PHAP: Learning sessions and webinars

Expert Briefing: The humanitarian exemptions debate (Humanitarian Law and Policy)

With Bruno Demeyere, Legal Adviser at the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC)For more info, go to https://phap.org/9jun2016What do the 1949 Geneva Conventions say about the right of impartial humanitarian organizations to offer their services and about the way in which Parties to a conflict need to respond to such an offer? How has practice over the past 60 years in this area influenced the interpretation of the law?In the 1950s, the ICRC published a set of commentaries on the four Geneva Conventions, giving practical guidance on their meaning and implementation. In order to capture the practice gained in implementing and interpreting the Geneva Conventions since then, a multi-year project to update these commentaries is underway. The first new commentary in this series was published earlier this spring by the ICRC: the updated Commentary on the First Geneva Convention.Importantly, this new publication includes an updated commentary on the scope and meaning of Common Articles 3(2) and 9, dealing with the offer of services by impartial humanitarian organizations in non-international and international armed conflicts respectively.Targeted to legal practitioners as well as humanitarian practitioners needing an advanced understanding of IHL, this briefing event will cover the main points in the commentary concerning the following issues: What are the conditions to be an "impartial humanitarian organization" under IHL? What is covered by the term "humanitarian activities"? Who can benefit from such humanitarian activities? What does the obligation to obtain consent of the Party to the conflict concerned mean in practice? What are the duties of third states in allowing and facilitating humanitarian activities?The session will start with a brief overview of the Commentaries project, after which participants will be presented with the main substantive findings of the research on Common Articles 3(2) and 9 of the Geneva Conventions and what this means for humanitarian practitioners. Following this, there will be an opportunity for questions and discussion.

With Bruno Demeyere, Legal Adviser at the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC)For more info, go to https://phap.org/9jun2016What do the 1949 Geneva Conventions say about the right of impartial humanitarian organizations to offer their services and about the way in which Parties to a conflict need to respond to such an offer? How has practice over the past 60 years in this area influenced the interpretation of the law?In the 1950s, the ICRC published a set of commentaries on the four Geneva Conventions, giving practical guidance on their meaning and implementation. In order to capture the practice gained in implementing and interpreting the Geneva Conventions since then, a multi-year project to update these commentaries is underway. The first new commentary in this series was published earlier this spring by the ICRC: the updated Commentary on the First Geneva Convention.Importantly, this new publication includes an updated commentary on the scope and meaning of Common Articles 3(2) and 9, dealing with the offer of services by impartial humanitarian organizations in non-international and international armed conflicts respectively.Targeted to legal practitioners as well as humanitarian practitioners needing an advanced understanding of IHL, this briefing event will cover the main points in the commentary concerning the following issues: What are the conditions to be an "impartial humanitarian organization" under IHL? What is covered by the term "humanitarian activities"? Who can benefit from such humanitarian activities? What does the obligation to obtain consent of the Party to the conflict concerned mean in practice? What are the duties of third states in allowing and facilitating humanitarian activities?The session will start with a brief overview of the Commentaries project, after which participants will be presented with the main substantive findings of the research on Common Articles 3(2) and 9 of the Geneva Conventions and what this means for humanitarian practitioners. Following this, there will be an opportunity for questions and discussion.

