Humanitarianism and Protection of Civilians - Assignment Example

HUMANITARIANISM AND PROTECTION OF CIVILIANS by Student’s Name Code + Course Name Professor University City/State Date Question 1 It is true that at times, humanitarian actors have to compromise on humanitarian principles (Hidalgo & Claros 2008). This compromise is usually in a bid for these actors to work alongside military and policy actors. They identify four major humanitarian principles, which include humanitarian imperative, neutrality, impartiality, and operational independence. The above-mentioned compromise in the operations of humanitarian actors is because of the complexity in the nature of modern day conflicts. The Sphere Project (2011) notes that besides the previously named principles, others include respect for the culture of the communities being assisted and the use of local resources in humanitarian responses. In addition, participation of locals in humanitarian efforts is also a crucial principle. Such humanitarian response is also expected to ensure a reduction in future vulnerabilities. The nature of modern conflicts requires close cooperation between the humanitarian actors, the military, as well as the policy actors (Lewy 2000). This is in light of the differences in the principles of these three groups, a compromise is necessary in order for the humanitarian actors to coordinate with them. For instance, neutrality is a crucial principle in the course of conducting humanitarian assistance. It is necessary in that it puts the humanitarian actions above the conflicts, and this facilitates the assistance of many individuals held up by the conflict. However, the origin of many humanitarian organizations makes it difficult for them to observe this requirement of neutrality. For instance, humanitarian organizations originating from the United States usually find it difficult to maintain their neutrality especially when serving in hostile environments (Lewy 2000). In such environments, the common sentiments are against the ideals of the United States. As such, these organizations are forced to relax their observance of neutrality in order to facilitate assistance of destitute individuals without necessarily having to upset their backers. The principle of operational independence requires humanitarian actors to maintain autonomy from the objectives of other parties such as the military or policy actors (Forsythe & Pease 2001). Though this policy is in good faith, it fails to factor in the need to incorporate the objectives of various actors in order to facilitate relief assistance and the eventual conflict resolution. Thus, humanitarian actors end up compromising to ensure that they incorporate other players in the course of conflict resolution. Humanitarian principles also require the involvement of locals during humanitarian responses (Gulati & Khosa 2013). However, though such involvement is ideal, it is not achievable in all conflict situations. For instance, they note that in many conflict areas, availability of suitable local individuals to work alongside the humanitarian actors is limited. Hence, this forces many humanitarian organizations to compromise on this principle by hiring people from other areas but ensuring that the locals get the unskilled jobs. Humanitarian imperative is a crucial humanitarian principle. It requires addressing human suffering regardless of the location. However, in the course of cooperating with the military actors, humanitarian organizations are forced to compromise on this principle. This compromise is because, in some hostile situations, the military objectives may not allow the safe conducting of humanitarian assistance. As such, humanitarian organizations may be forced to stop their operations in such areas hence compromising on this principle. Question 2 According to Brenfors and Petersen (2000), the goals of humanitarian intervention are interrelated and usually oscillate around the need to alleviate human suffering. However, despite the well-meaning goals, some interventions usually fail to alleviate suffering in the long term due to their deficiencies in vision. As such, though there are various justifications for human intervention, the ultimate goal should be fixing of a broken political system. Majority of conflicts around the world result from the failures of the political establishment (Schmitt 2000). For instance, a corrupt political system diverts resources meant for the public to private use. Such a system also allocates resources in an inefficient manner leading to deprivation of some communities. Such acts end up requiring humanitarian intervention in a bid to alleviate the suffering of vulnerable communities. Scmidtt writes that in order to adhere to the principle of reducing future vulnerabilities, humanitarian action ought to be aimed at fixing such a broken political system. This fixing will be very effective in alleviating the suffering arising from an inappropriate political establishment. Hence, he opines that taking this approach will e aimed at assisting the vulnerable