Search

The establishment of the International Criminal Tribunal's post-World War II is the clear sign of augmented figure of International Crimes especially. The culmination of flagship tribunals like Yugoslavia and Rwanda opened the new phase for several significant questions such as the maintenance of humanitarian principles throughout the investigation, relevancy of evidence, authenticity, and overall mechanism and its legality too. The chances of an independent investigation mechanism for international crimes may also not be denied. Under such a state of affairs, the issues of collection, preservation, and scrutiny of the evidence of the most serious International Crimes and violations of normative principles set out by International Criminal Law becomes crucial to know to ensure fair and transparent justice. Indeed, the investigation procedure required for such fairness and transparency demands unequivocal maintenance of humanitarian principles throughout the process and legality for the sake of legal authority behind. Consequently, the present paper counts the impact of the investigation mechanism on criminal for international crimes and the existence of the symptoms of humanitarian principles with its legality by analyzing several International Instruments, Judicial Decisions, and other fact findings on the record.

The following paper explores the position of India on refugees and its resistance to signing the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. It first revisits the colonial frame in which a refugee policy was thrust upon the country. Secondly, it analyzes the geopolitical and internal constraints that determined India’s approach to the refugee question in the 1950s. Finally, it focuses on the current moment to discuss the implications of the recent amendment of the Citizenship Act for refugees in India. Such a long-term approach can open the door to a process of accommodation both by international organizations and by national governments around some universal humanitarian principles that must govern refugee policies. States remain sovereign in their international commitments. They choose to ratify a treaty or not, and to denounce it or not. In addition, human rights institutions are regularly criticized and attacked by States while their legitimacy is often questioned. It is this sovereign freedom of each State, which makes this matter difficult to grasp. We believe that understanding the factors influencing States in their choices is particularly crucial in this period of instability in international relations., L'article qui suit explore la position de l'Inde sur la question des réfugiés et sa résistance à signer la Convention de 1951 relative au statut des réfugiés. Il revisite tout d''abord le cadre colonial dans lequel une politique des réfugiés a été imposée. Ensuite, il analyse les contraintes géopolitiques et internes qui ont déterminé l'approche indienne à la question des réfugiés dans les années 1950. Enfin, l'article met en lumière l'impact, sur les réfugiés, de l'amendement de 2019 à la Loi sur la citoyenneté en Inde. Les États restent souverains dans leurs engagements internationaux. Ils choisissent de ratifier ou non un traité, de le dénoncer ou non. De plus, les critiques et attaques régulières à l'encontre des institutions des droits humains par les États entraînent une remise en question de ces mêmes institutions et de leur légitimité. C'est cette liberté souveraine de chaque État qui rend cette question difficile à appréhender. La compréhension des facteurs qui influencent les États dans leurs choix est particulièrement cruciale en cette période d’instabilité des relations internationales., El siguiente artículo explora la posición de la India sobre los refugiados y su resistencia a firmar la Convención sobre el Estatuto de los Refugiados de 1951. En primer lugar, revisa el marco colonial en el que se impuso al país una política de refugiados. En segundo lugar, analiza los condicionantes geopolíticos e internos que determinaron el enfoque de la India sobre la cuestión de los refugiados en la década de 1950. Por último, se centra en el momento actual para evidenciar las implicaciones de la reciente modificación de la Ley de Ciudadanía para los refugiados en la India. Los Estados siguen siendo soberanos en sus compromisos internacionales. Deciden ratificar un tratado o no, y denunciarlo o no. Además, las instituciones de derechos humanos son criticadas y atacadas regularmente por los Estados, mientras que su legitimidad es a menudo cuestionada. Es ésta libertad soberana de cada Estado la que hace que éste asunto sea difícil de entender. Creemos que comprender los factores que influyen en las decisiones de los Estados es especialmente crucial en este periodo de inestabilidad en las relaciones internacionales., Boutier Indira. The Non-Ratification of the 1951 Convention on Refugees: An Indian Paradoxical Approach to Human Rights. In: Revue Québécoise de droit international, Hors-série juin 2021 – State Compliance with International Human Rights Law: State-of-the-art, Improvement and Challenges. pp. 115-135.

