Humanitarian principles and international humanitarian law

1What is humanitarian action?

Humanitarian action aims to save lives, alleviate suffering and maintain human dignity during and after crises: armed conflicts, natural disasters, epidemics, food crises, population displacement.

It is distinct from development aid (long-term change, working with institutions) and from peace efforts. In protracted crises, the aim is to link the three more effectively: this is known as the humanitarian-development-peace “nexus” approach.

2The four humanitarian principles

Adopted by the United Nations General Assembly (resolutions 46/182 of 1991 and 58/114 of 2004) and derived from the principles of the Red Cross Movement:

• Humanity: human suffering must be addressed wherever it is found; the dignity of every person is respected.
• Neutrality: not taking sides in hostilities or engaging in controversies of a political, racial, religious or ideological nature.
• Impartiality: aid is provided on the basis of need alone, giving priority to the most urgent cases, without discrimination.
• Independence: humanitarian action remains autonomous from political, economic or military objectives.

These principles are not abstract: they make it possible to be accepted by all parties and therefore to gain access to people in need.

3International humanitarian law (IHL)

IHL, or the law of armed conflict, limits the effects of war. Its main sources are the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their Additional Protocols, as well as customary law. The ICRC is its guardian.

• Distinction: the parties must at all times distinguish between combatants and civilians, and between military objectives and civilian objects.
• Proportionality: an attack is prohibited if the expected civilian harm is excessive in relation to the military advantage.
• Precaution: take all feasible measures to spare civilians.
• Protection of the wounded, the sick, prisoners, medical personnel and facilities, and humanitarian personnel.
• The parties must allow and facilitate the rapid passage of impartial humanitarian relief for civilians (subject to their right of control).

IHL applies to armed conflicts. Human rights apply at all times, and refugee law (1951 Convention) protects people who have fled their country. People displaced within their own country are covered by the 1998 Guiding Principles.

4Everyday dilemmas

Applying the principles requires judgement. Common examples:

• An armed group demands a “tax” on aid to let the trucks through.
• An authority wants to choose the list of beneficiaries itself.
• The army offers an escort or to distribute aid with you.
• A donor wants to restrict aid to certain groups for political reasons.

In each case, ask yourself: does the decision respect needs (impartiality), does it keep our distance from the parties (neutrality, independence), and does it protect our long-term acceptance? These decisions are taken as a team and with management, never alone.

5From principles to decision-making: an operational method

The four principles are not a statement of intent placed on the first page of a proposal. For a field organisation, they are a decision-making tool that must be used at every sensitive juncture: where to intervene, whom to serve, with whom to negotiate, what funding to accept, what visibility to display. That requires knowing where they come from, how they fit together and who, within the organisation, has the authority to apply them.

Sources and scope

• The seven Fundamental Principles of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement (Vienna, 1965): humanity, impartiality, neutrality, independence, voluntary service, unity, universality. This is the historical template; Jean Pictet's commentary remains the reference for their interpretation.
• UN General Assembly resolution 46/182 (1991) enshrines humanity, neutrality and impartiality, and establishes that assistance should be provided in principle with the consent of the affected State and on the basis of an appeal by that State. Resolution 58/114 (2004) adds independence.
• The Code of Conduct for the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement and Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) in Disaster Relief (1994) translates these principles into ten commitments, including the humanitarian imperative, aid given regardless of race, creed or nationality, refusal to act as an instrument of government foreign policy, and respect for local culture and custom. Most international NGOs have signed it; many donors require adherence to it.
• The Core Humanitarian Standard (CHS) and the Humanitarian Charter of the Sphere Handbook take up these principles and link them to verifiable quality commitments.

A functional hierarchy

Practitioners generally distinguish two levels. Humanity is the purpose; impartiality is the rule for allocating aid (non-discrimination, proportionality to needs, priority to the most urgent cases). Neutrality and independence are operational means: they serve to earn the trust of the parties and therefore access. This distinction has practical consequences. A so-called "multi-mandate" organisation that also conducts public advocacy or development work with the State may not claim strict neutrality, but it can never give up impartiality in the distribution of assistance.

Impartiality is not equality. Distributing the same quantity to everyone is not impartial if needs differ. Impartiality requires a documented needs analysis, explicit targeting criteria and the ability to justify, with figures, why one group was served before another.

The six-step decision method

Faced with a dilemma (a demand from an authority, an offer of escort, a donor condition), an experienced team applies a short but traceable process. Typical timeframe: 24 to 72 hours for an operational decision, one to two weeks for a strategic decision (entering an area, accepting funding).

