SOURCE: ECHO International Humanitarian Law Information Booklet – July 2014
*For all the latest ECHO brochures: bit.ly/echo-fs

Professional humanitarian workers are at risk if in the minds of the warring parties they are associated with the military, or with political, religious and ideological principles. It is therefore important that all parties involved respect the distinct and separate roles of humanitarian organisations and humanitarian workers, comply with international rules, uphold the principles of international humanitarian law and defend humanitarian action.
The EU contributes to global respect and compliance with IHL through advocacy and policy measures such as dialogues, declarations and initiatives, as well as humanitarian funding to ensure humanitarian access, wider dissemination and training on international humanitarian law. While IHL is codified and largely binding on all States through international treaties and many of its provisions have now become accepted as customary law, it is increasingly being violated by belligerent parties.
International Humanitarian Law (IHL) explains in detail the responsibilities of states and non-state actors in situations of armed conflict. This law sets out key issues such as the right to receive humanitarian assistance, protection of civilians, including medical and humanitarian workers, and the rights to protection of refugees, women and children.
International Humanitarian Law (IHL) is a set of rules that aim to limit the impact of armed conflict on civilians. It protects people who are not or no longer participating in hostilities and limits the means and methods of warfare.
IHL applies to humanitarian assistance and the protection of civilians and is based on the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War and its 1977 Additional Protocols.
The Fourth Convention sets out the humanitarian obligations of States in armed conflict regarding the evacuation or access to besieged or encircled areas (Article 17) and the obligations of belligerents to allow the free passage of medical supplies, as well as certain goods, to groups of beneficiaries (Article 23). It also establishes the rights of the non-citizens of the territory of one of the belligerent parties, including rights to individual and collective relief (Article 38), and outlines the obligations of an occupying power with respect to assistance schemes for the benefit of the population of an occupied territory (Articles 5962).
Article 3, common to all Geneva Conventions, and applicable to non-international armed conflicts, clearly states that the wounded and sick will be transported and cared for and an impartial humanitarian agency will be allowed to offer its services to the conflicting parties. The two 1977 Additional Protocols contain further provisions relating to humanitarian assistance in international and non-international armed conflicts, respectively.
In addition to treaty law, some obligations have also been developed in customary international law, e.g. they are based on state practice or are accepted as law. These include rules on the rapid and unimpeded passage of humanitarian assistance and the freedom of movement of humanitarian personnel. Customary law rules also provide protection for application specifically to humanitarian personnel and objects.
It is important to distinguish between international human rights law and IHL. They are distinct bodies of law and while the primary purpose of both is to protect individuals, there are important differences between them.
IHL applies in times of armed conflict and occupation. Conversely, human rights law applies to all individuals under the jurisdiction of the State concerned in peacetime as well as in armed conflict. Thus, although distinct, the two sets of rules may both apply in the same situation.
They close the doors to humanitarian organisations, preventing them from assisting victims. In 2013, 454 humanitarian workers were attacked in a record number of attacks. Over a third (155) of the victims were killed (aidworkersecurity.org data as of 15 July 2014).
Today, Afghanistan, South Sudan, Syria and most recently the Central African Republic are among the countries where humanitarian workers are most at risk.
Buildings belonging to humanitarian organisations have been attacked, vehicles and convoys have been taken over, and staff have been killed or abducted. Violence against these workers harms civilians and prevents millions of people from receiving life-saving aid.
The principles and values on which humanitarian aid is founded are not recognised or simply ignored. Humanism, independence, neutrality and impartiality – these principles are the foundations of humanitarian aid and should protect humanitarian workers by allowing them to work freely. They should be respected, but the reality is often very different.
A key reason for deliberate attacks on humanitarian organisations may simply be that their role is not fully recognised, understood or differentiated. It has become increasingly difficult to identify what defines a genuine ‘humanitarian’. How can a humanitarian action be considered neutral if in the same emergency situation there are soldiers who are also carrying out ‘humanitarian’ actions? How will humanitarian aid be recognized as independent when armed forces use humanitarian emblems to deceive their opponents?
Some links between humanitarian organisations and the military are necessary as the military’s management support is often needed when it comes to large and rapid humanitarian operations. However, this should not be seen as the norm and where links do exist, the respective roles should be clearly defined and in line with their respective tasks.
Confusion of roles puts humanitarian workers at risk. Civilians face a double risk: they themselves are targeted and cannot receive assistance because the people trying to help them are not accessible or, in exceptional cases, are killed in the line of duty.
Professional humanitarian workers are at risk if in the minds of the warring parties they are associated with the military, or political, religious or ideological authorities. It is therefore important that all parties involved respect the distinct and separate roles of humanitarian organisations and humanitarian workers, comply with international rules, uphold the principles of international humanitarian law and defend humanitarian action.
States should avoid integrating humanitarian activities into their political and military campaigns. This is best left to the professionals. The authorities must stop obstructing humanitarian assistance and provide access to victims when the needs are real and lives are at stake. If neutral and independent organisations are denied access to victims and intimidation is widespread, civilians run a double risk of suffering.
All EU Member States have ratified the four Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols. At EU level, guidelines promoting compliance with IHL were adopted in 2005 and harmonised in 2009.
The EU is committed to encouraging more extensive awareness raising, and training in international humanitarian law. In this context, humanitarian partner organisations can play an important role. The EU contributes to global respect and commitment to IHL through advocacy and political measures such as dialogues, declarations and initiatives, as well as humanitarian funding to ensure humanitarian access.
In furthering this objective, the European Commission supports four types of concrete activities to disseminate and implement IHL:
♦ First, within its funding to humanitarian assistance in response to conflicts and emergencies such as in Syria or the Central African Republic, with significant support for IHL advocacy activities.
♦ Second, the European Commission funds training programmes targeting a wide range of stakeholders. In modern conflicts we are increasingly confronted with non-state actors, such as armed groups, who usually have little knowledge of any law, including IHL. The EU funds IHL training in places such as Colombia, India, the Thai-Myanmar border, and Palestine. The EU had also funded IHL training and dissemination through the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) for military, security forces and armed non-state actors in mainly conflict-affected countries such as Iraq, Colombia and the Democratic Republic of Congo, as well as a programme implemented by Geneva Call and Swiss Mine Action for IHL training seminars for armed non-state actors in Sudan.
♦ Thirdly, the EU funds activities aimed at increasing the competence of humanitarian workers in promoting IHL advocacy. In recent years, ECHO has funded several projects to raise awareness of IHL and humanitarian principles among European humanitarian organisations and their implementing partners working in conflict-prone countries, or who have been through conflict situations. One such programme is being implemented by the ICRC and aims to strengthen the capacity to provide training and dissemination on IHL, specifically for 14 000 regular military and security forces, and armed non-state actors in conflict-affected countries, namely Iraq, Colombia and the Democratic Republic of Congo.
♦ Fourth, the Commission is seeking to raise awareness among partners internationally of some unintended consequences of new counter-terrorism laws and policies that may limit humanitarian action, including training in international humanitarian law. Some states have passed national criminal legislation prohibiting material support to terrorist entities. This type of legislation effectively prohibits funding for IHL training when provided to armed groups labeled “terrorist.” IHL has evolved over time but the nature of conflict is also changing rapidly, and legislation is likely to need to be adapted to the new reality of armed conflict. The EU therefore fully supports initiatives to further strengthen and develop IHL.
Finally, the Commission funds and implements large-scale information campaigns to raise awareness of international humanitarian law among the general public.