إن فظاعة ووحشية جرائم الحرب في النزاعات المسلحة الغير دولية وعدم حماية الأفراد في حالات الاضطرابات والتوترات الداخلية التي لم تستثن حتى الفئات الضعيفة والأعيان اللازمة لحياتهم کما حدث في ليبيا واليمن والسودان وسوريا، فضلا عن مون المبادئ الإنسانية أصبحت مهددة بالزوال في ظل هذه النزاعات نتيجة لإزدياد تعلق أطراف النزاع بمفهوم النصر ولو على حساب هذه المبادئ، لطالما اعتبرت الاضطرابات والتوترات أوضاعا داخلية تنطبق عليها القوانين الداخلية، مما يعني أنه لا يمکن تطبيق أحکام القانون الدولي الإنساني على المتضررين من الانتهاکات التي تقع عليهم لذلک سعت الکثير من المنظمات المهتمة بحقوق الإنسان إلى تغيير هذا التوجه في مختلف المؤتمرات الدولية التي نظمتها، وذلک من منطلق أن حماية شخص الإنسان وسلامته وکرامته وحياته ضرورة آمرة في کل الأوقات والظروف، ولذلک فإن قضاء هذه الأوضاع من مجال حماية القانون الدولي الإنساني لا يعني غياب القانون عنها، وإنما توجه الحماية نحو قواعد أکثر شمولا: موضوعيا، زمنيا، مکانيا، وشخصيا، والمقصود هنا هي قواعد القانون الدولي لحقوق الإنسان. The atrocity and brutality of war crimes in non-international armed conflicts and the failure to protect individuals in situations of internal disturbances and tensions that did not exclude even the vulnerable groups and objects necessary for their lives, as happened in Libya, Yemen, Sudan and Syria, as well as the moon, humanitarian principles have become threatened with extinction in light of these conflicts as a result of the increasing attachment of The parties to the conflict in the concept of victory, even at the expense of these principles, have always considered disturbances and tensions as internal conditions to which internal laws apply, which means that the provisions of international humanitarian law cannot be applied to those affected by the violations that occur to them. Therefore, many human rights organizations have sought to change this approach. In the various international conferences that I organized, on the premise that the protection of the human person, his integrity, dignity and life is a peremptory necessity at all times and circumstances. Therefore, excluding these situations from the field of protection of international humanitarian law does not mean the absence of law from it, but rather directs protection towards more comprehensive rules: Objectively, temporally, spatially and personally, what is meant here are the rules of international human rights law. The study aims to lay down a system or rules to regulate these internal tensions and disturbances, whether international or non-international armed conflicts, in order to reduce the occurrence of violations and alleviate suffering in international humanitarian law. The problem of the study revolves around two main issues: First: Since internal disturbances and tensions are not covered by international humanitarian law, then what is the best way to find legal rules in order to protect the individual from the arbitrariness and excesses of authority, and how can the humanitarian activities aimed at helping victims of violence be protected? Second: Did international law provide the necessary protection that guarantees at least the minimum rights for civilians and civilian objects during internal tensions and disturbances, and if this is the case, were these rules actually applied during them? The study reached many results, including in terms of application, as the current non-international armed conflicts demonstrated the ineffectiveness of applying international humanitarian law to them and the difference in legal systems applied to the two types of international armed conflicts and non-international armed conflicts, so that the former has growing legal rules in order to protect its victims. While we find that the second type has only some insufficient rules

The principles which deal humanity are the core values of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) and Human Rights Law (HRL). Both of these codified laws expressly provide utmost protection for rights of women and children suffering war hostilities, armed conflicts and other natural disasters. These vulnerable groups are protected in the behest of International Law as well as Municipal laws. Indeed, it is admitted fact that during such crisis they become most vulnerable subject of the society. In this context, the statutory laws in Pakistan have also been promulgated in consonance with the IHL, HRL and Refugee Law. The main corpus of these rules has been embodied either directly or indirectly in the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, and as such, International Law have been ratified and thus is provisions are binding on Pakistan. However, it is observed that their applicability is not proper at state level, and as such they could not have provide effective remedies to the children and women in Pakistan. The aim of this research is to analyse critically, the applicability of Municipal Laws concerning with the protection of the rights of women and children in Pakistan, and for this objective, doctrinal research method has been adopted.

This article aims to explore the principles of humanity in Islamic International Law, which include humanitarian principles in peace situation and in time of war and assess their suitability with current international law. To achieve this purpose, this article uses historical assessment methods and textual interpretations to study a string of historical events as well as analyze sources of text from the Quran, hadiths and other legal documents. The principles of humanity outlined in this paper are an important aspect of organizing relationships between humans either in peace or during the war. In fact, the Islamic Law of the Quran, the hadiths and actions of the Prophet ﷺ throughout history has always elevated human dignity and human values. The results show that Islamic International Law through its humanitarian principles contributes significantly to the regulation of human life in line with the development of international law. In light of the sentiment expressed by some of the international community that Islam is a terrorist religion, the humanitarian principles outlined in this article are expected to repel the allegations and thus formulate a set of ideas that will support and improve the implementation of existing international law

This article examines the role of international humanitarian law (ihl) and humanitarian principles in the discourse of humanitarian negotiation. The article is based on extensive, semi-structured interviews conducted with 53 humanitarian practitioners about their experiences engaging in negotiations in the field. The article proceeds in four parts. Part 1 discusses two key factors at play during humanitarian negotiation processes. The first factor is the counterpart’s familiarity with relevant legal and normative frameworks. The second factor is the interests that can drive counterparts’ behavior. Part 2 presents a framework for understanding how the interaction of these two factors – familiarity and interest-alignment – can shape the discourse of humanitarian negotiation. Part 3 addresses the impact of these same issues on the humanitarian side of the negotiation. In particular, there is the possibility that humanitarian actors themselves might also lack familiarity with ihl and/or humanitarian principles and might find that their interests exist in tension with humanitarian laws and principles. The final section offers concluding remarks.