Following events focusing on the three other core principles, PHAP’s final discussion in this series spotlights the principle of independence, looking in particular at how it relates to how humanitarian action is funded.The principle of independence calls upon humanitarians to practice an autonomy vis-à-vis political, military, ideological, religious, or economic interests and pressures. It highlights the interrelatedness of the core principles – it acts as a precondition or an enabler of humanity, impartiality, and humanity. Independence is thus profoundly pragmatic. It defines itself not on paper or in speech but through actions.The capacity to act impartially, to remain neutral in a given context, or even to give operational meaning to the call of humanity, all require that an organization possess certain resources, expertise, and capacity. That principle comes under consistent threat by financial constraints, for humanitarian relief requires funding, and the availability of funding often fails to align with the needs of affected people. The humanitarian sector appears to be particularly dependent upon institutional donor funding from key Western governments, such as the US, UK, Japan or Sweden. How does the sector reconcile this reality with the imperative to avoid the appearance of being an instrument of government policy?There have been, and continue to be, efforts aimed at creating funding mechanisms that allow greater responsiveness to needs, or averting the outright politicization of the receiving organization. What are some of the “new” ideas in this regard? How can the humanitarian sector do better in terms of assuring their independence? From a starting assumption that greater independence is always possible, what do our expert panelists see as the promising ways forward?The event began with an expert presentation on the topic by Sean Lowrie, Director of the START Network. This was followed by a moderated discussion among a panel of experts which will also include Dr. James Kisia, Executive Director of the International Centre for Humanitarian Affairs and Deputy Secretary-General of Kenya Red Cross; Lydia Poole, research and policy specialist with extensive experience on financing architecture and policy; and Ed Schenkenberg van Mierop, Executive Director of HERE-Geneva. The facilitator for the event was Marc DuBois.Read more at https://phap.org/WHS-6oct2015

Following events focusing on the three other core principles, PHAP’s final discussion in this series spotlights the principle of independence, looking in particular at how it relates to how humanitarian action is funded.The principle of independence calls upon humanitarians to practice an autonomy vis-à-vis political, military, ideological, religious, or economic interests and pressures. It highlights the interrelatedness of the core principles – it acts as a precondition or an enabler of humanity, impartiality, and humanity. Independence is thus profoundly pragmatic. It defines itself not on paper or in speech but through actions.The capacity to act impartially, to remain neutral in a given context, or even to give operational meaning to the call of humanity, all require that an organization possess certain resources, expertise, and capacity. That principle comes under consistent threat by financial constraints, for humanitarian relief requires funding, and the availability of funding often fails to align with the needs of affected people. The humanitarian sector appears to be particularly dependent upon institutional donor funding from key Western governments, such as the US, UK, Japan or Sweden. How does the sector reconcile this reality with the imperative to avoid the appearance of being an instrument of government policy?There have been, and continue to be, efforts aimed at creating funding mechanisms that allow greater responsiveness to needs, or averting the outright politicization of the receiving organization. What are some of the “new” ideas in this regard? How can the humanitarian sector do better in terms of assuring their independence? From a starting assumption that greater independence is always possible, what do our expert panelists see as the promising ways forward?The event began with an expert presentation on the topic by Sean Lowrie, Director of the START Network. This was followed by a moderated discussion among a panel of experts which will also include Dr. James Kisia, Executive Director of the International Centre for Humanitarian Affairs and Deputy Secretary-General of Kenya Red Cross; Lydia Poole, research and policy specialist with extensive experience on financing architecture and policy; and Ed Schenkenberg van Mierop, Executive Director of HERE-Geneva. The facilitator for the event was Marc DuBois.Read more at https://phap.org/WHS-6oct2015

