Humanitarian Principles
The proliferation of complex emergencies generates unprecedented humanitarian needs while intensifying structural fragilities. This compounded impact demands responses anchored in fundamental principles: humanity, impartiality, neutrality, and independence
Since its inception, HERE’s mandate has been to bridge the gap between humanitarian policy and practice. In an era of increasingly complex crises and waning multilateralism, reaffirming and revitalizing the four humanitarian principles has become more critical than ever.
Our work, from Ukraine to Sudan, Ethiopia to Yemen show that these principles are too often reduced to mere bureaucratic checkboxes, stripped of their substantive meaning. Yet they remain the indispensable foundation for interventions that are just, humane, and effective.
Our reports and evaluations demonstrate that truly principled humanitarian action requires more than rhetorical commitment. It must establish clear criteria, red lines, and thresholds in the inevitable deals and trade-offs. Contrary to some assumptions, the principle of humanity does not override the three other core principles. Rather, these principles provide essential benchmarks for navigating difficult choices and serve as guides for an effective operationalisation.
Lost in Sudanisation? What it means to apply a principled humanitarian approach in the response to the crisis in Sudan
Seventeen months after war erupted between the Sudanese Armed Forces and Rapid Support Forces in April 2023, Sudan confronts one of the world’s most severe humanitarian emergencies. Approximately 25 million people require humanitarian assistance—including over 14 million children—with one-third facing acute food insecurity. The conflict has displaced more than 10 million people internally and across borders, making Sudan the largest displacement crisis globally.
Humanitarian organisations operate within an exceptionally complex and volatile environment. Both warring parties have been accused of war crimes and crimes against humanity, demonstrating limited regard for international humanitarian law. Access to affected populations remains heavily restricted by security threats, administrative barriers, and bureaucratic impediments. International presence is notably sparse in critical regions such as Kordofan, Darfur, and the capital Khartoum, where local mutual-aid networks have emerged as essential, though under-resourced, lifelines.
This study engages the INGO community in Sudan in a collective reflection on the practical application of humanitarian principles—humanity, impartiality, neutrality, and independence—within such a constrained operational landscape. It examines how these principles can guide engagement with conflict parties, access negotiations, and support to local civil society. The research aims to generate actionable recommendations to strengthen principled humanitarian action, enhance collective response effectiveness, and ultimately improve access to protection and assistance for affected communities. Conducted as a learning exercise, it facilitates evidence-based exchange on negotiating access and delivering aid in highly politicised environments.
Inter-Agency Humanitarian Evaluation of the Response to the Crisis in Northern Ethiopia
Following the activation of the system-wide Scale-Up Protocols (an inter-agency mobilisation mechanism in response to a sudden onset and/or rapidly deteriorating humanitarian situation) in April 2021, HERE has been contracted by OCHA on behalf of the Inter-Agency Humanitarian Evaluation Steering Group to undertake the Inter-Agency Humanitarian Evaluation of the collective response to the crisis in Northern Ethiopia.
The conflict in Northern Ethiopia saw extreme levels of violence against civilians and grave, systematic violations of international law, creating a context where the UN had very little room to respond effectively. The fact that humanitarians stayed and delivered is commendable. However, the quality and appropriateness of the limited aid that reached communities, particularly concerning gender-based violence responses, did not align with the actual scale and nature of needs. Food aid overshadowed other sectors, particularly protection. Public data on humanitarian needs lacked the necessary degree of independence.
Compounding these difficulties, there was no collective response underpinned by joint strategy and planning. Humanitarian principles did not underpin the response, and the UN failed to reframe its relationship with the Federal Government once it became a party to the conflict. The absence of consistency and coherence in the UN’s wide-ranging in-country agenda had a direct impact on the response’s leadership. Strong disagreements around how to address these issues led to deep divisions within the Humanitarian Country Team, rendering it dysfunctional. Agencies that fell behind their scaling up efforts/cluster lead responsibilities were not held accountable nor replaced.
In light of this system failure, the IAHE provides recommendations both specific to Ethiopia and aimed at the system as a whole. Any follow-up must take place at the global as well as the country level if meaningful change is to take place.
Principled Humanitarian Programming in Yemen: A ‘Prisoner’s Dilemma’?
