International Humanitarian Operations Analysis Paper

Sudhanshu Neema

The focus of this analytical brief is on the international humanitarian operations. The readings
in particular cover two main aspects of the humanitarian responses; viz. humanitarian business
and humanitarian intervention. Firstly, I would like to make a small note on the origin of
humanitarian response and its development since 19th century with special focus on the
developments after the cold war and then proceed towards a concise analysis of the issues and
arguments from the readings.
The humanitarian response to a crisis is as old as warfare. Primitive norms of humanitarian
protection have existed all throughout the times as part of every society; the defining logic of
such social norms is deep rooted in human consciousness and the claim that human beings,
regardless of their status, deserve some basic protection. The modern concept of humanitarian
response to a crisis originated in the Geneva Convention of 1964 entered into by the European
states. Further developments include The Hague Regulations of 1907, Geneva Conventions of
1949 and the Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions in 1977. It is to be noted that all
of the above instruments deal with humanitarian response from the Westphalian perspective
and put restrictions on the states in employing means and methods of warfare in relations to
other sovereign states and the responsibility to protect civilians arises only during the times of
war.
Till the end of cold war, the state sovereignty was widely respected to deal with humanitarian
response to a crisis within the borders of a state; the international community silently watched
(and often condemned) the response of an individual state to protect civilians in times of war.
This wait and watch approach by the international community had to change for two chief
reasons the changing nature of wars, which are increasing fought by non-state actors and not
by states, and the heightening tendency of killing civilians by armed groups as a means of
warfare. Some credit for the changing approach also goes to the increasing pressure from the
civil society. Bellamy and Williams point out1 that in fact till 1992, the United Nations
Security Council had never authorized protection of civilians by coercive means.

Bellamy, A and Williams, P. (2011). The New Politicas of Protetion? Cte d'Ivoire, Libya and the
Responsibility to Protect. International Affairs. 87 (Issue 4), 825-850.

Sovereignty and humanitarian response

The changing nature of warfare from the early 1990s and the increased number of disturbing
humanitarian crisis (Rwanda, Srebrenica, Somalia) prompted the international community to
rethink its approach to sovereignty of the state in case mass atrocities are being committed
against the civilian population and a state fails to protect its subjects. In March 2000, Kofi
Annan argued2 for a moderation of the non-intervention principle in face of the challenges of
the new millennium. In response to the report, the Canadian government established
International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) in September 2000
to determine if humanitarian intervention is an unacceptable assault on sovereignty?
In 2001, the ICISS published its report3 which argued that the sovereignty of the state comes
with the responsibility to protect its citizens and if a state is unable or unwilling to bear this
responsibility, the burden should shift on the international community to intervene for the
protection of civilians. Gathering momentum soon, the Responsibility to Protect doctrine was
adopted unanimously in 2005 World Summit. As Weiss has noted4 the doctrine has quickly
and firmly established itself as a normative value in international relations. Further, a note of
caution has is listed in interpreting the doctrine too liberally in 2003, the United Kingdom
and United States used the doctrine to invade Iraq for protecting civilians from the weapons
which did not exist.
As a political tool, the responsibility to protect doctrine, has the potential of causing lasting
breakdown of a states as they already undergo crisis Iraq is yet to recover and build a
functional state; similarly, the international community has left Libya in much worse conditions
than it was under Gadhafi. Bellamy and Williams have examined5 questions about how to
implement protection mandates as large differences persist among states. There is widespread
fear among the smaller states that the Western powers would use the responsibility to protect
as a pretext for greater intervention within their domestic affairs. Lastly, the extent to which
the use of force may be carried out for the protection of civilians is highly contested among
states.

United Nations, General Assembly, We The Peoples: The Role of the United Nations in the 21st Century:
report of the Secretary-General, A/54/ 0038897 (27 March 2000)
3
Evans, G and Sahnoun, M. (December 2001). Report of the International Commission on Intervention and
State Sovereignty. Available: http://responsibilitytoprotect.org/ICISS%20Report.pdf. Last accessed 31 Oct 2014.
4
Weiss, T. (2013). The Push and Pull of Coming to Rescue. In: Humanitarian Business. Cambridge: Polity
Press. 152.
5
Supra 1