In its series of discussions on how the core humanitarian principles relate to some of the practical issues raised in the World Humanitarian Summit consultation process, on 1 October 2015, PHAP hosted session on the principle of neutrality. In conflict settings there is perhaps no more certain way for humanitarians to lose access than the perception of their having chosen sides. Paradoxically, neutrality is the principle most often challenged by humanitarians themselves, viewed as prohibiting public advocacy or as interfering with organizational values such as solidarity. Many organizations have developed specific definitions or interpretations of neutrality that diverge from that of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC).Neutrality functions as a key, gaining the trust of armed groups to "unlock" access to zones under their control. By establishing its neutrality, humanitarian aid – especially aid delivered to an "enemy" – demands that it be judged neither a hostile act, nor a contribution to the war efforts of the belligerent parties. The establishment of neutrality can be particularly challenging for national NGOs, who face different expectations and pressures than the international community.In past decades, the underlying basis for neutrality has come under sustained attack by the political and military instrumentalization of the "with us or against us" discourse. This can be seen as all the more reason to adhere, to instill confidence in combatants and gain access to all communities caught up in the crisis, regardless their geographic location or political, religious, or ethnic affiliation. Yet adherence proves difficult in many contexts, especially where access to the "enemy" is blocked, or where key donor governments also play a role in the conflict. How do different organizations interpret neutrality? How do they define their duties in this regard? What measures do they put in place to demonstrate and safeguard neutrality? This session will invite a diverse set of panelists to explore these questions, with an eye to better understanding the intricacies of how neutrality works in contemporary humanitarian action.The event began with an expert presentation on the topic by Kate Mackintosh, Deputy Registrar at ICTY. This was followed by a moderated discussion among a panel of experts which will also include Banu Altunbas, Director of International NGO Safety Organisation in the DRC; Marc Cohen, Senior Researcher at Oxfam America; and Samir Elhawary, Deputy Head at OCHA ROMENA. The event provided the opportunity for participants to provide their perspectives on the topic discussed, through the live chat, through posing questions to the panelists, and through live polls.Read more at https://phap.org/WHS-1oct2015

In its series of discussions on how the core humanitarian principles relate to some of the practical issues raised in the World Humanitarian Summit consultation process, on 1 October 2015, PHAP hosted session on the principle of neutrality. In conflict settings there is perhaps no more certain way for humanitarians to lose access than the perception of their having chosen sides. Paradoxically, neutrality is the principle most often challenged by humanitarians themselves, viewed as prohibiting public advocacy or as interfering with organizational values such as solidarity. Many organizations have developed specific definitions or interpretations of neutrality that diverge from that of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC).Neutrality functions as a key, gaining the trust of armed groups to "unlock" access to zones under their control. By establishing its neutrality, humanitarian aid – especially aid delivered to an "enemy" – demands that it be judged neither a hostile act, nor a contribution to the war efforts of the belligerent parties. The establishment of neutrality can be particularly challenging for national NGOs, who face different expectations and pressures than the international community.In past decades, the underlying basis for neutrality has come under sustained attack by the political and military instrumentalization of the "with us or against us" discourse. This can be seen as all the more reason to adhere, to instill confidence in combatants and gain access to all communities caught up in the crisis, regardless their geographic location or political, religious, or ethnic affiliation. Yet adherence proves difficult in many contexts, especially where access to the "enemy" is blocked, or where key donor governments also play a role in the conflict. How do different organizations interpret neutrality? How do they define their duties in this regard? What measures do they put in place to demonstrate and safeguard neutrality? This session will invite a diverse set of panelists to explore these questions, with an eye to better understanding the intricacies of how neutrality works in contemporary humanitarian action.The event began with an expert presentation on the topic by Kate Mackintosh, Deputy Registrar at ICTY. This was followed by a moderated discussion among a panel of experts which will also include Banu Altunbas, Director of International NGO Safety Organisation in the DRC; Marc Cohen, Senior Researcher at Oxfam America; and Samir Elhawary, Deputy Head at OCHA ROMENA. The event provided the opportunity for participants to provide their perspectives on the topic discussed, through the live chat, through posing questions to the panelists, and through live polls.Read more at https://phap.org/WHS-1oct2015

This third event in PHAP's series on the core principles focuses on impartiality. If the principle of humanity drives humanitarians towards crisis to alleviate suffering, impartiality steers programmatic choices more directly. In fact, impartiality can be seen as carrying a triple function: creating an ethical prohibition against aid being given on a discriminatory basis; determining that operations must identify and address the needs of the most vulnerable; and building trust/ acceptance within a conflict context. By virtue of its obligational nature, impartiality warrants particular attention on the part of humanitarians. The Geneva Conventions codify the duty of non-discrimination as a necessary quality of humanitarian assistance, and humanitarian law provides a right of initiative to impartial humanitarian organizations.The capacity of humanitarian action is limited, neither the sector nor individual agencies can meet all the needs of all those who suffer. In crisis situations, where the unmet needs – often serious – are many, how do humanitarian actors differentiate, or not, between people in need versus those most in need? How does impartiality affect specialized agencies when the most urgent needs on the ground do not correspond with this specialization? What does impartiality mean for an organization long working in a community or region in need when there are other communities or regions in more urgent distress? What happens when needs are greater in remote or less secure areas that might be less efficiently addressed?The event began with a lecture on the topic by Jérémie Labbé, Head of Project for Principles Guiding Humanitarian Action with the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). This was followed by a moderated discussion among a panel of experts, bringing together different points of view on the issue.Read more on https://phap.org/WHS-24Sep2015

