Close to the end of this month (May), and following two years of pain-staking consultations, the World Humanitarian Summit will be convened. The summit comes in reply to, and based on, a call to action by the UN Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon aiming to “re-inspire and reinvigorate a commitment to humanity and to the universality of humanitarian principles. Initiate a set of concrete actions and commitments aimed at enabling countries and communities to better prepare for and respond to crises, and be resilient to shocks and share best practices which can help save lives around the world, put affected people at the center of humanitarian action, and alleviate suffering“. |
Much will be discussed during the summit at the highest political level in order to reach a point where a response to what the SG has called the highest level of human suffering since the Second World War, can be achieved.
However, in my opinion, one of the most important discussions during the summit, are those that are going to take place in the high level leaders round tables which are intended to discuss the five core responsibilities of the Agenda for Humanity, which was annexed to the SG’s report for the World Humanitarian Summit and was considered by him to be a framework for action change and mutual accountability. The core responsibilities included in this agenda are the following:
Back to the second core responsibility; it shall be covered during the summit by a high level leader’s roundtable, which aims “[to] mobilize resources and exert influence as part of a global effort to reduce human suffering and enhance the protection of civilians, with a particular focus on reducing the humanitarian impact of the conduct of hostilities and enabling humanitarian action and health care.”
Of course, as you may have already guessed, the core responsibility we are talking about relates to upholding the rules of war, those stipulated mainly by the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their additional protocols of 1977. This ranges from the respect for international humanitarian law in its rules regulating the conduct of hostilities and protection of the civilian population to ensuring that populations in need receive unimpeded and timely humanitarian assistance and minimizing civilian harm and protecting the humanitarian and medical missions in the conduct of hostilities.
The SG in his report indicates that the reason for this inclusion is the fact that […] “today’s armed conflicts and the utter lack of respect for the fundamental rules of international humanitarian law” […] [as these conflicts are] “Flouting the most basic rules governing the conduct of war has become contagious, creating further opportunities to reinterpret and blur their application. The failure to demand and promote respect for our shared norms, to enforce the law, and to support or cooperate with national and international monitoring and accountability mechanisms all contribute to the erosion of the rule of law and bring about profound human suffering.” This panel therefore […] “offers the opportunity to recommit to protecting civilians and the human rights of all by respecting the rules States have already agreed upon.”
There are 5 core commitments prepared for this core responsibility, which are the following:
For the purpose of the entry, one commitment particularly caught my attention. It falls under core commitment 1 and reads as follows:
“[…] commits to engage constructively in the intergovernmental process as set out in Resolution 2 of the 32nd International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent in 2015, “to find agreement on features and functions of a potential forum of States and ways to enhance the implementation of IHL using the potential of the International Conference [of the Red Cross and Red Crescent] and IHL regional forums.” (Emphasis added)
Why is this particularly interesting? It is because we have a precedent in addressing it; the 32nd International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent itself which was held in December 2015. During the December 2015 conference, an initiative by Switzerland and the ICRC took a blow to the head as it was rejected by state parties in spite the fact that it was redrafted several times in order to get some sort of support for it. It initially called for the establishment of a peer-review mechanism under the auspices of the conference where states parties would voluntarily submit information on the implementation of the rules of IHL. This mechanism was expected to strengthen compliance with the rules of war and reduce if not prevent civilian suffering during armed conflicts. It was never expected at that time to get any support out of skepticism by many states regarding its work and most importantly guarantees of non-politicization, although these states themselves expressed their support for the idea in general, or did they really? For more on the overall atmosphere of the 32nd conference check here.
I would be inclined to say that the commitment itself may collect support during the summit, even from states who were skeptical about the whole idea from the beginning because after all it does not establish anything more than it calls for “constructive engagement” in the process of establishing this “forum of states”. However the point remains that, it is remarkable how when it comes to the mechanisms which shall strengthen compliance with the law, one which the ICRC and Switzerland have spent years pushing for, the commitment comes out as weak as it is, while we see commitment like the one revolving around the code of conduct on the veto restraint at the Security Council (which is also contested by a considerable number of states) being stronger and straight to the point as “commits to [join] [promote implementation of] the Code of Conduct regarding Security Council action against genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes.” (Emphasis added).
But then again, one cannot blame states for refusing or at least being skeptical about a rendering change or additions to a system which they agreed on and were satisfied with. Besides, push change a bit too far, and no one will respect any of whatever they are respecting at this very moment, therefore risking the collapse of the whole system.
One must also not forget that it was not solely how things were pictured at the conference particularly that refusal was led by Arab states and Russia, and remember that there are many more states, particularly those with a history in violating IHL, cannot accept such a mechanism.
Moving on to the last part, what are we to expect from Arab states during the Summit in light of all the action we are witnessing in the region? To narrow the scope of issues we’re intending to speculate on, I’ll stick to the aspect which discussed above, core responsibility number 2.
