PHAP: Learning sessions and webinars

Guest expert: Bonnie Docherty, Lecturer on Law and Senior Clinical Instructor at Harvard Law School’s International Human Rights ClinicWhile some militaries have worked to reduce civilian casualties in armed conflict, greater attention should be paid to determinations of “hostile intent.” Troops have the right to fire in self-defense if someone demonstrates hostile intent, i.e., a “threat of imminent use of force,” but misidentifications of such intent have endangered civilians. Recent US operations, especially in Afghanistan and Iraq, show that militaries could improve civilian protection without jeopardizing troops’ lives by clarifying the rule and improving implementation.Targeted at legal experts and humanitarian practitioners seeking an advanced understanding of rules related to civilian protection in armed conflict, this expert briefing featured a presentation by Bonnie Docherty from Harvard Law School on recent research carried out on the issue of hostile intent.More information and resources at https://phap.org/8nov2016

Guest expert: Bonnie Docherty, Lecturer on Law and Senior Clinical Instructor at Harvard Law School’s International Human Rights ClinicWhile some militaries have worked to reduce civilian casualties in armed conflict, greater attention should be paid to determinations of “hostile intent.” Troops have the right to fire in self-defense if someone demonstrates hostile intent, i.e., a “threat of imminent use of force,” but misidentifications of such intent have endangered civilians. Recent US operations, especially in Afghanistan and Iraq, show that militaries could improve civilian protection without jeopardizing troops’ lives by clarifying the rule and improving implementation.Targeted at legal experts and humanitarian practitioners seeking an advanced understanding of rules related to civilian protection in armed conflict, this expert briefing featured a presentation by Bonnie Docherty from Harvard Law School on recent research carried out on the issue of hostile intent.More information and resources at https://phap.org/8nov2016

In this PHAP Expert Legal Briefing, Naz Modirzadeh and Dustin Lewis, from the Harvard Law School Program on International Law in Armed Conflict, explored developments in technology, accountability, and international law pertaining to armed conflict. The background concern is that in war, as in so many areas, power and authority are increasingly expressed algorithmically. Advancements in artificial intelligence and robotics may implicate—and possibly transform—numerous aspects of armed conflict. For instance, increasingly sophisticated forms of technical autonomy may affect the conduct of hostilities (including the development and use of “autonomous weapons”). But they also might relate to other elements pertaining to war, such as guarding and transporting detainees, providing medical care, and delivering humanitarian assistance. The presenters summarized a recent report from the Harvard Law School Program on International Law and Armed Conflict. That report introduces a new concept—war algorithms—that aims to elevate algorithmically-derived “choices” and “decisions” to a central concern regarding technical autonomy in war. The report defines a “war algorithm” as any algorithm that is expressed in computer code, that is effectuated through a constructed system, and that is capable of operating in relation to armed conflict. Through the “war algorithms” lens, the presenters linked international law and related accountability architectures to relevant technologies.Read more and access related resources on https://phap.org/1nov2016

In this PHAP Expert Legal Briefing, Naz Modirzadeh and Dustin Lewis, from the Harvard Law School Program on International Law in Armed Conflict, explored developments in technology, accountability, and international law pertaining to armed conflict. The background concern is that in war, as in so many areas, power and authority are increasingly expressed algorithmically. Advancements in artificial intelligence and robotics may implicate—and possibly transform—numerous aspects of armed conflict. For instance, increasingly sophisticated forms of technical autonomy may affect the conduct of hostilities (including the development and use of “autonomous weapons”). But they also might relate to other elements pertaining to war, such as guarding and transporting detainees, providing medical care, and delivering humanitarian assistance. The presenters summarized a recent report from the Harvard Law School Program on International Law and Armed Conflict. That report introduces a new concept—war algorithms—that aims to elevate algorithmically-derived “choices” and “decisions” to a central concern regarding technical autonomy in war. The report defines a “war algorithm” as any algorithm that is expressed in computer code, that is effectuated through a constructed system, and that is capable of operating in relation to armed conflict. Through the “war algorithms” lens, the presenters linked international law and related accountability architectures to relevant technologies.Read more and access related resources on https://phap.org/1nov2016

