Impartiality is one of the most well-known humanitarian principles, which were first declared in 1965 by the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement ( OCHA 2012). Impartiality means that humanitarian aid should be strictly given to those who need it most, and there should be no discrimination on the basis of nationality, race, gender, religion, or political beliefs. Impartiality is thus closely related to the humanitarian principle of humanity, which enshrines humanitarian aid’s universal humanism. It is also closely related to the principle of neutrality, meaning that humanitarian actors should not take political or controversial positions, or take sides in a conflict. Further, impartiality is closely related to the humanitarian practice of needs assessment, which is a survey of a disaster-affected population, to determine where the most urgent humanitarian needs lie.
Most large humanitarian organizations, whether non-governmental, faith-based, or associated with the United Nations, officially adhere to the humanitarian principles, including impartiality. On paper, acting impartially appears simple. Programs and projects can be easily designed according to impartiality, by including needs-assessments or by developing categories of people who are understood to be the most in need, for example.
However, in practice, impartiality is a very difficult principle to operationalize. This is primarily because of the complex political and social environment that humanitarian organizations work in and a lack of prior understanding of this complex environment. This means that organizations might misunderstand who most urgently requires aid or may have a different view on aid prioritization than the disaster-affected population. Access is another important factor that can inhibit impartiality because organizations may not be able to reach those in the greatest need. Such lack of access can be geographical, but also social–for example, when vulnerable persons are too poor or discriminated against to participate in needs assessments or simply remain invisible to aid agencies. Humanitarian agencies can also face significant pressure to distribute aid quickly or according to project deadlines, and in such cases, impartiality may be compromised. Despite their intentions to act impartially, humanitarian organizations are therefore quite frequently accused of being biased or distributing aid in an unfair way (Krähenbühl 2013).
The international designation of some political groups as terrorist organizations has provided another complication for impartial aid distribution, as it criminalizes aid provision to these groups. Providing aid to both sides in a conflict can also create pragmatic hurdles, for example when it compromises the safety of organizations or inhibits its ability to carry out the humanitarian negotiations that are required to ensure access to vulnerable groups.
Impartiality, similar to other principles of international humanitarian action, can perhaps be best understood “as a complex rule that requires interpretation in practice” (Green 2017). Many large organizations have analyzed how they operate and interpret the humanitarian principles, and a number of “best practice” reports and field experiences can be found in their publications (Labbé and Daudin 2015).
References
Green, D. (2017) Hugo Slim Sets Me Straight on the State of Humanitarianism. https://oxfamblogs.org.
Krähenbühl, P. (2013) There Are No “Good” or “Bad” Civilians in Syria—We Must Help All Who Need Aid. The Guardian, March 3.
Labbé, J. , Daudin, P. (2015) Applying the Humanitarian Principles: Reflecting on the Experience of the International Committee of the Red Cross. International Review of the Red Cross, 97(897–898): 183–210.
OCHA (United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs) (2012) OCHA Message: Humanitarian Principles. www.unocha.org.