With the publication of the National Register of Citizens (NRC) in Assam, the indispensable question regarding the legal status of individuals who would be excluded from the final version arises. This paper critically analyzes the legal framework that addresses and governs statelessness, by taking into consideration, both the domestic laws, and the international treaties which India is a party to, and argues that the contemporary legal system does not address the issue of statelessness effectively and requires an overhaul. The lack of a comprehensive legislative policy to address statelessness will prevent uniformity in the expulsion methods that is employed by the state. In the light of forced deportation and the subsequent expulsion, this paper highlights the significance of formulating a uniform policy that operates on established humanitarian principles that does not vary from one instance to another.

The rehabilitation of international humanitarian law (IHL) has become a priority for those who think that the horrors of contemporary wars are largely due to the blurring of the distinction between civilians and combatants and for those who think that campaigning for the respect of IHL could result in more civilised wars. Similarly, respect for humanitarian principles is still seen by many as the best tool available to protect the safety of aid workers. In this text, I argue that both assumptions are misled. The distinction between civilians and combatants, a cornerstone of IHL, has been blurred in practice since the late nineteenth century. In addition, humanitarian agencies claiming to be ‘principled’ have been victims of attacks as much as others. History and current practice tell us that neither IHL nor humanitarian principles provide safety or can guide our decisions. Accepting their symbolic value, rather than their unrealised potential to protect and solve operational dilemmas, would free humanitarian agencies from endless speculations.

Aceh Province as an Islamic Sharia Regional has culture and customs based on the values of the Quran and Hadith. For the Acehnese people, customs and laws cannot be totally separated that Acehnese customary law continues to grow until the birth of Acehnese Qanun Number 9 of 2008 concerning the Development of Indigenous and Customary Life. In the implementation, the customary sanctions experience some obstacles due to their unwritten characteristic that made them slightly shifted by the presence of national law. As what happens nowadays in Central Aceh District which is famous with its traditional values, there found legal issues for the customary instrument (Sarak Opat) when the customary sanctions considered discriminatory and arbitrary. Therefore, the settlement of customary disputes must be in accordance with humanitarian principles prioritizing the principle of deliberation and peace although many obstacles still exist at the level of implementation because of lack of understanding by both community and customary instruments related to the implementation of customary itself.

Humanitarianism is war’s philosophy to treat the enemy as a human after becoming dysfunction to fight further. So far, humanitarian law is clear- at least in codes- regarding international and traditional wars. After 9/11 the world experienced a total new war where, at least one party is nonstate actor. How to deal the injured, captured and dead combatants and non-combatants during the war became unclear and debatable. The war was fought in the parts of Pakistan including Swat that witnessed a huge displacement and destruction. People suffered hugely at the hands of the combating parties. It made it debatable to study whether there is a set of humanitarian codes, owned and practiced by military and militants. An intellectual work therefore, is mandatory to know the roots, sources and codes of humanitarian principles of the war on terror and its relevance with the fighting in Swat.

The principles of international humanitarian law (IHL) have evoked considerable debate in the practice of humanitarian support, particularly in terms of emerging tensions with sovereign (national) law. Drawing on organization studies, we examine the emergent strategies aimed at resolving the ambiguous legal context in which humanitarian support operations in a conflict context are embedded. Our analysis of two missions revealed two types of emergent strategies, namelynetworkandnegotiationstrategies, differentiated by particular contextual dimensions. We extend the humanitarian law debate by showing the strategic interplay between the operational humanitarian context and international humanitarian principles, thereby connecting the fields of international law and organization science.

The term “humanitarian crisis” combines two words of controversial meaning and definitions that are often used in very different situations. For example, there is no official definition of “humanitarian crisis” in international humanitarian law. Although some academic disciplines have developed ways of collecting and analyzing data on (potential) crises, all of them have difficulties understanding, defining, and even identifying humanitarian crises. Following an overview of the use of the compound noun “humanitarian crisis,” three perspectives from respectively the disciplines International Humanitarian Law, Public Health, and Humanitarian Studies are discussed in order to explore their different but partly overlapping approaches to (incompletely) defining, representing, and negotiating humanitarian crises. These disciplinary perspectives often paint an incomplete and technocratic picture of crises that is rarely contextualized and, thus, fails to reflect adequately the political causes of crises and the roles of local actors. They center more on defining humanitarian action than on humanitarian crises. They also show four different types of humanitarian action, namely radical, traditional Dunantist, multimandate, and resilience humanitarianism. These humanitarianisms have different strengths and weaknesses in different types of crisis, but none comprehensively and successfully defines humanitarian crises. Finally, a multiperspective and power-sensitive definition of crises, and a more fine-grained language for comprehending the diversity of crises will do more justice to the complexity and longevity of crises and the persons who are surviving—or attempting to survive—them.