people. Retamal and Richmond (2000) offer further credence to the above opinion by writing that the political system determines whether a particular country is peaceful or not. As such, a weak political system provides opportunities for conflicts to thrive, and this eventually gives rise to the need for humanitarian intervention. As such, he opines that in order to ensure that the welfare of people in such countries lasts beyond the periodical intervention; there is a need to focus on fixing the political system. This need is because such focus on the failings on the system besides being a preventative measure is also a curative measure. If this approach is implanted in a neutral way, it will help fix the political system, which is usually a major source of conflicts, which eventually require humanitarian intervention. The ability of the state to maintain authority in its territory determines the existence of peace within that state (Schmitt 2000). Where the political system of the country is weak, this ability is usually impaired, hence compromising the peace of its constituent societies. Conflicts tend to arise from such situations, and the nature of these conflicts may demand humanitarian intervention. In such a case, he opines that besides the provision of essential supplies to alleviate suffering, intervention should be aimed at fixing the political system. Such fixing will enable the state to exercise control; hence, any elements compromise on peace will cease to operate. Besides the reasons discussed above, the fixing of a broken political system empowers the authorities to pursue other humanitarian goals such as feeding the people and arresting violators of human rights. It will also facilitate building of infrastructure. As such, for humanitarian intervention to be truly effective, it should prioritize the fixing of a broken political system. This fixing will in turn enable a country to take charge of its affairs with minimal intervention from the outside world. Question 3 Though the legal and humanitarian concepts of protecting civilians are aimed at civilian protection, there exists a difference between these two concepts (Brenfors & Petersen 2000). They further emphasize the difference between these two concepts by stating that it arises mainly from their approaches to civilian protection. Whereas the legal approach emphasizes the protection of civilians through the retribution of the perpetrators, the humanitarian approach tends to focus on improving the situation hence ensuring that the alleviation of suffering is achieved. The Sphere Project and Mcconnan (2000) write that in this regard, the humanitarian approach mainly takes a neutral position in order to ensure that the conflict situation does not interfere with the humanitarian work. As such, the humanitarian concept does not concentrate on the responsibility for the conflict but rather it focuses on how civilians can be assisted to overcome the hardships that be-face them. Besides that, the humanitarian concept mainly concentrates on the victims of such situations. This concentration leaves the other players in conflict situations such as the military and the policy makers to deal with the perpetrators. Hence, there is a difference between the legal concept of civilian protection and the humanitarian concept of civilian protection. The legal concept of civilian protection mainly comes into effect towards the end of the conflict since it involves arresting of perpetrators, which is usually limited during the conflict period (Schmidtt 2000). This timing is unlike that of the humanitarian concept, which is usually at full force even when the conflict situation is at its peak. This timing is usually because any legal interventions especially during the conflict may discourage perpetrators from negotiating due to the fear of reprisals. However, this does not apply to the humanitarian intervention since it has its basis on the principle of neutrality, hence widely acceptable to both the victims and the perpetrators. The humanitarian protection of civilians especially if it involves non-governmental agencies is usually aimed at only the individuals (Sphere Project 2011). This enables the aid agencies to concentrate on alleviation of suffering through provision of necessities as well as facilitating passage to safe areas. This approach is different from the legal approach that usually includes the protection of civilians and their property. As such, it is evident that the legal concept involves protecting a wide range of individual interests. This protection is unlike humanitarian approach, which is usually aimed at facilitating the eventual return to normalcy by concentrating only on the immediate needs of individuals. According to Schmidtt (2000), the difference between the legal and humanitarian approach to civilian protection is in the fact that humanitarian approach is meant to improve the situation. After it has been effected, the legal concept then comes into force in order to punish the perpetrators and ensure that justice is served. He further explains