Commissioned with the support of ECHO, this piece of research comes at a time when serious concerns about the effectiveness of the humanitarian response in Yemen have forced humanitarian actors to reconsider the role that humanitarian principles (should) play in their decision-making. Six years into the conflict, and after billions of dollars spent on the humanitarian response, several individuals and groups of people are still excluded from humanitarian assistance. This is due not only to elements linked to the external context, such as conflict dynamics and social and cultural norms and structures, but also to issues linked to the humanitarian response itself. Recognised as a cornerstone of aid effectiveness, applying humanitarian principles can in theory not only help set the parameters for engagement with non-humanitarian actors but also contribute to securing access and tailoring humanitarian responses to the specificities of each context. Why does this not seem to have worked in Yemen?
The research behind this report has aimed to develop an understanding of the challenges and decisions related to negotiations, access, and coordination that organisations pursue to uphold principled humanitarian action in Yemen. The overarching finding of the research is that a lack of trust and communication about how each agency/organisation operationalises the principles is hindering the effectiveness of the response. Whether implicitly or explicitly, principles are an everyday reference for all humanitarian actors in the country, and a coordinated principled approach is considered by most as the best way to reach the people most in need with good quality assistance and protection. Still, organisations tend to navigate the context from their own individual perspective, and without consideration of the way their decisions impact the principled humanitarian programming of others, or in the future.
Principled Humanitarian Assistance of ECHO Partners in Iraq
Commissioned by NRC with support from ECHO, this review provides a critical examination of how 15 ECHO-funded organisations—including UN agencies, the ICRC, and international NGOs—interpret and apply humanitarian principles in Iraq’s highly constrained operational environment.
The study reveals a fragmented landscape where the principles of humanity, impartiality, neutrality, and independence are invoked inconsistently, often to justify opposing courses of action in the same context. While all partners reference the principles, their operational translation varies widely, undermining a collective humanitarian identity.
Key concerns include a pronounced risk aversion that leads organisations to avoid areas labelled ‘hard to reach’—often where needs may be greatest—and an over-reliance on UN-led civil-military coordination rather than investing in their own capacity to negotiate access. The review also highlights insufficient efforts to understand how aid is perceived by local stakeholders and a lack of transparency in how difficult trade-offs between principles are made.
Through document analysis, field visits, and interviews, the study scrutinises specific dilemmas: the use of armed escorts, engagement in screening and detention sites, and the implications of working alongside military actors. It concludes that principled humanitarian action requires more than rhetorical commitment; it demands demonstrable accountability in how organisations weigh all four principles, particularly when the ‘humanitarian imperative’ is used to override neutrality or independence.
Walk the Talk: Assessing the application of humanitarian principles on the ground
The first expert panel of ICRC’s Research and Debate Cycle on Principles Guiding Humanitarian Action tackled the topic of the application of the humanitarian principles of humanity, impartiality, neutrality and independence in operational environments. The panel discussed the practical relevance of the principles, the challenges to their application, and the question of whether they should be ‘measured’ or ‘assessed’ so as to best allocate resources and prioritize responses.
Introduction with :
Moderator:
•Helen Durham, Director, Department of International Law and Policy, ICRC
Panelists:
•Marc DuBois, Former Executive Director, Médecins Sans Frontières UK (MSF UK)
•Kate Halff, Executive Secretary, Steering Committee for Humanitarian Response (SCHR)
•Sorcha O’Callaghan, Head of Humanitarian Policy, British Red Cross (BRC)
“Walk the Talk: Assessing the application of humanitarian principles on the ground”
Applying the humanitarian principles: lessons learned from the field
Kate Halff on Measuring the principle of impartiality: challenges and observations
Marc DuBois : What it means to be a principled actor
Sorcha O’Callaghan on Principles and access: the Lebanese Red Cross example
“Walk the Talk: Assessing the application of humanitarian principles on the ground”
• Setting redlines and making good examples contagious
Is there a pragmatic redline when applying the principles?
How to make examples of successful principled action contagious?
“Walk the Talk: Assessing the application of humanitarian principles on the ground”
• Questions and Answers
Is it really possible to assess the application of the humanitarian principles?
Can there be a continuum between development goals and humanitarian principles?
Do principles matter to people in need?
Universal Humanitarian Value and Principles: Accuracy or Fallacy?
On the eve of the WHS Global Consultation, HERE-Geneva organized a public debate to explore the overarching question of whether humanitarian values and principles can reset political agendas.
In a debate moderated by Ambassador Tania Dussey-Cavassini, Mr As Sy (Secretary-General of the International Federation of the Red Cross), Mr Egeland (Secretary-General of the Norwegian Refugee Council), Ambassador Youssef (Assistant Secretary-General of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation) and Ms. Modeer (State Secretary to the Minister for International Development Cooperation of Sweden) shared their views on the values and principles underpinning humanitarian action.