In 2016, the UN International Law Commission (ILC) adopted its Draft Articles on the Protection of Persons in the Event of Disasters with a view to enhancing the protection of basic human rights of persons confronted with calamitous events, human-made or natural ones. This contribution aims at assessing the pertinence and value of the Draft Articles for the protection of the rights of victims of detonations of nuclear weapons. It will take into account other applicable norms of international law, in particular IHL and the adoption, in 2017, of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), providing for the duty of States Parties to assist victims of past and future nuclear weapons’ use and nuclear testing, and will analyze the relationship between these two recent documents. The chapter consists of three parts: In Sect. 6.1, it will examine whether, and to what extent, the Draft Articles are applicable to situations of detonation of nuclear weapons, including when caused by terrorists. In other words, the definition of ‘disaster’ will be at stake. Section 6.2 will be dedicated to the question of who bears the main responsibilities for the protection of persons in the event of a disaster, and to the duty to cooperate between States. In Sect. 6.3, the scope and role of the applicable principles, such as human dignity, human rights and humanitarian principles, which have to be respected and promoted in the aftermath of a disaster, will be discussed and compared with similar duties deriving, among others, from the assistance clause of the TPNW.

Attempts to consolidate humanitarian actors into a humanitarian system are occurring simultaneously with efforts to generate greater coherence between humanitarian action and development and peace-building. Whether a strengthened humanitarian system can adhere to the humanitarian principles while engaging in post-conflict societal reconstruction is unclear. This would require humanitarian action to address the victimhood mentality when dealing with affected populations and to seek out capacities as well as needs. In so doing the inherent political nature of humanitarian action and the manner in which it is prone to instrumentalization needs to be recognized. This would assist in generating the sensitivity required in order to ensure that humanitarian action ultimately supports rather than undermines reconciliation and the building of democratic institutions. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Ambitions to fulfil accountability demands in humanitarian action are high, including for protection activities in armed conflict settings. However, from a Dunantist position, meeting accountability demands is often not only unsatisfactory for practical reasons, but is also inappropriate in view of humanitarian principles and flawed from related ethical perspectives. Regarding accountability primarily as a technical exercise, rather than as being linked to ethical perspectives on humanitarianism and its principles, may thus inadvertently contribute to reduced acceptability of, and ultimately reduced access for, humanitarian actors. Dunantist actors wishing to stay true to their ethical approach need new ways of thinking about accountability, a reflection which can serve as an example for an ongoing need to consider differences between actors within the humanitarian–development nexus.

By refusing to sign the new UN Nuclear Weapons Prohibition Treaty, Japan has put itself on the wrong side of history, geography, legality, morality, and humanity. The treaty is part of the broad historically progressive trend since 1945 to limit and abolish nuclear weapons and their use. The normative architecture includes the Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT), the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, the Nuclear Suppliers Group, regional nuclear weapon-free zones, the Proliferation Security Initiative, and the International Atomic Energy Agency. Geographically, global nuclear risks and threats exist in especially acute form in the Asia-Pacific and most states of the region voted solidly for the ban treaty. The NPT’s legal obligation to eliminate nuclear weapons was strengthened by the World Court’s Advisory Opinion in 1996. Most countries and peoples of the world overwhelmingly abhor the bomb as deeply immoral. The ban treaty expresses their collective moral revulsion and is rooted in humanitarian principles.

Our globalizing world is presently in a state of global turmoil. While felt everywhere in the world, it is the Middle East in general, and Syria and Iraq in particular, where the meaning and the implications of the global turmoil have recently coalesced. As a regional hegemon bordering Syria and Iraq, Turkey is situated at the heart of these challenges. Despite the existing stalemate in Turkey–EU relations, Turkey can deal with these challenges more effectively if Turkey and the EU work together to develop common responses to them on the basis of humanitarian principles and values. In line with the ‘EU Global Strategy,’ Turkey and the EU could work together to provide humanitarian and effective responses to significant security risks they face and play an important role in post-conflict reconstruction and mediation. There is a need to revitalize Turkey–EU relations in a way trust and collaboration replaces skepticism and instrumentalism.

