Humanitarian Assistance: Who is responsible to act? Who is authorized to act?

This is a summary and briefly reflection on humanitarian assistance responsibility -- local vs global: sovereignty vs international law -- and authority to act based on international humanitarian laws. O’Neill highlights that -- from a sovereignty perspective -- that “international development, commercial lending, and diplomatic institutions regard human rights as highly political and confrontational intrusions on their activities.” Similar opinion -- but from an international law understanding -- has the international assistance community and the military, which “view human rights as a threat to "neutrality" that may undermine access to populations needing assistance or the success of peacekeeping operations.” In this context, O’Neill argues that “international human rights law can equip organizations engaged in providing assistance and protection to civilians caught in conflicts around the world with a framework for carrying out their activities” and the way to promote so are by providing an “existing legal context and concerted efforts by humanitarian actors to encourage belligerents to meet their legal obligations.” O’Neill justifies his arguments by citing “the growing strength of international human rights law with the creation of tribunals to prosecute genocide and other serious crimes in Rwanda and the Former Yugoslavia and recent efforts to create a permanent international criminal court.” Hoffman agrees with O’Neill’s standpoint that the development and enforcement of an international humanitarian law would “help alleviate the effects of natural and technological disasters”. International law would “spell out legal standards, procedures, rights and duties pertaining to disaster response and assistance.” However, “no systematic attempt has been made to pull together the disparate threads of existing law, to formalize customary law or to expand and develop the law in new ways” and warns by stating that “in the absence of commonly agreed standards, the disaster victim is at the mercy of the vagaries of humanitarian response, political calculation, indifference or ignorance.” Minear points out the limitations of O’Neill’s and Hoffman’s perspectives and the contradictions of international humanitarian assistance by stating that “today’s darkening humanitarian landscape illuminates the limitations of the current humanitarian regime and seems to be encouraging a hunt for villains -- with aid agencies themselves heading the most wanted list.” And continues by saying that “while aid agencies are clearly accountable for their actions, they also share responsibility for failures with states, politicians, and other key actors.” In this international context of increased number of armed conflicts, USAID recalls that it is also important to consider humanitarian assistance within national and regional contexts and especially in face of natural disasters. “Natural disasters will likely become even more devastating as populations at risk increase. And most of today’s conflicts are internal -- ocurring within states.” These are some questions based on the readings: (O’Neill) What are the challenges to implement a permanent international criminal court? (Hoffman) How are customary laws created? What are their advantages and disadvantages? What are the political costs of “formalizing customary law” and turning it into a roman law? What are the benefits and drawbacks of the roman law in an international context? (Minear) What are the administrative procedures to monitor and judge the actions and behavior of humanitarian relief forces and non-gvernmental organizations? (USAID) Why do some countries favor local humanitarian assistance over international systems? Who gains and loses from the absence of international humanitarian laws and the predominance of regional and local relief forces and agencies? In addition to these questions, there are other related points that should be addressed: What are the legal differences and challenges between humanitarian assistance caused by armed conflicts and natural disasters (in terms of causation, nexus, and consequences)? Why is the international law mainly customary law? What is the legal responsibility -- and political and economic interests -- of international and regional superpowers in providing humanitarian assistance beyond their national borders? What are the legal reponsibilities of local authorties towrds humanitarian issues? Which countries, groups, individuals have placed an increased interest in humanitarian assistance? How does the 18th notion of nation-state influence humanitarian assistance response? What is the discussion of humanitarian assistance in the context of realism (nation-state) and of idealism (international law and moral imperatives)? References Hoffman, Michael, 2000. “Towards an International Disaster Response Law”, Chapter 8 in World Disasters Report 2000, International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, Geneva. Minear, Larry, et.al, 2002. “Humanitarian Architecture” Chapter 7 in The Humanitarian Enterprise: Dilemmas and Discoveries, Kumarian Press. O’Neill, William G., 1999. “A Humanitarian Practitioner’s Guide to International Human Rights Law”, Occasional Paper #34, Watson Institute for International Studies, Brown University, and the Humanitarianism and War Project, Tufts University. USAID 2003. “Providing Humanitarian Aid” Chapter 5 in Foreign Aid in the National Interest. U.S. Agency for International Development, Washington, D.C.