverty; escalating violence and instability; and diminishing prospects for Malians’ futures in education, livelihoods, and security. Even in light of an ongoing international presence and intervention in the country, and millions of dollars raised and spent each year on humanitarian programming, the persistent degradation of governance, livelihoods, and security continues. What drives this state of affairs? How have international and regional actors contributed to sustaining a stagnating state at the expense of civilian populations and in the interest of preventing transnational Sahelian turmoil from expanding into the Maghreb and beyond to European borders? What are the expectations and aspirations of local communities as they navigate the interconnected influences of extremist groups, government actors, and international military forces? This paper examines these questions and offers reflections on various dynamics of the international response and the perceptions of local communities in this context. In particular, this analysis assesses the viability of the “triple nexus” concept, which aims — in protracted and complex crises such as Mali — to forge an operational and policy alignment between international peacebuilding, development, and humanitarian efforts. The paper is based on a desk analysis of relevant literature, as well as over 130 interviews and consultations undertaken with a variety of stakeholders, including government and non-state armed group representatives, civil society members, activists, journalists, humanitarians, analysts, diplomats, entrepreneurs, beneficiaries, displaced people, and students. The interviews were conducted in Mali, particularly in Bamako and in Central Mali, as well as abroad, between December 2018 and March 2019.

Since the 5th of January 2018, Mr. Sisiku Ayuk TABE and 46 other activists of the pro-independence movement of North-West and South-West (Ambazonia) of Cameroon have been arrested in Nigeria and extradited by the Government of Nigeria and recognized to be on Cameroon soil on the 29th of January 2018 by the then Cameroonian government Spokesman, Minister of Communication, Mr. Issa Tchiroma Bakari and that despite the advocacy of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to the Government of Nigeria who in his letter of the 24th of January 2018 declares, among others, we quote ".... To ensure better management of migration flows in accordance with international humanitarian principles, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees continues its advocacy with the Nigerian authorities to safeguard the rights of those who have fled the crisis and to facilitate the supply humanitarian assistance to refugees in safety and dignity. The Office of the High Commissioner negotiated the release of certain asylum seekers arrested by the Nigerian authorities. For those in detention including the leader of the pro-independence group, the Nigerian government agreed to grant the High Commission access to determine their status. The Government has also reaffirmed to the High Commissioner that those in detention will not return to Cameroon. The article intends to present human rights challenges in Cameroon and how can be overcome. The article gives some recommendations in this regard.

This Article is the first to argue the Israeli High Court of Justice (HCJ) misapplies the international humanitarian law principle of proportionality with regard to Israeli Defense Force Central Command decisions. Further, if the juvenile justice system procedures were challenged in court and the High Court of Justice applied a correct, objective proportionality test, this Article argues the result should be the expansion of a uniform system of juvenile justice across Israel and the Occupied Territories. The laws of war and belligerent occupation were established, in part, to protect civilians. They stand as a basic guarantee, to all of humanity, that certain rights will never be infringed — even in times of great conflict. When children are involved these rights are of even graver importance. While terrorism, violence, and warfare may cause unwanted military activity for ages to come, civilians must always be protected. All states in the modern, legally regulated world, have the responsibility to refrain from actions that disproportionately harm civilians — especially minors. While Israeli settlers in the Occupied Territories are guaranteed the rights and privileges of the Israeli civilian justice system, their Palestinian neighbors are subjected to military laws and court procedures — including Palestinian children. While Israeli law has established a non-punitive, rehabilitative, juvenile justice system by implementing limitations on police force and judicial discretion, the same cannot be said for the military legal system. Accordingly, this Article argues the HCJ has a duty, as the protector of democratic and humanitarian principles, to correctly apply the principle of proportionality, which would result in the current military juvenile justice system failing to meet that standard. As it stands, the HCJ grants nearly unchecked deference to the military regarding security concerns. Thus, the HCJ has stunted its own power to uproot and rectify injustices, making the proportionality standard all but moot in the Israeli justice system when national security is provided as a stated goal by the military for its actions. This Article shows that the HCJ has the authority to stop this disproportionate harm and in so doing, make a marked difference in the lives of Palestinian minors, and better align the Israeli state with international standards of law and children’s rights.