This article aims to acknowledge and articulate the notion of “humanitarian experimentation”. Whether through innovation or uncertain contexts, managing risk is a core component of the humanitarian initiative – but all risk is not created equal. There is a stark ethical and practical difference between managing risk and introducing it, which is mitigated in other fields through experimentation and regulation. This article identifies and historically contextualizes the concept of humanitarian experimentation, which is increasingly prescient, as a range of humanitarian subfields embark on projects of digitization and privatization. This trend is illustrated here through three contemporary examples of humanitarian innovations (biometrics, data modelling, cargo drones), with references to critical questions about adherence to the humanitarian “do no harm” imperative. This article outlines a broad taxonomy of harms, intended to serve as the starting point for a more comprehensive conversation about humanitarian action and the ethics of experimentation.

This paper draws on official records of international and British organizations, newspaper reports, and volunteer memoirs to study the failure to protect humanitarian workers in the Second World War. The Second World War saw a significant expansion in the use of air warfare and flying missiles and these technological advances posed a grave threat to civilians and humanitarian workers. In this context, the International Committee of the Red Cross advocated unsuccessfully to restrict air warfare and create safe hospital zones. The British Government grappled with the tension between military and humanitarian objectives in setting its bombardment policy. Ultimately, humanitarian principles were neglected in pursuit of strategic aims, which endangered civilians and left humanitarian workers particularly vulnerable. British Voluntary Aid Detachment nurses experienced more than six-fold greater fatality rates than civil defence workers and the general population. The lessons from failures to protect humanitarian workers in the face of evolutions in warfare remain profoundly relevant.

For more than 150 years, the international community’s assistance to those affected by various humanitarian events has been guided by four clear and succinct principles: humanity, impartiality, neutrality and independence. These principles have guided not only the ways in which the international community has responded to natural and human-induced disasters — they have also shaped the humanitarian system more generally. The geneses of these four humanitarian principles lie within Henry Dunant’s account of the violent Battle of Solferino in 1859. This account led to the establishment of the Red Cross and the first Geneva Convention, which together gave rise to the humanitarian principles. These humanitarian principles were conceived to guide the work of the International Committee of Red Cross, but they have since gained near universal adherence within the humanitarian sector, and have been utilised to justify both action and inaction by those responding to humanitarian crises. Whilst important and necessary at the time of their inception, the maturing of the humanitarian sector, along with the increasing complexity and intensity of humanitarian events, requires a reconsideration of their relevancy and usefulness. This paper argues that these four principles are no longer fit-for-purpose to guide and shape the international community’s humanitarian actions. We argue instead that four new principles would better direct humanitarian action in the current environment: equity, solidarity, compassion and diversity. We discuss the deepening complexity of modern humanitarian emergencies and resulting declining suitability of each of the four original principles, before considering the four new suggested principles.

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.

It is not exaggerated to consider the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), adopted on 7 July 2017, a paradigm shift in arms control law. The reasons for this suggestion not only lies in the fact that it is the first potentially universal treaty dealing with nuclear weapons that has been adopted since the 1997 Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, but even more in its nature and logic that are deeply inspired by humanitarian principles, aiming at protecting the human being and future generations, much more than States’ security. It therefore follows the path of the 1996 Ottawa Convention on the prohibition of anti-personnel mines and the 2008 Oslo Convention on cluster munitions. The author will demonstrate the human- and victim-centred approach of the TPNW based on several elements, namely the preparatory work leading to the new treaty, the preamble expressing its object and purpose, the prohibition of use of nuclear weapons, the duty to assist victims of use and testing of nuclear weapons and the duty to provide for environmental remediation. In the section dealing with the prohibition on use of nuclear weapons, one of the key clauses of the new treaty, the legality of such use will be assessed under international humanitarian law and human rights law. More than previous authors having conducted research in this field, the author pays due attention to the relevant human rights law, a body of law that offers, from his point of view, certain advantages for victims of nuclear weapons by, inter alia, establishing specialized courts and by singling out particularly vulnerable groups of people, such as women, children and indigenous peoples.

The emergence of the Responsibility to Protect (r2p) doctrine is part of a universal longing to prevent atrocities and to protect those affected by them. While its origins are quite distinct from international humanitarian principles, its links with humanitarian issues are clear. In fact, r2p emerged in response to humanitarian tragedies. This article traces the intersection of r2p and protection frameworks for refugees and internally displaced persons (idps), recognizing the important differences between them. r2p focuses on prevention, response and rebuilding – the first two tasks of which are inherently political. Conflicts cannot be prevented or resolved without engaging in political action of one kind or another. Responding to atrocities requires taking sides. Normative frameworks on refugees and idps, on the other hand, are based on the principle that people are to be assisted and protected on the basis of need alone and that humanitarian action is non-political in nature.