This third event in PHAP's series on the core principles focuses on impartiality. If the principle of humanity drives humanitarians towards crisis to alleviate suffering, impartiality steers programmatic choices more directly. In fact, impartiality can be seen as carrying a triple function: creating an ethical prohibition against aid being given on a discriminatory basis; determining that operations must identify and address the needs of the most vulnerable; and building trust/ acceptance within a conflict context. By virtue of its obligational nature, impartiality warrants particular attention on the part of humanitarians. The Geneva Conventions codify the duty of non-discrimination as a necessary quality of humanitarian assistance, and humanitarian law provides a right of initiative to impartial humanitarian organizations.The capacity of humanitarian action is limited, neither the sector nor individual agencies can meet all the needs of all those who suffer. In crisis situations, where the unmet needs – often serious – are many, how do humanitarian actors differentiate, or not, between people in need versus those most in need? How does impartiality affect specialized agencies when the most urgent needs on the ground do not correspond with this specialization? What does impartiality mean for an organization long working in a community or region in need when there are other communities or regions in more urgent distress? What happens when needs are greater in remote or less secure areas that might be less efficiently addressed?The event began with a lecture on the topic by Jérémie Labbé, Head of Project for Principles Guiding Humanitarian Action with the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). This was followed by a moderated discussion among a panel of experts, bringing together different points of view on the issue.Read more on https://phap.org/WHS-24Sep2015

On 16 September 2015, PHAP hosted a live online consultation event on the draft Humanitarian UAV Code of Conduct and Related Guidelines, in collaboration with UAViators, UNOCHA and the World Humanitarian Summit.This event featured: - Presentations from Patrick Meier of UAViators and Brian Grogan of UNOCHA on the draft Humanitarian UAV Code of Conduct and Related Guidelines. - The possibility to have your questions answered regarding these documents by a panel of experts, including also Col Angela Fitzsimmons, Chief of the Assessment Team in the Office of Military Affairs at UNDPKO, Guilhem Ravier, Head of the Protection of the Civilian Population Unit with the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), Joel Kaiser, Emergency Response Officer with Medair, and Michele Lynch, who manages the Global Technology Project for the American Red Cross. - An opportunity for participants to provide their input and perspectives on the draft Code of Conduct as well as each of the related guidelines throughout the event.Read more at https://phap.org/WHS-16Sep2015

On 16 September 2015, PHAP hosted a live online consultation event on the draft Humanitarian UAV Code of Conduct and Related Guidelines, in collaboration with UAViators, UNOCHA and the World Humanitarian Summit.This event featured: - Presentations from Patrick Meier of UAViators and Brian Grogan of UNOCHA on the draft Humanitarian UAV Code of Conduct and Related Guidelines. - The possibility to have your questions answered regarding these documents by a panel of experts, including also Col Angela Fitzsimmons, Chief of the Assessment Team in the Office of Military Affairs at UNDPKO, Guilhem Ravier, Head of the Protection of the Civilian Population Unit with the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), Joel Kaiser, Emergency Response Officer with Medair, and Michele Lynch, who manages the Global Technology Project for the American Red Cross. - An opportunity for participants to provide their input and perspectives on the draft Code of Conduct as well as each of the related guidelines throughout the event.Read more at https://phap.org/WHS-16Sep2015