1. Establish the facts (base manager or project manager): who is asking for what, since when, who else has received the same demand, what the immediate consequences of a refusal would be. Verified information is distinguished from reported information.
2. Identify the principles and rules at stake (project manager with the programme coordinator): which principles are affected, which internal policies apply (anti-fraud, counter-terrorism, data protection, safeguarding), which clauses of the donor agreement.
3. Consult: the national team (who know the local dynamics and often bear their risks), the NGO forum, the relevant cluster, OCHA (access unit), the donor if a contractual clause is involved. Check whether a common position already exists.
4. Formulate at least three options, including the option "do not intervene" or "suspend", each assessed against four criteria: effect on affected people, effect on acceptance in the medium term, risk to staff, legal and reputational risk.
5. Decide at the right level: delegation of authority must be in writing. As a general rule, a payment, a concession on targeting or the acceptance of an escort falls to the head of mission, often after consulting headquarters.
6. Document and review: the decision, its rationale, the options rejected and the review date are recorded in a log. A concession accepted "exceptionally" quickly becomes the norm if it is not reviewed.

The main risk is not the big, spectacular decision, but the accumulation of small concessions (a slightly skewed list, an imposed driver, a percentage of food "for security") which, taken together, make the organisation part of an armed actor's system of control. The decision log is the only way to see this drift.

6IHL in practice: classification, operational rules and complementary frameworks

A humanitarian worker is not a lawyer, but must know which law applies where they work, because it determines the obligations of the parties towards the population and towards the humanitarian worker, and the arguments that can be used in a negotiation.

Step 1: classify the situation

Several classifications may coexist in the same country: a NIAC in one region, an occupation in another, disturbances elsewhere. The official legal classification is a matter for lawyers (ICRC, the organisation's legal advisers), but the team must know the position adopted.

Step 2: the rules that directly concern humanitarian action

• Consent and passage of relief: impartial relief is subject to the consent of the parties concerned (Additional Protocol I, Article 70; Additional Protocol II, Article 18), but such consent may not be arbitrarily withheld. Once relief has been accepted, the parties must allow and facilitate its rapid and unimpeded passage, while retaining a right of control (inspection, routes, timings). Rule 55 of the ICRC Customary IHL Study.
• Occupying Power: obligation to ensure the food and medical supplies of the population (Fourth Convention, Article 55) and, if it fails to do so, to agree to relief schemes (Article 59).
• Relief personnel and objects: humanitarian relief personnel must be respected and protected (Rule 31), as must objects used for relief operations (Rule 32). The freedom of movement of authorised personnel may be restricted only temporarily and in case of imperative military necessity (Rule 56).
• Starvation: the use of starvation as a method of warfare is prohibited (Rule 53), as is attacking, destroying or rendering useless objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population, such as foodstuffs, crops, livestock and drinking water installations (Rule 54). Security Council resolution 2417 (2018) requests the Secretary-General to report on the risk of conflict-induced famine. Starving civilians is a war crime under the Rome Statute, including in NIAC since the 2019 amendment.
• Medical mission: protection of the wounded and sick, of medical personnel, units and transports (Rules 25 to 30), and prohibition on punishing a health worker for providing care in accordance with medical ethics. Security Council resolution 2286 (2016) on the protection of health care in armed conflict.
• Humanitarian personnel: Security Council resolution 2730 (2024) recalls States' obligations to protect humanitarian and United Nations personnel, including locally recruited staff.

Step 3: complementary frameworks

• Human rights law: applicable at all times, with possible derogations for certain rights in a state of emergency, never for the non-derogable core (right to life, prohibition of torture and of slavery).
• Refugee law: 1951 Convention and 1967 Protocol; principle of non-refoulement (Article 33); in Africa, the 1969 OAU Convention, which extends the definition to people fleeing events seriously disturbing public order; in Latin America, the Cartagena Declaration (1984).
• Internal displacement: the 1998 Guiding Principles (non-binding but widely recognised) and, in Africa, the Kampala Convention (2009, in force since 2012), the first binding regional instrument on internally displaced persons.
• Sanctions regimes and counter-terrorism: Security Council resolution 2664 (2022) creates a cross-cutting humanitarian exemption in UN sanctions regimes for the funds and resources necessary for humanitarian assistance. National legislation and donor clauses must nevertheless be checked case by case.

In a negotiation, you do not cite articles as you would brandish a criminal code. You use the law as a shared reference ("your own rules say the wounded must be treated without distinction") and keep the precise legal classification for written exchanges and dialogue with the authorities.

7Full example: three dilemmas in six weeks in Valmora district

Fictional context. Valmora district, in a country affected by a non-international armed conflict for four years, has 186,000 inhabitants and 41,000 internally displaced persons spread across 14 sites. The fictional international NGO "Aide Commune" runs a food security and water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) programme there, funded by a country-based pooled fund and a European donor: in-kind food or voucher distributions for 6,200 households per month, rehabilitation of 18 water points. The north of the district (three communes, around 52,000 inhabitants) is controlled by a fictional non-state armed group, the "Front de la Vallée". The district capital is held by the national army.