At the time of changing politics, environmental crises, and technological developments, the number of people in need of humanitarian assistance is increasing. This assistance is essential to save the lives of millions, alleviate suffering and protect human dignity. However, the assistance supplied is not enough for several reasons. To fulfill the legal mandate of humanitarian aid under international law and reach the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), as well as the main aims of humanitarian actors, significant changes in their practices to increase effectiveness and efficiency is needed. On the other side, the sphere of humanitarian relief and military intervention has undergone a relevant change, in sharp contrast to what was before, endorsed by many parts of the International Community. The increase of disasters and crises as well as the fast growth of human rights doctrine have inevitably led to a required redefinition of humanitarian policy and practice: as the humanitarian NGOs have been integrated into policymaking forums, policymakers have increasingly claimed to be guided by ”moral” or ”ethical” humanitarian principles, setting aside the existing legal framework mainly provided by the Charter of United Nations. Indeed, the aim of this paper is to highlight the current weaknesses and strengths of the UN system in this field, in the light of the evolving customary international law, and to provide recommendations to improve it. Throughout this paper, we will provide some facts and figures in the introduction. In chapter 2, we will discuss humanitarian relief, after defining the concept and pointing the main objective, the legal framework under international law and the relation with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) will be covered. It will be followed by a close examination of the Global Governance Structure comprising of the UN System and the cluster approach. Such a huge structure with many actors working for millions of people in need, of course, has lots of strengths as well as weaknesses. Finally, recommendations to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of humanitarian relief will be provided. Chapter 3 is dedicated to a comprehensive analysis of the existing International framework of Humanitarian Intervention, indicating the main Organizations as well as the legal basis involved, with a focus on the United Nations system. In addition, this chapter will discuss the development of a “parallel” Just War Doctrine, against the background of some post-Cold War’s humanitarian crises, here duly reported, which is contributing to shaping a new international approach towards humanitarian interventions and bypasses the black-letter of the Law in place herein. This raises doubts on the effectiveness and efficacy of the existing system that, we will see, displays more weaknesses than strengths, posing interrogatives on the need for a solid and urgent reform of the entire mechanism. Chapter 4 will be covering the post-cold war era of the UNSC and its role transformation, while examining the Iraqi case through testing the elements of the just war theory on this specific case. In chapter 5, we will provide general conclusions drawn up from this paper.

In this paper, we characterize the humanitarian objectives of emergency resource allocation and distribution in disaster response operations. We formulate the humanitarian principles as three objective functions, i.e., lifesaving utility, delay cost and fairness. An integrated multi-objective optimization model that combines resource allocation with emergency distribution is developed, where a time space network is used to incorporate the frequent information and decision updates in a rolling horizon approach. The proposed model is shown to be a convex quadratic network flow problem, for which we design an efficient Variational Inequality algorithm. Computational results are reported to illustrate the performance of the proposed model and algorithm.

This article considers the recent literature concerned with establishing an international prohibition on autonomous weapon systems. It seeks to address concerns expressed by some scholars that such a ban might be problematic for various reasons. It argues in favor of a theoretical foundation for such a ban based on human rights and humanitarian principles that are not only moral but also legal ones. In particular, an implicit requirement for human judgment can be found in the international humanitarian law governing armed conflict. Indeed, this requirement is implicit in the principles of distinction, proportionality, and military necessity that are found in international treaties, such as the 1949 Geneva Conventions, and firmly established in international customary law. Similar principles are also implicit in international human rights law, which ensures certain human rights for all people, regardless of national origins or local laws, at all times. I argue that the human rights to life and due process, and the limited conditions under which they can be overridden, imply a specific duty with respect to a broad range of automated and autonomous technologies. In particular, there is a duty upon individuals and states in peacetime, as well as combatants, military organizations, and states in armed conflict situations, not to delegate to a machine or automated process the authority or capability to initiate the use of lethal force independently of human determinations of its moral and legal legitimacy in each and every case. I argue that it would be beneficial to establish this duty as an international norm, and express this with a treaty, before the emergence of a broad range of automated and autonomous weapons systems begin to appear that are likely to pose grave threats to the basic rights of individuals.