On 8 September, PHAP hosted the first of four discussion and consultation events on practical dilemmas of principled humanitarian action. The event began with a lecture on the topic by Dr Hugo Slim, Head of Policy at the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). This was followed by a moderated discussion among a panel of experts, featuring Sir John Holmes, Director of the Ditchley Foundation and was previously the UN Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator; Andy Hill, Civil-Military Adviser in the UK Department for International Development (DFID); and Karen Welsh, the founder and CEO of Blue Glass Development. The event provided the opportunity for participants to provide their perspectives on the topic discussed, through the live chat, through posing questions to the panelists, and through live pollsRead more at https://phap.org/8Sep2015

On 8 September, PHAP hosted the first of four discussion and consultation events on practical dilemmas of principled humanitarian action. The event began with a lecture on the topic by Dr Hugo Slim, Head of Policy at the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). This was followed by a moderated discussion among a panel of experts, featuring Sir John Holmes, Director of the Ditchley Foundation and was previously the UN Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator; Andy Hill, Civil-Military Adviser in the UK Department for International Development (DFID); and Karen Welsh, the founder and CEO of Blue Glass Development. The event provided the opportunity for participants to provide their perspectives on the topic discussed, through the live chat, through posing questions to the panelists, and through live pollsRead more at https://phap.org/8Sep2015

In 2014, reports suggested that a surge of foreign jihadists were participating in armed conflicts in Syria, Iraq, and elsewhere. The U.N. Security Council responded by imposing new obligations on member states to counter the threat posed by “foreign terrorist fighters” (FTFs). In the intervening year, states have taken actions to implement those FTF obligations. Meanwhile, many states continue to fund and otherwise throw their support behind life-saving humanitarian relief for civilians in armed conflicts around the world—including conflicts involving terrorists. Yet, in recent years, members of the humanitarian community have become increasingly aware of the real, perceived, and potential impacts of counterterrorism laws on humanitarian action.At this PHAP online expert IHL briefing, Dustin Lewis and Naz Modirzadeh, two of the authors of a recent report from the Harvard Law School Program on International Law and Armed Conflict (HLS PILAC), will present their research on suppressing “foreign terrorist fighters” and supporting principled humanitarian action in counterterrorism contexts. The presenters will discuss and answer questions relating to: - Converging and diverging elements of the normative frameworks underlying state responses to terrorism and state support of principled humanitarian action; - IHL implications of the “foreign terrorist fighter” framing; - Provisional methodologies to measure state compliance with key FTF-related Security Council obligations; - Provisional methodologies to measure state support of principled humanitarian action in counterterrorism contexts; and - Humanitarian exemptions under Security Council practice.Read more at https://phap.org/OEV-17Dec2015

In 2014, reports suggested that a surge of foreign jihadists were participating in armed conflicts in Syria, Iraq, and elsewhere. The U.N. Security Council responded by imposing new obligations on member states to counter the threat posed by “foreign terrorist fighters” (FTFs). In the intervening year, states have taken actions to implement those FTF obligations. Meanwhile, many states continue to fund and otherwise throw their support behind life-saving humanitarian relief for civilians in armed conflicts around the world—including conflicts involving terrorists. Yet, in recent years, members of the humanitarian community have become increasingly aware of the real, perceived, and potential impacts of counterterrorism laws on humanitarian action.At this PHAP online expert IHL briefing, Dustin Lewis and Naz Modirzadeh, two of the authors of a recent report from the Harvard Law School Program on International Law and Armed Conflict (HLS PILAC), will present their research on suppressing “foreign terrorist fighters” and supporting principled humanitarian action in counterterrorism contexts. The presenters will discuss and answer questions relating to: - Converging and diverging elements of the normative frameworks underlying state responses to terrorism and state support of principled humanitarian action; - IHL implications of the “foreign terrorist fighter” framing; - Provisional methodologies to measure state compliance with key FTF-related Security Council obligations; - Provisional methodologies to measure state support of principled humanitarian action in counterterrorism contexts; and - Humanitarian exemptions under Security Council practice.Read more at https://phap.org/OEV-17Dec2015