This paper is an account of Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF) Brussel’s projects in Johannesburg from 2007 to 2013, drawing on the ethnographic research of an external researcher (Wilhelm-Solomon) and MSF health worker and project leader (Pedersen). We argue, based on this case study—spanning responses including interventions targeted at mass migration, xenophobic violence, cholera and finally involving health, waste and sanitation interventions in inner-city unlawfully occupied buildings—that urban humanitarianism in inner-city Johannesburg evolved from reworking contested humanitarian principles in dense and diverse urban spaces. We argue here that humanitarian interventions in urban spaces not only require a departure from short-term biomedical operations and evaluations but also a questioning of the politics and principles of humanitarianism. In particular, this requires emphasising solidarity over neutrality, and committing to long-term engagements without immediate and verifiable medical outcomes, in which sustaining relations of trust are paramount and adaptation is a key. In the case of MSF in inner-city Johannesburg, we argue that operations crossed the present borders of humanitarianism, and that this was tied to their achievements but also eventual limitations and project closure.

Following the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, humanitarian organizations grew increasingly preoccupied with the ways in which people in the field perceive them. In order to address the blurring of lines between military and humanitarian interventions, they undertook perceptions studies and enhanced their networking and field communication capacities, thereby turning the monitoring and management of local perceptions into a knowledge-based and more systematic endeavor. This article examines the conjunctures that have turned the views of so-called stakeholders into a strategic issue for contemporary humanitarianism. Based on an analysis of the rise of perceptions management, it demonstrates just how indebted the humanitarian hold over emergency zones is to political technologies that analyze the arenas in which humanitarian actors operate in order to make them more hospitable and responsive to humanitarian efforts.

Purpose of the article is to define the characteristic features that are projected into the need and the main aspects of the study of law as a socio-cultural phenomenon. The methodology of the research is based on an interdisciplinary combination of general scientific (system-functional, historical-logical, analysis and synthesis) and special-legal methods of cognition, focusing on the methodological principles of sociocultural and legal approaches. Scientific novelty of the research is to justify the need to study and further understand the law as a socio-cultural phenomenon using an inclusive combination of methodological positions of legal and socio-humanitarian approaches with an emphasis on sociocultural and legal analysis. Conclusions. The study of law as a socio-cultural phenomenon requires the application of an interdisciplinary methodology based on an inclusive combination of methods and principles of some social and human sciences (sociology, law, psychology, cultural studies, anthropology, history). Such a methodology is designed to overcome certain research limitations of traditional approaches to understanding the law as a social formation and to develop a universal strategy to its interpretation since it, first of all, allows us to appreciate its socio-humanitarian sources, which are partly identical for the international legal system. The definition of universal humanitarian principles of the functioning of law as a public institution facilitates the search for points of civilizational intersection of legal systems of different countries, making possible the interaction of not only individual social groups but also various theoretical concepts in determining its essence, taking into account cultural and civilizational differences.

This article explores the complex position of local physicians at times of political unrest or conflict, conceptualizing local medical voluntarism as a form of collective action. It analyzes the evolving interpretation of medical neutrality among Egyptian physicians who provided medical assistance to injured protesters in the Egyptian uprising (2011-2013). In-depth interviews with 24 medical and non-medical volunteers on their perception of medical neutrality were matched with their mobilization and participation history, showing the extent towards which political considerations influenced their voluntary medical engagement. The results firstly show that revolutionary political considerations played a central role in the physicians’ mobilization into medical networks active in the protests, as well as in their interpretation of their medical and non-medical activities. Secondly, I argue that the interpretation of medical neutrality among Egyptian physicians evolved significantly over time. A special type of medical volunteer took shape, the mīdānī physician. This physician openly expresses his/her political convictions and adheres to (self-defined) humanitarian principles through a conscious reconciliation of the two. The article details the increasing difficulty of this task after the revolutionary movement splintered into competing factions and citizens ended up fighting each other instead of authoritarian rule.

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.

The use of drones and satellite imagery for humanitarian purposes raises threats to the core humanitarian principles of impartiality and respect for the independence of those being aided if disaster victims are not included in disaster planning.

This article documents the work of Islamic charities and NGOs from diverse backgrounds to develop sets of principles guiding their humanitarian and charitable work, in the framework of the dialogue and cooperation among Islamic NGOs and charities as well as between Islamic and Western humanitarian agencies. The authors look at draft documents that resulted from these processes, and the way these relate to the core principles of humanitarian action. They further follow how the dialogue and cooperation between humanitarian organizations from different backgrounds and origins has influenced the orientation of this debate on humanitarian principles from theory and identity to concrete and shared challenges and concerns.