Week 1: the "contribution" at the checkpoint

At the Kessa checkpoint, a local Front commander demands 3% of the food in each convoy "for road security". The driver from the contracted transporter already left two bags behind on the previous run without reporting it. The loss would amount to about 5.4 tonnes of cereals per month, i.e. the ration for 360 households.

Facts established by the base manager within 48 hours: the same demand was made to two other NGOs, which refused; the commander does not have the explicit approval of his political leadership, which can be reached through an intermediary; the population in the north has not received a distribution for 37 days; the latest rapid assessment shows 41% of households with "poor" food consumption.

Decision by the head of mission after consulting headquarters: option C. The incident (loss of the two bags) is reported to the donor within 48 hours as required by the agreement. The transporter receives a written warning and a zero-tolerance clause is added to the contract. The NGO forum adopts a one-page joint statement: no organisation pays any levy on assistance. After 19 days, the Front's leadership agrees to passage without any levy in exchange for two commitments that do not compromise the principles: notification of movements 48 hours in advance and presentation of the targeting criteria to community leaders.

Week 3: the authorities' list

In the district capital, the prefect hands over a list of 1,900 "vulnerable" households and asks that it replace the NGO's registration. A sample check (120 randomly selected households, home visits) shows that 34% of the households on the list meet none of the vulnerability criteria, that 11% cannot be identified, and that households headed by displaced women are under-represented (9% of the list compared with 27% in the cluster's profiling).

Response: the team does not reject the list publicly, which would humiliate the prefect. It proposes to use it as one source among others, cross-checked against community-based registration and home verification, with a mixed targeting committee (representatives of the displaced, women, neighbourhood leaders, State social services). The results of the check are presented in private, without naming anyone, drawing on the criteria validated by the food security cluster. The prefect gets what matters to him: being involved and being able to say so. The organisation retains control of the criteria and of verification, which is its red line.

Week 6: the escort offer and funding with visibility

The army offers to escort the trucks to a recently retaken commune. At the same time, a bilateral donor offers an additional 600,000 euros on condition that its flag is displayed on the trucks and bags. The cross-analysis shows that the commune is still contested, that the Front has declared vehicles associated with the army "legitimate targets" and that no other organisation is present. The team recommends declining the escort (last-resort criteria not met: unarmed access has not yet been negotiated) and asking the donor for a visibility waiver on security grounds, which most institutional donors allow. The donor accepts visibility limited to reports and to communications outside the country.

The decision log at the end of the six weeks

What sets a professional response apart is not having "held firm" on everything, but having distinguished what was negotiable (advance notice of movements, involvement of the authorities, visibility) from what was not (levies on aid, control of targeting, association with armed forces), and having documented it.

8Reusable tools: dilemma grid, decision log and compliance check

Dilemma analysis grid (one page)

Principles compliance checklist for an intervention

• Are the targeting criteria written down, based on a needs analysis, explained to the community and applied by the organisation (rather than delegated to an authority or an armed actor)?
• Are areas of intervention chosen according to the severity of needs rather than ease of access or a donor's preferences? Are excluded areas justified in writing?
• Is there a written policy on payments to armed actors, escorts, the use of military assets and visibility?
• Do national staff and partners know these policies, and do they know to whom they should escalate a demand?
• Are funding sources diversified enough to be able to refuse a condition that runs counter to the principles?
• Have public communications (photos, statements, social media) been reviewed from the standpoint of neutrality and security?
• Is a log of access incidents and principled decisions kept and reviewed at least once a quarter?

Perception matrix (acceptance)

To be completed during the context analysis and then every six months, for each significant actor (authorities, armed groups, community leaders, marginalised groups, local media).

"Principled messaging" sheet for field staff

It is useful to prepare, in the local language, four or five simple sentences that any team member can say at a checkpoint or in a community meeting: "We help people according to their needs only, whichever side they are on"; "We cannot hand over part of the aid, because it belongs to the families who need it"; "We talk to everyone who has an influence on people's lives here, without taking sides"; "I cannot decide on my own, I will pass your request on to my management". The last sentence is the most important: it protects the staff member and prevents improvised commitments.

9Variations by context and common mistakes

Adapting the application of the principles to the context

Common mistakes in the field

• Confusing neutrality with silence: neutrality prohibits taking sides, not reporting violations through the appropriate channels (ICRC, protection cluster, confidential mechanisms). The choice between public advocacy and confidential dialogue is a matter of strategy, not of reflex.
• Confusing impartiality with equality, or presenting targeting as impartial without needs data disaggregated by area, sex, age and disability.
• Leaving the field staff member to decide alone at the checkpoint. Any request outside procedure must be escalated, with a standard sentence that protects the staff member.
• Negotiating separately: when each NGO accepts its own small concession, the armed actor obtains the sum of them all. Common positions (NGO forum, Humanitarian Country Team, access working group) are stronger.
• Using military or political vocabulary in communications ("liberated areas", "terrorists", "friendly forces"), which is enough to ruin the perception of neutrality.
• Ignoring the organisation's history: local actors judge the organisation on what it has done elsewhere, sometimes in another country, and on its funding.
• Writing nothing down: without a log, it is impossible to justify a decision before a donor, an auditor or a court, and impossible to learn.