this opinion by stating that humanitarian concept is blind as to whether an individual is a victim or perpetrator. This blindness is traceable to the need for humanitarian actors to maintain acceptance of all parties to the conflict. Such acceptance enables the humanitarian organizations to reach the victims of conflicts in wherever they are whether in the hands of perpetrators or the lawful party. Question 4 Though complex emergencies and natural disasters result in human suffering hence necessitating humanitarian intervention, there is a need to treat these disasters differently. This differential treatment is mainly because of the differences in the causes and timing of these disasters (Tomasini & Wassenhove 2009). Whereas complex emergencies arise from manmade factors such as conflicts resulting into unwarranted human suffering, natural disasters arise from the forces of nature. According to Lewy (2000), the timing of complex emergencies can usually be estimated. He further explains that most conflicts situations take a considerable time to develop. As such, Lewy (2000) suggests that such situations are usually in the knowledge of relevant authorities and though they are emergencies in nature. Government authorities or humanitarian agencies can utilize such knowledge in order to pre-empt the need for humanitarian intervention. This explanation proves that complex emergencies are predictable; hence, the international and local society can plan for such emergencies. However, natural disasters are usually the result of nature, which is hardly predictable. Such disasters like earthquakes do not give any time for relevant authorities to plan nor can their outcomes be negotiated. As such, in situations where natural calamities strike they do so unexpectedly, hence the need for humanitarian agencies to respond with much haste in comparison with complex emergencies. Besides that, organizations may wait for improvements in relations between warring parties. This waiting is not the case with natural disasters, hence, the need to treat the two differently. During complex disasters, for instance war, destruction may be limited to the property of the weak party hence such disaster is not universal (Forsythe & Pease 2001). However, natural disasters do not differentiate between private or public property and when they strike; even the ability of the government and aid agencies to respond to emergencies is impaired. If this indifference is considered along with the fact that such disasters are very unpredictable, it shows that humanitarian agencies should treat natural disasters with more urgency especially considering the destructive capability of nature. Besides that, complex emergencies largely rely on the human factors (Schmidtt 2000). The probability of such situations deteriorating is dependent on the various players involved such as the authorities and the parties in conflict. As such, humanitarian response can be delayed there is a likelihood of such parties striking an agreement that would reduce the graveness of the situation. However, such an option is not available in the case of a natural disaster since nature is very unpredictable. Hence, if such a disaster occurs, it requires humanitarian agencies to respond with more urgency than if it were a complex emergency. However, it is crucial to note that even with the differences discussed above, there is no justification for a delay in response to complex emergencies. This non-justification is because both disasters result into human suffering and regardless of the any preceding events, humanity should intervene to alleviate this suffering. However, the natural disaster is usually more urgent due to its unpredictable nature hence if need be; it should be treated differently. References Brenfors, M & Petersen, M 2000 ‘The legality of unilateral humanitarian intervention: a defence’, Nordic Journal of International Law vol .69, no. 33, pp.449-499. Forsythe, D.P & Pease, K 2001, ‘Humanitarian intervention and international law’, Australian Journal of public and international law vol. 45, no. 22, pp. 1-20. Gulati, J & Khosa, I 2013, ‘Humanitarian intervention: to protect state sovereignty’, Denver Journal of International Law and Policy vol .41, no.33, pp. 397-416. Hidalgo, S & Claros L.A 2008, The Humanitarian response index: measuring commitments to best practice, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, Eng. Lewy, G 2000 ‘The case for humanitarian intervention’, ORBIS vol. 37, no. 30, pp. 621-632. Retamal, G & Richmond, R 2000, ‘Education as a humanitarian response’, Cassell, London Sphere Project 2011, Humanitarian charter and minimum standards in humanitarian response, Sphere Project, Geneva. Sphere Project & Mcconnan, I 2000, Humanitarian charter and minimum standards in disaster response, Sphere Project, Geneva. Schmitt, M. N 2000 ‘Humanitarian law and the environment’, Journal of International Law and Policy vol. 28, no. 14, pp.265-323. Tomasini , M & Wassenhove, V 2009, Humanitarian logistics, Palgrave Macmillan, Houndmills, Basingstoke Read More