Suchergebnisse

Examines the principles & aspirations of the Steering Committee for Humanitarian Response (SCHR), an alliance of the Red Cross & seven major humanitarian nongovernmental organizations. The unifying thread of the alliance is a commitment to the principles outlined in the Code of Conduct for the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement and Non-Governmental Organizations in Disaster Relief. Special attention is given to complex emergencies as opposed to those resulting from natural disasters, maintaining that traditional motivations of mercy & compassion are not enough to motivate a humanitarian response. The need to respect the rights of those affected by conflict/calamity is discussed, along with the need for agencies to maintain a degree of independence from their donors, & the importance of not using aid to further religious or political viewpoints. These concerns led SCHR agencies, together with Inter-Action from the US, to co-sponsor the Sphere project, which has set minimum standards in a core group of sectors to improve the quality of humanitarian assistance. Controversies & challenges are examined. J. Lindroth

Abstract
Conceptually rooted in the efforts to ban indiscriminate weapons and both their immediate and long-term effects, humanitarian mine action and humanitarian disarmament operations have developed significantly since 1988, when the United Nations first took on work on mine action operations for the protection and benefit of local communities. A large part of those operations has been carried out by humanitarian disarmament NGOs such as the Mines Advisory Group (MAG), one of the first organizations to be established on this issue. Drawing on MAG's experience and perspective, this article explores how the humanitarian principles apply to humanitarian disarmament operations. The aim of the article is to show that as an operator on the humanitarian–development nexus, MAG considers the four humanitarian principles as a critical and necessary part of its reference framework due to the influence of the humanitarian disarmament framework, even when operating in the development space. All in all, the case of humanitarian disarmament and MAG's experience are good examples to illustrate where the humanitarian horizon is extended because of long-terms serious needs, and that humanitarian principles remain essential to keep the focus on the needs of affected populations.

On 25 October 1986, the suspension of the South African government delegation from the Twenty-fifth International Conference of the Red Cross jeopardized the principle of universality whereby all States party to the Geneva Conventions consequently attend the Conference.

The integration of political, military, and humanitarian action in responding to complex emergencies offers a compelling promise of resolving long-term problems and thereby providing peace and stability to an entire population. Significant changes are needed, however, to realize this promise fully. The most critical improvements relate to strengthening the humanitarian leadership within the UN system and so refocusing the collective effort on the protection of vulnerable civilians. A movement of independent, complementary agencies working together to realize protection will strengthen the humanitarian component of integrated missions and make a difference in people's lives.

AbstractThe humanitarian–development nexus is increasingly being cast as the solution to humanitarian concerns, new and protracted crises, and to manage complex war-to-peace transitions. Despite widely endorsed amongst policymakers, this nexus presents some challenges to those implementing it. Humanitarian action and development assistance represent two distinct discursive and institutional segments of the international system that are hard to juxtapose. Humanitarianism's apolitical and imminent needs-based approaches building on established humanitarian principles are fundamentally different from the more long-term, political, rights-based approaches of development. As they rub shoulders, as intentionally instigated by the nexus, they affect and challenge each other. These challenges are more acute to the humanitarian domain given the constitutive status of the humanitarian principles, which, when challenged, may cause changes to the humanitarian space and a mission-cum-ethics creep. This article explores the formation and effects of the humanitarian–development nexus as rendered both at the top, amongst policymakers, and from the bottom. The latter explores the discursive transition from conflict to reconstruction in Northern Uganda. Humanitarian organisations' different response to the transition demonstrate more pragmatic approaches to the humanitarian principles and thus how the nexus itself is also formed bottom up and further exacerbates the mission creep.

The humanitarian–development nexus is increasingly being cast as the solution to humanitarian concerns, new and protracted crises, and to manage complex war-to-peace transitions. Despite widely endorsed amongst policymakers, this nexus presents some challenges to those implementing it. Humanitarian action and development assistance represent two distinct discursive and institutional segments of the international system that are hard to juxtapose. Humanitarianism's apolitical and imminent needs-based approaches building on established humanitarian principles are fundamentally different from the more long-term, political, rights-based approaches of development. As they rub shoulders, as intentionally instigated by the nexus, they affect and challenge each other. These challenges are more acute to the humanitarian domain given the constitutive status of the humanitarian principles, which, when challenged, may cause changes to the humanitarian space and a mission-cum-ethics creep. This article explores the formation and effects of the humanitarian–development nexus as rendered both at the top, amongst policymakers, and from the bottom. The latter explores the discursive transition from conflict to reconstruction in Northern Uganda. Humanitarian organisations' different response to the transition demonstrate more pragmatic approaches to the humanitarian principles and thus how the nexus itself is also formed bottom up and further exacerbates the mission creep.

Abstract"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.

This article seeks to: 1) examine the general status in international law of certain fundamental human rights, to determine the minimum "no derogation" standards; and 2) survey briefly a number of formal agreements between states governing migration matters, while examining some of the standard-setting work undertaken by the International Labor Organization and other institutions. Finally, certain conclusions will be drawn regarding the content and administration of the relevant law, in the light of the requirement to ensure the effective and efficient implementation of international legal obligations.

It is well known that African societies are shaped by custom and tradition. African thought, deeply imbued with humanism, has given birth to concepts and practices that place these societies among the world's humanitarian civilizations. With the advent of the colonial era and the establishment of institutions based on foreign values, the manifestations of African ideas was put into abeyance. Subsequent independence, while giving African States the opportunity to participate alongside other nations in constructing a universal civilization, paradoxically brought the continent face to face with a dilemma in regard to economic, political, social and cultural matters: the choice between the wholesale adoption of foreign, particularly European, models, or a radical return to ancestral traditions. However, humanitarian concerns are among the few that can—and should—transcend such Manichean considerations.

Abstract
The digital transformation creates significant opportunities and risks for humanitarian action. Current approaches to humanitarian innovation-related issues are too often driven by considerations of competition and relevance, relegating the fundamental humanitarian principles of humanity, impartiality, neutrality and independence to afterthoughts. By reasserting the place and role of these principles in humanitarian decision-making processes, this article argues that it is possible to better understand the political and ethical dimensions of the digital transformation, reverse counterproductive practices, and ultimately better mitigate the negative impact that technologies can have on the safety and dignity of people affected by humanitarian crises, and on principled humanitarian action.