Humanity The
principle of humanity means that all humankind shall be treated humanely and equally in all circumstances by saving lives and alleviating suffering, while ensuring respect for the individual. It is the fundamental principle of humanitarian response. The purpose of humanitarian action is to protect life and health, and ensure respect for human beings. It also promotes mutual understanding, cooperation, friendship and peace among all people. According to the
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent movement, the principle of humanity includes: • It recalls the origin of the movement: a desire to assist without discrimination to the wounded during conflict. • It recalls the double dimension of the movement: national and international one. • To protect life and health • To define the purpose of the movement
Humanitarian imperative The
Code of Conduct for the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement and NGOs in Disaster Relief (RC/NGO Code) introduces the concept of the humanitarian imperative which expands the principle of humanity to include the right to receive and to give humanitarian assistance. It states the obligation of the international community "to provide humanitarian assistance wherever it is needed."
Impartiality Provision of
humanitarian assistance must be
impartial and no discrimination on the basis of nationality, race, gender, religion, political opinion or class. It must be based on need alone. Priority must be given to the most urgent cases of distress. To treat everyone the same way without consideration for the level of suffering or the urgency would not be equitable. Impartiality means that the only priority that can be set in dealing with people that need help must be based on need and the order of relief must correspond to the urgency.
Neutrality For
International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement,
neutrality means not to take sides in hostilities or engage at any time in controversies of a political, racial, religious or ideological nature. The principle of neutrality was specifically addressed to the Red Cross Movement to prevent it from not only taking sides in a conflict, but not to "engage at any time in controversies of a political, racial, religious or ideological nature." Neutrality can also apply to humanitarian actions of a state. "Neutrality remains closely linked with the definition which introduced the concept into international law to designate the status of a State which decided to stand apart from an armed conflict. Consequently, its applications under positive law still depend on the criteria of abstention and impartiality which have characterized neutrality from the outset." The application of the word neutrality to humanitarian aid delivered by UN agencies or even governments can be confusing. GA Resolution 46/182 proclaims the principle of neutrality, yet as an inter-governmental political organization, the UN is often engaged in controversies of a political nature. According to this interpretation, the UN agency or a government can provide neutral humanitarian aid as long as it does it impartially, based upon need alone. Today, the word neutrality is widely used within the humanitarian community, usually to mean the provision of humanitarian aid in an impartial and independent manner, based on need alone. Few international NGOs have curtailed work on justice or human rights issues because of their commitment to neutrality.
Controversy over neutrality While neutrality is an important principle in the work of Humanitarian Aid, there is a long-standing controversy in the field on how it should be implemented. The humanitarian principle of neutrality was formally established in 1991 by the UN General Assembly resolution 46/182. The principles were developed from the core principles used by the International Committee of the Red Cross and the National Red Cross/Red Crescent Societies. OCHA, the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, defines neutrality as, "Humanitarian actors must not take sides in hostilities or engage in controversies of a political, racial, religious or ideological nature". In a conservative interpretation, it also means that humanitarian workers do not speak out about what they see, even in the case of egregious human rights violations, including genocide. Staying silent can also act as a measure of protection for aid workers, further ensuring that aid is provided to those most in need. Lastly, some argue that staying silent is a way to ensure no discrimination in humanitarian aid. For this argument, choosing sides during a conflict amounts to discrimination, and works against the fundamental principles of humanitarian aid. On the other hand, neutrality "means not taking sides". This is part of what sparked the continuing debate. However, since the 1990s, the ICRC has amended its interpretation of neutrality and promoted public denouncement of serious violations of humanitarian law. This issue is still widely contested in the humanitarian field. In a 2020 opinion piece, Hugo Slim argues that legally, operationally, and morally, it is acceptable for humanitarians to take sides. ==Additional humanitarian principles==