Applying the humanitarian principles of humanity, impartiality, neutrality and independence in a relevant manner in concrete operational settings is a constant challenge for humanitarian organizations. Bound by this set of norms, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) has incrementally developed over the years a rational framework that allows its leadership and staff on the ground to act according to these principles while developing adapted solutions and pragmatic approaches. This article begins by describing the history and development of the humanitarian principles; it then explains how the strategic choices of the ICRC are informed by these principles, and what the consequences are for the organization's capacity to act in favour of victims of armed conflicts.

This case study of a network of evangelical churches in Lebanon, based on data collected during an evaluation in 2014, presents a critique of common understandings about the humanitarian principle of impartiality, and questions assumptions about the compatibility between religious fervour and humanitarian values. Churches attempting to respect impartiality while implementing a food aid project for Syrian refugees have sought to mitigate potential problems through relationship-building and promotion of human dignity in order to ensure needs-responsiveness. Though many Lebanese Evangelical Christians do continue to engage in evangelistic activity, they benefit from strong community ties and demonstrate a high level of sensitivity to their beneficiaries' urgent needs as well as their sense of dignity.

This article examines the legal nature of the principles of impartiality and neutrality of humanitarian action, focusing on States as humanitarian actors. It argues that international law does not provide a general legal basis for the universal applicability of these principles, contrary to a common interpretation of the International Court of Justice's 1986 judgment in theNicaraguacase. Nevertheless, impartiality and neutrality may have a significant legal effect on the conduct of States. They may be directly binding on States through the operation of Security Council resolutions drafted in mandatory language. In addition, they may have indirect effect due to the States’ obligation to respect humanitarian organizations’ adherence to the principles. On the basis of this argument, the article pleads for increased conceptual clarity and, in turn, effectiveness of humanitarian action.

“Classical” or “Dunantist” humanitarianism has traditionally been constructed around the core principles of neutrality (not taking sides) and impartiality (provision of assistance with no regard to ethnicity, religion, race or any other consideration, and proportional to need), plus the operational imperative (rather than a formal principle) to seek the consent of the belligerent parties. These principles, whilst never unchallenged, have dominated the contemporary discourse of humanitarianism and have been synonymous with or at least reflections of a presumed essential, enduring and universal set of humanitarian values. This paper offers a more dynamic and changing vision of the content of humanitarian action. It maps the origins and content of the “new humanitarian” critique of the humanitarian sector and principles and argues that this has both misrepresented the ethical content of neutrality and obscured what amount to significant operational adaptations that leave traditional humanitarianism well prepared for the contemporary operating environment.

Humanity is at once the most universally and uncritically accepted humanitarian principle. It is not, however, without controversy. This article defines the principle of humanity and then explores its inherent tensions, related to universality and particularism, inclusion and exclusion, and equality and inequality. The article concludes with a call to operationalize and concretize humanity through three sets of transformative practices and everyday actions. Together these embody the relational nature of humanity, and suggest ways forward in reforming humanitarianism.

In this Opinion Note, Mohd Hisham Mohd Kamal examines neutral humanitarian action during armed conflicts from an Islamic perspective. By analyzing the Qur'an and theSunnah, he finds that it is permissible to recognize a neutral third party. Moreover, Mohd Hisham Mohd Kamal considerssiyasah al-Shar'iyyahandmaqasid al-Shari'ahand finds that neutrality leads to the protection of lives and dignity and is thus compatible with the two concepts. He concludes that neutrality is permissible from the Islamic perspective.

The humanitarian principles – humanity, neutrality, impartiality and independence – have come to characterize effective humanitarian action, particularly in situations of armed conflict, and have provided a framework for the broader humanitarian system. Modern counterterrorism responses are posing significant challenges to these principles and the feasibility of conducting principled humanitarian assistance and protection activities. This article explores the origins of the principles, the history behind their development, and their contemporary contribution to humanitarian action. The article then discusses some of the ways in which the principles are threatened, both by practice and by law, in the Australian context, and finally makes suggestions as to how the principles can be reclaimed and protected for the future of effective, impartial humanitarian action.

Neutrality and independence continue to be part of the four core humanitarian principles, in addition to humanity and impartiality. Promoting these principles needs to go hand in hand with efforts to apply and implement them. Applying neutrality and independence is a considerable undertaking. This article explains the various aspects of these two principles that are crucial for understanding and applying them. The author suggests that these aspects should be taken into account in assessing whether humanitarian organizations are managing to uphold the principles. In turn, these assessments will enable humanitarian organizations and other stakeholders in humanitarian action to understand what the opportunities and obstacles are in applying independence and neutrality.

This article examines the meaning and purpose of the Fundamental Principles of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement during and after decolonization. This was a period when the character of conflict experienced far-reaching changes, when the limitations of international humanitarian law were sharply exposed, and when humanitarian organizations of all kinds – the International Committee of the Red Cross included – redefined their missions and mandates. The Fundamental Principles were caught up in these processes; subject to a resurgent State sovereignty, they were both animated and constrained by the geopolitical forces of the era. The article pays particular attention to the politicization of the Principles in the contexts of colonial counter-insurgency, political detention and transfers of power.