In the post 11 September 2001 legal and political environment, Islam appears to have become one of the most misunderstood religions. Islam has been equated with fanaticism, intolerance, violence and wars of aggression – the classical Jihad ideology is often deployed to cast doubts on the compatibility of Islam with modern norms of international law as enunciated in the United Nations Charter. Much confusion stems from the fact that Islamic international law and Islamic laws of armed conflict have not received due attention in western legal scholarship. The concept of Jihad has arguably been central to many modern conflicts including that of resistance to US occupation of Iraq (2003–2005), the struggle for self-determination in Kashmir (1947–2005) and the Palestinian struggle for reclaiming their land from Israel (1948–2005). This article seeks to provide a jurisprudential analysis of the concept of Jihad. Amidst controversies surrounding Jihad, the authors attempt to contextualise the concept and relate the discussion to contemporary norms of International law as established by the United Nations Charter. The authors identify the conditions under which Jihad is permissible in Islamic law in the light of its various sources. The distinction between dar-al-harb (abode of war) and dar-al-Islam (abode of Islam) is presented as this issue impacts on laws of war in Islam. The significance of humanitarian principles within Islamic international law as well as in Islamic humanitarian law is highlighted. Self-exertion in peaceful and personal compliance with the dictates of Islam (constitutes) the major or superior Jihad.

This paper analyses the humanitarian crisis in Nepal during the period of armed conflicts from the perspectives of International Humanitarian Law. Nepal, a Himalayan Kingdom until recently, was facing armed conflicts from communist rebels. The war prolonged for almost 12 years killing more than 13000 people. Too many human rights violations and ignorance of humanitarian law principles in the course of conflicts had become the rule of the day. This paper analyses various international laws which govern war and armed conflicts. Customary International Law is the first international legal principles which are applicable to the armed conflicts. Similarly, in the process of development of Humanitarian Law, four Geneva Conventions and two additional protocols have been signed by many nation states which are collectively called the "laws of war". The Paper analyses the existing international instruments in general and human rights statutes of Nepal in particular to study how the conflicts were governed in Nepal. Nepal being a signatory to the Geneva Convention was bound by international legal principles as well as constitutional provisions to safeguard the human rights of its people. Despite existing national and international legal provisions, the paper draws the attention to the fact that there were numerous instances where the laws were simply not followed. In its conclusion, the paper urges for an independent and impartial inquiry and punishment for the violators of laws.

The one Millenium Development Goal (MDG) on which the world is backsliding, rather than making progress, is in cutting hunger in half by 2015. Undernutrition – insufficient nutrient intake, closely and causally associated with the experience of hunger – is growing, especially in the poorest countries, and above all in sub-Saharan Africa. This is worrisome for both instrumental and intrinsic reasons. Instrumentally, the World Health Organization (WHO 2002) reported that undernutrition is the single greatest threat to health worldwide. And since human health is a central determinant of adult earnings (Strauss and Thomas 1998), by extension, undernutrition is one of the greatest threats to income growth and poverty reduction. Failure to make progress on the hunger MDG is thus likely to retard progress in halving extreme poverty and other MDGs. Furthermore, there’s an intrinsic reason to worry about undernutrition. Severe undernutrition violates the internationally recognized human right to food and is thus an indicator of failure by sovereign states and by the international community to adhere to the most basic humanitarian principles that supposedly underpin development programming. When faced with undernutrition, food aid is an instinctive – and often an appropriate – policy response. But donor programming to combat food insecurity in low-income or disaster affected countries has too often been resource-driven, based on the availability of surplus food commodities for food aid programs, rather than needs- or rights-based. This must change if food aid is to become an effective tool for advancing MDGs. Poverty and hunger are mutually causal, each exacerbating the other. The humanitarian and development community must develop a coherent strategy for reducing acute food insecurity and poverty jointly, and then, based on that broader strategy, demonstrate when and where food aid is an appropriate tool with which to implement (part of) such a strategy, and when it is not. The natural objectives of such a strategy are to fulfill and protect basic human rights to life, health, and food and the reduction of chronic poverty and acute food insecurity. Food aid is only one resource, and not necessarily the primary one, to deploy in support of such a strategy. This background paper briefly outlines the circumstances and applications to which food aid is well suited to advancing a coherent strategy for reducing acute food insecurity and poverty, and those to which it is not.