Neutrality and impartiality have been the primary principles of humanitarian intervention and
to deviate from them would be a grave mistake. Carpenter has highlighted the hypocrisy of
intervention as the readiness of some major powers to violate those very norms in the service
of their armation. His argument is much more acceptable that the Western powers should
differentiate between protection of civilians and punishment of the perpetrators and focus
on the former.
Increased risks and humanitarian operations
As the nature of warfare has changed, an increased tendency is seen on part of the non-state
actors to attack aid workers. Traditionally, warring states have respected the basic tenants of
distinguishing between civilian and military targets and military necessity and have respected
the international humanitarian law; however, as the nature of warfare is completely different
with warring factions not belonging to the states the respect for the protection enjoyed by aidworkers is deteriorating. Krahenbuhl highlights6 the increasingly dangerous working
conditions of aid workers in questions is it appropriate for armed forces to be involved in
humanitarian activities? He has criticized blurring the lines between military action and
humanitarian response to the crisis.
In a dangerous work environment, it is impossible for humanitarian actors to not involve
military force during humanitarian operations which leads to a vicious cycle. With more use of
military help, non-state actors tend to see aid-workers as collaborators of the enemy and attack
them often which leads to more use of military and private security agencies by relief agencies.
The best approach still is to maintain impartiality and neutrality (with which the ICRC could
successfully carry out its operations in Afghanistan and Iraq7). Svoboda argues for a cautious
approach to mixing military and humanitarian operations but agrees that it sometimes becomes
a necessity especially when the warring factions have no affiliation to any state.
Maintenance of neutrality and impartiality is as important in todays wars as it has always been.
If required protection, the United Nations should sanction more peacekeepers for security but
must refrain from explicit use of force against a particular actor of regime. The interpretation
of the mandate should also be made in clear terms. Bellamy and Williams have mentioned the

Krahenbuhl, P. (2011). The militarization of aid and its perils. Available:

https://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/article/editorial/humanitarians-danger-article-2011-02-01.htm.
Last accessed 31 Oct 2014.
7
Ibid.

objections raised by India and China with regards to interpretation of UNSC mandates;
possibly, political negotiations should pave way for precise extent of the mandate.
Private militaries
The use of private military forces and outside contractors has increased dramatically in modern
wars. Weiss informs us that more contract workers and private security personnel operated in
Afghanistan that US military officials. The use of private military forces is becoming a norm
rather than an exception. The reasons for the same are the cost factors and efficiency; also, the
use of mercenaries gains more support at domestic levels in some western nations. Weiss has
noted8 the problems which may be caused by involving private agencies in performing
humanitarian work and their benefits over the traditional military force. The first and foremost
of it is the moral considerations; the private militaries companies are seeking to make profit
from a crisis. However, this should not be a deterrent argument for not using them, as the
objective is to achieve a particular humanitarian goal as the least possible cost. The second
objection that the private companies may have a keen interest in prolonging war, is much
more potent threat and should be countered with increased monitoring by independent
agencies.
Response to Syria and South Sudan
In Syria, the response of the international community has been less than effective to end the
ongoing civil war. The crisis in Syria highlights how differences among major powers impede
the ability of the international community to provide humanitarian relief to civilians. Between
October 2011 and July 2012 Russia and China have vetoed three resolutions of the United
Nations Security Council to hold the Syrian government accountable for grave violations of
human rights. Since September 2013, however, some success is seen as three resolutions of
Security Council havent received veto by major powers, viz. Resolution 2118 regarding
destruction of Chemical Weapons and Resolutions 2139 and 2165, demanding increased
humanitarian access from the Syrian government and rebel groups. Passing of the resolution
forcing the Syrian government to allow the safe passage of humanitarian assistance has been a
remarkable success of the international community given the disagreement among the major
powers. The agreement on humanitarian access shows the ability of the UN system to work
(with difficulties) towards protecting civilians from strife.

Supra 4.

In response to the crisis in South Sudan, the UNSC has condemned human rights violations by
all parties and highlighted the vital importance of protection of all civilians, regardless of
their communities of origin. The Council has also passed Resolution 2132 in December 2013,
nearly doubling the troop size of UN Mission to South Sudan to 14,000. There have also been
discussions on shifting the focus of the mandate from state building to protection of civilians
as the number of atrocities rises. The humanitarian intervention by the UN agencies is routinely
objected by the South Sudanese military which has routinely stopped U.N. convoys
transporting food, medicines, and other humanitarian goods.9
Humanitarian intervention, be it on pure humanitarian grounds or for specific political
objectives of certain major powers; one must understand that it is a temporary remedy to
longstanding problems in certain parts of the world. Humanitarian aid by international
organizations, private sector, bilateral aid agencies etc. cannot substitute for a stable state and
prosperous society. Economic growth and a responsible state authorities are the only solutions
to protecting civilians. The international community should encourage support for building
responsible states which could carry out their basic obligation to protect their populations from
mass atrocities. At the same time, there is a need to recognize that state building and democracy
promotion are not the same thing and what works for some nations is not necessarily good for
others.

Lynch, C. (March 18, 2014). Exclusive: South Sudanese Military Targets United Nations.Available:
http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2014/03/18/south_sudan_targets_the_united_nations. Last accessed 30
Oct 2014.