Guest expert: Jean-François DurieuxThe 1951 Refugee Convention was a major advance for the protection of people under persecution, defining the concept of refugees and the legal obligation of States to provide them with protection. However, the current system has been put under great stress by the scale and complexity of recent developments, which was the motivation for organizing the UN High-Level Plenary on Addressing Large Movements of Refugees and Migrants in September 2016. Having an understanding of the relevant legal frameworks for the protection of refugees is, in this context, critical for those working in the humanitarian sector.This learning session provided an introduction to refugee law and other legal frameworks granting protection to refugees. Participants were provided with a presentation on the fundamental concepts in these legal frameworks and their legal and operational limitations. Following this, there was an opportunity for questions.Read more and access session resources at https://phap.org/21oct2016

Guest expert: Jean-François DurieuxThe 1951 Refugee Convention was a major advance for the protection of people under persecution, defining the concept of refugees and the legal obligation of States to provide them with protection. However, the current system has been put under great stress by the scale and complexity of recent developments, which was the motivation for organizing the UN High-Level Plenary on Addressing Large Movements of Refugees and Migrants in September 2016. Having an understanding of the relevant legal frameworks for the protection of refugees is, in this context, critical for those working in the humanitarian sector.This learning session provided an introduction to refugee law and other legal frameworks granting protection to refugees. Participants were provided with a presentation on the fundamental concepts in these legal frameworks and their legal and operational limitations. Following this, there was an opportunity for questions.Read more and access session resources at https://phap.org/21oct2016

UN agencies often partner with international and local NGOs to implement humanitarian assistance and protection. NGOs, on their part, are faced with the challenge of understanding and dealing with different, and often complex, UN partnership frameworks. Understanding how these frameworks function, and how humanitarian funding through the UN is evolving, was the topic of the second session of the learning stream on humanitarian financing, jointly organized by ICVA and PHAP.In this session, experts from two major agencies – the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and the World Food Program (WFP) – presented their organizations’ approaches to implementing partnerships and discussed challenges related to the existing funding modalities together with an NGO representative. Participants were provided with an overview of key procedures, as well as trends and challenges regarding UN humanitarian funding opportunities for NGOs.Read more at https://phap.org/12oct2016

UN agencies often partner with international and local NGOs to implement humanitarian assistance and protection. NGOs, on their part, are faced with the challenge of understanding and dealing with different, and often complex, UN partnership frameworks. Understanding how these frameworks function, and how humanitarian funding through the UN is evolving, was the topic of the second session of the learning stream on humanitarian financing, jointly organized by ICVA and PHAP.In this session, experts from two major agencies – the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and the World Food Program (WFP) – presented their organizations’ approaches to implementing partnerships and discussed challenges related to the existing funding modalities together with an NGO representative. Participants were provided with an overview of key procedures, as well as trends and challenges regarding UN humanitarian funding opportunities for NGOs.Read more at https://phap.org/12oct2016

[LIVESTREAM] [ARCHIVE LIVE] Demystifying NGO access to UN humanitarian funding

Guest expert: Kristin Hausler, BIICLCo-hosts: Noëlle Quénivet and Angharad LaingIn addition to the loss of human life and creating severe humanitarian crises, the destruction of cultural heritage has played a prominent role in the ongoing conflicts in Syria and Iraq, and in the recent conflict in Mali. For example, this issue recently came into the spotlight in September 2015, when the International Criminal Court (ICC) Prosecutor’s Office opened the first ever war crime case for destruction of cultural heritage during the 2012 military coup d’état in Mali, where rebel groups considerably damaged Timbuktu’s cultural sites and historical monuments.In this learning session, Kristin Hausler of the British Institute of International and Comparative Law (BIICL) provided an introduction to the current legal frameworks that protect cultural heritage during both international and non-international armed conflicts, and how they apply to state actors and non-state armed groups.Read more at https://phap.org/29sep2016