The Charter of Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF), the guiding document for all of the organization's members, states in the final paragraph that volunteers “understand the risks and dangers of the missions they carry out”. Through a review of the different periods in the history of MSF, this article analyzes the changing interpretations that the organization's successive leaders have given to this reference to the acceptance of risk by individuals. The professionalization and expansion of MSF, coupled with its diversifying volunteer base and the changing international environment, have required constant renegotiation of the balance between institutional and individual responsibility for the dangers faced in the field. No doubt this process is far from over.

Prompt restitution is appropriate if a specimen was transferred in violation of the principles of international and national conventions and shown to be part of that country's/people's heritage. Taking these provisions, this forward-looking document calls for respectful dialogue with communities of origin within a context that recognizes humanitarian principles and international legislation. There can be no doubt that the current political situation in the United States has raised worldwide concerns regarding the direction of the nation and what that means for global security. This chapter discusses the effects and implications of a highly charged political atmosphere and how these might affect natural history museum practices. The International Council of Museums (ICOM) Code of Ethics for Natural History Museums is specific to natural history museums and supplements the same. The parties to the 1970 UNESCO Convention recognize that the illicit import, export, and transfer of cultural property are among the main causes of an impoverished cultural heritage in the origin countries.

In July 2017, Italy drafted an EU-sponsored code of conduct aimed at regulating non-governmental migrant rescuing NGOs offshore Libya. The code makes permission for NGO vessels to disembark migrants in Italian ports conditional on collaborating in the fight against smugglers and accepting the presence of law enforcement personnel on board. This article investigates the inception, content and likely consequences of the Code, arguing that most of its provisions are either redundant or counterproductive. As suggested by scholarship on civil–military cooperation and maritime rescuing, the code as it stands would only violate humanitarian principles without increasing existing rescuing capabilities.

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.

Public international law governs the relations between States or international organizations. Its purpose is to achieve good international relations based on the rules of law and above all justice. One of the integral parts of public international law is the law of armed conflict constituting a significant part of international criminal law. Armed conflicts are generally of two forms. One is the jus ad bellum or regulations concerning the prohibition of armed use of force which is also embodied in the Charter of the United Nations. The other concerns the legitimate use of force. Within customary and conventional international law, the concept of legitimate use of force consists of two categories. These are individual and collective self-defence. They are dealt with under the law of jus in bello or the law governing armed conflict. Regardless of the forms of force which are used, the conflicting parties are obliged to follow the law of jus in bello. This law deals with humanitarian law of armed conflict.

This chapter provides an overview of international humanitarian aid work and distinguishes it from other forms of assistance. It defines the four key humanitarian principles: impartiality, neutrality, humanity, and independence. It outlines the current status of humanitarian aid, provides a review of some major trends, and information on changes that may have implications for the current and future job markets in humanitarian aid. The exercise at the end of the chapter is a review of the chapter and designed to help the reader become more conversant with humanitarian principles.

Scholars assume that transnational terrorism has culminated in policy securitization with expansive restrictions on migration. I evaluate the impact of transnational terrorism on asylum recognition among European Union and Schengen member-states from 1980 until 2007. I unpack the impact of terrorism according to the location of incidents. The article illustrates that policy tightening is more pronounced when recipient states experience terrorism on their own soil or against their citizens. In contrast, measuring transnational terrorism as attacks worldwide mutes the impact of security concerns. The findings show that policy stringency is not directed against particular sources of terrorism and demonstrates that the humanitarian principles underpinning asylum recognition have not been eroded by terrorism. The article thus represents an important step in differentiating between channels of impact whereby transnational terror shapes policy outcomes.

In his 2012 report on the implementation of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) principle, ᴜɴ Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon observed that: ‘As paragraph 139 of the World Summit Outcome highlighted, humanitarian action plays a critical role in protecting populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity’. He continued, ‘Humanitarian agencies can help to protect populations and shield them from some of the worst effects of displacement. As such, humanitarian action is a critically important part of any “timely and decisive” response’. The contribution of humanitarian action to the protection of populations from genocide and other atrocity crimes was not, however, without its challenges and problems. The Secretary-General insisted that ‘humanitarian action must never be used as a substitute for political action’ and implored that ‘it must also be understood that humanitarian action depends upon humanitarian space. To defend humanitarian space, the United Nations and the international community must respect the humanitarian principles of neutrality, independence, humanity and impartiality’. This Special Issue of Global Responsibility to Protect takes these observations as its starting point – that humanitarian action contributes to the protection of populations from genocide and mass atrocities but that the nature of this relationship is complex and fraught with practical, ethical and strategic problems and challenges...