What donors, evaluators and auditors look at

• Donors check for written policies (anti-fraud and anti-corruption, counter-terrorism, safeguarding, protection from sexual exploitation and abuse), prompt incident reporting (often within 48 to 72 hours for suspected fraud or diversion) and consistency between the needs analysis and targeting.
• Evaluators often use the coherence criterion (as defined by the OECD-DAC and the ALNAP guide) to assess respect for the principles: was the intervention consistent with humanitarian principles and IHL? They look for evidence of perception analysis, handling of dilemmas and consultation of communities.
• Auditors focus on losses in transit, unjustified payments ("facilitation", "passage fees"), beneficiary lists and the traceability of decisions to depart from standard rules.
• CHS verifiers examine in particular the commitment on the quality and impartiality of aid and the organisation's capacity to identify and reduce the negative effects of its action.

A diversion that is reported spontaneously, analysed and corrected is rarely fatal for an organisation. A diversion discovered by an audit or by the press, with no trace of analysis or reporting, often is.

10Interview questions and key references

Interview questions

1. "Explain the difference between neutrality and impartiality, with a field example."

A good answer defines impartiality as a rule for allocating aid (according to need, without discrimination, priority to the most urgent cases) and neutrality as a stance towards the parties (not taking sides). It gives a concrete example: serving an opposition-controlled area and a government area according to the measured severity of needs (impartiality), without making public statements accusing either party or using an armed escort (neutrality). It may add that a multi-mandate organisation can qualify its neutrality but never its impartiality.

2. "A commander demands part of the aid in exchange for letting your convoy through. What do you do?"

The expected answer is neither "I refuse and leave" nor "I pay to save lives". It describes a process: do not decide alone on the spot, establish the facts, consult management, the other NGOs and OCHA, assess the options including temporary suspension, reach the interlocutor's chain of command, build a common position, report to the donor, document. It mentions anti-diversion policies and sanctions regimes.

3. "Does IHL apply in a country hit by an earthquake?"

No, unless there is also an armed conflict. Domestic law, human rights law and, as a reference, the IDRL Guidelines apply. A good answer shows that the candidate knows how to classify a situation and does not apply IHL everywhere by default.

4. "What obligations does IHL impose on the parties regarding humanitarian access?"

Consent is required but may not be arbitrarily withheld; obligation to allow and facilitate the rapid and unimpeded passage of impartial relief; right of control; respect and protection of relief personnel and objects; freedom of movement of personnel; prohibition of starving civilians. A strong candidate cites the Additional Protocols or the ICRC Customary IHL Study and resolution 2417.

5. "A donor asks you to check that beneficiaries are not on sanctions lists. How do you respond?"

Distinguish the screening of staff, suppliers and partners (normal practice) from that of final beneficiaries (contrary to impartiality and refused by most humanitarian actors). Mention resolution 2664 and the value of negotiating the clause before signature, with the support of headquarters and NGO networks.

6. "Tell us about a situation in which you had to defend a humanitarian principle." (behavioural question)

The STAR method applies: a specific situation, the principle at stake identified, personal action (consultation, arguments, escalation), measurable result, and what the candidate would do differently. Recruiters are wary of heroic stories with no consultation of line management.

Key references

• Geneva Conventions of 1949 and Additional Protocols of 1977; ICRC study on customary international humanitarian law (2005) and its database.
• UN General Assembly resolutions 46/182 (1991) and 58/114 (2004).
• UN Security Council resolutions 2286 (2016), 2417 (2018), 2664 (2022) and 2730 (2024).
• Code of Conduct for the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement and Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) in Disaster Relief (1994).
• Jean Pictet, The Fundamental Principles of the Red Cross: Commentary, ICRC.
• 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and 1967 Protocol; 1969 OAU Convention; Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement (1998); Kampala Convention (2009).
• Guidelines for the Domestic Facilitation and Regulation of International Disaster Relief and Initial Recovery Assistance (IFRC, 2007).
• OCHA, What are Humanitarian Principles? (OCHA on Message); Norwegian Refugee Council and OCHA, study on the impact of counter-terrorism measures on humanitarian action.
• Sphere Handbook (2018): Humanitarian Charter and Protection Principles; Core Humanitarian Standard (2024).
• Hugo Slim, Humanitarian Ethics: A Guide to the Morality of Aid in War and Disaster (2015).