Guest expert: Kristin Hausler, BIICLCo-hosts: Noëlle Quénivet and Angharad LaingIn addition to the loss of human life and creating severe humanitarian crises, the destruction of cultural heritage has played a prominent role in the ongoing conflicts in Syria and Iraq, and in the recent conflict in Mali. For example, this issue recently came into the spotlight in September 2015, when the International Criminal Court (ICC) Prosecutor’s Office opened the first ever war crime case for destruction of cultural heritage during the 2012 military coup d’état in Mali, where rebel groups considerably damaged Timbuktu’s cultural sites and historical monuments.In this learning session, Kristin Hausler of the British Institute of International and Comparative Law (BIICL) provided an introduction to the current legal frameworks that protect cultural heritage during both international and non-international armed conflicts, and how they apply to state actors and non-state armed groups.Read more at https://phap.org/29sep2016

Humanitarian financing worldwide is changing – how does it impact NGOs active in humanitarian work? In the first learning session on demystifying humanitarian financing, organized jointly by ICVA and PHAP, experts from OECD, Development Initiatives, and World Vision gave presentations and answered questions regarding the current state of humanitarian financing and how recent trends are affecting NGOs.The first session of this series concentrated on the current realities and emerging trends of humanitarian financing. Participants will be provided with an overview of the different traditional and emerging financing streams coexisting in the humanitarian sector, with a focus on how NGOs access humanitarian funding and the challenges they currently face.Read more at https://phap.org/15sep2016

Humanitarian financing worldwide is changing – how does it impact NGOs active in humanitarian work? In the first learning session on demystifying humanitarian financing, organized jointly by ICVA and PHAP, experts from OECD, Development Initiatives, and World Vision gave presentations and answered questions regarding the current state of humanitarian financing and how recent trends are affecting NGOs.The first session of this series concentrated on the current realities and emerging trends of humanitarian financing. Participants will be provided with an overview of the different traditional and emerging financing streams coexisting in the humanitarian sector, with a focus on how NGOs access humanitarian funding and the challenges they currently face.Read more at https://phap.org/15sep2016

With Naz K. Modirzadeh and Dustin A. Lewis, Harvard Law School Program on International Law and Armed Conflict (PILAC)Thirteen of the sanctions regimes established by the U.N. Security Council could implicate key elements of principled humanitarian action. Those sanctions might affect humanitarian programming in numerous contexts, including the Central African Republic, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. Some see “humanitarian exemptions” as a way to resolve possible conflicts between sanctions and principled humanitarian action. But what are “humanitarian exemptions”? Who and what do and should they cover? And what is the debate surrounding them?At this expert online briefing, Naz K. Modirzadeh and Dustin A. Lewis of the Harvard Law School Program on International Law and Armed Conflict (PILAC) synthesized recent research in order to: - Summarize the legal status, content, and nature of relevant U.N. sanctions regimes; - Define and analyze the two general categories of “humanitarian exemptions” (those for designated individuals and for the humanitarian sector); - Highlight the stakes and interests in the debate on whether such exemptions may be desirable and feasible or may be inadvisable and impracticable; - Explain some of the few existing and limited exemptions at the international and domestic levels; and - Discuss the perceived benefits and costs of suggested “humanitarian exemptions.”Read more at https://phap.org/19jul2016

With Naz K. Modirzadeh and Dustin A. Lewis, Harvard Law School Program on International Law and Armed Conflict (PILAC)Thirteen of the sanctions regimes established by the U.N. Security Council could implicate key elements of principled humanitarian action. Those sanctions might affect humanitarian programming in numerous contexts, including the Central African Republic, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. Some see “humanitarian exemptions” as a way to resolve possible conflicts between sanctions and principled humanitarian action. But what are “humanitarian exemptions”? Who and what do and should they cover? And what is the debate surrounding them?At this expert online briefing, Naz K. Modirzadeh and Dustin A. Lewis of the Harvard Law School Program on International Law and Armed Conflict (PILAC) synthesized recent research in order to: - Summarize the legal status, content, and nature of relevant U.N. sanctions regimes; - Define and analyze the two general categories of “humanitarian exemptions” (those for designated individuals and for the humanitarian sector); - Highlight the stakes and interests in the debate on whether such exemptions may be desirable and feasible or may be inadvisable and impracticable; - Explain some of the few existing and limited exemptions at the international and domestic levels; and - Discuss the perceived benefits and costs of suggested “humanitarian exemptions.”Read more at https://phap.org/19jul2016