As far as I know, I shall at this stage refer only to the reports of the regional consultation which were held in Amman back in March 2015. During the consultations participants, which included both representatives of states and civil society organisations, much was demanded and emphasizes, and much indeed falls within the overall scope of the commitments spoken of above for the purpose of protecting civilians and ensuring respect for the laws of war. Nothing radical in demands I would say, but as a minimum, Governments were demanded to ratify international instruments pertaining to the protection of civilians and to ensure national legislation in conformity with international law and demanded beside regional organisations and the international community to hold perpetrators of violations accountable in an objective and universal manner, inter alia through the International Criminal Court.
One particular demand was emphasised by the participants and was duplicated under several thematic discussion was “context-specific practices” in humanitarian aid, which basically meant that “all stakeholders should explore synergies between protection frameworks grounded in international law and those based on other traditions and norms in order to develop context-specific practices to better protect civilians.”
Mediocre recommendations give out a message loud and clear of how conservative towards change all stakeholder are in the region, and that is probably understandable, however we can all agree that public outcry like hashtags and Facebook posts don’t quite do the trick.
I would be inclined to say that WHS is indeed a very big opportunity to reduce the suffering of millions of people throughout the globe and the Arab region; with all is suffering, unfortunately stands at the top of the line in need of concrete action.
However, in my opinion, one of the most important discussions during the summit, are those that are going to take place in the high level leaders round tables which are intended to discuss the five core responsibilities of the Agenda for Humanity, which was annexed to the SG’s report for the World Humanitarian Summit and was considered by him to be a framework for action change and mutual accountability. The core responsibilities included in this agenda are the following:
- Global leadership to prevent and end conflict
- Uphold the norms that safeguard humanity
- Leave no one behind
- Change people's lives – from delivering aid to ending need
- Invest in humanity
Back to the second core responsibility; it shall be covered during the summit by a high level leader’s roundtable, which aims “[to] mobilize resources and exert influence as part of a global effort to reduce human suffering and enhance the protection of civilians, with a particular focus on reducing the humanitarian impact of the conduct of hostilities and enabling humanitarian action and health care.”
Of course, as you may have already guessed, the core responsibility we are talking about relates to upholding the rules of war, those stipulated mainly by the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their additional protocols of 1977. This ranges from the respect for international humanitarian law in its rules regulating the conduct of hostilities and protection of the civilian population to ensuring that populations in need receive unimpeded and timely humanitarian assistance and minimizing civilian harm and protecting the humanitarian and medical missions in the conduct of hostilities.
The SG in his report indicates that the reason for this inclusion is the fact that […] “today’s armed conflicts and the utter lack of respect for the fundamental rules of international humanitarian law” […] [as these conflicts are] “Flouting the most basic rules governing the conduct of war has become contagious, creating further opportunities to reinterpret and blur their application. The failure to demand and promote respect for our shared norms, to enforce the law, and to support or cooperate with national and international monitoring and accountability mechanisms all contribute to the erosion of the rule of law and bring about profound human suffering.” This panel therefore […] “offers the opportunity to recommit to protecting civilians and the human rights of all by respecting the rules States have already agreed upon.”
There are 5 core commitments prepared for this core responsibility, which are the following:
- Core commitment 1: Commit to promote and enhance respect for international humanitarian law, international human rights law, and refugee law, where applicable.
- Core commitment 2: Commit to promote and enhance the protection of civilians and civilian objects, especially in the conduct of hostilities, for instance by working to prevent civilian harm resulting from the use of wide-area explosive weapons in populated areas, and by sparing civilian infrastructure from military use in the conduct of military operations.
- Core Commitment 3: Commit to ensure all populations in need receive rapid and unimpeded humanitarian assistance.
- Core commitment 4: Commit to promote and enhance efforts to respect and protect medical personnel, transports and facilities, as well as humanitarian relief personnel and assets against attacks, threats or other violent acts.
- Core commitment 5: Commit to speak out and systematically condemn serious violations of international humanitarian law and serious violations and abuses of international human rights law and to take concrete steps to ensure accountability of perpetrators when these acts amount to crimes under international law.
For the purpose of the entry, one commitment particularly caught my attention. It falls under core commitment 1 and reads as follows:
“[…] commits to engage constructively in the intergovernmental process as set out in Resolution 2 of the 32nd International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent in 2015, “to find agreement on features and functions of a potential forum of States and ways to enhance the implementation of IHL using the potential of the International Conference [of the Red Cross and Red Crescent] and IHL regional forums.” (Emphasis added)
Why is this particularly interesting? It is because we have a precedent in addressing it; the 32nd International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent itself which was held in December 2015. During the December 2015 conference, an initiative by Switzerland and the ICRC took a blow to the head as it was rejected by state parties in spite the fact that it was redrafted several times in order to get some sort of support for it. It initially called for the establishment of a peer-review mechanism under the auspices of the conference where states parties would voluntarily submit information on the implementation of the rules of IHL. This mechanism was expected to strengthen compliance with the rules of war and reduce if not prevent civilian suffering during armed conflicts. It was never expected at that time to get any support out of skepticism by many states regarding its work and most importantly guarantees of non-politicization, although these states themselves expressed their support for the idea in general, or did they really? For more on the overall atmosphere of the 32nd conference check here.
I would be inclined to say that the commitment itself may collect support during the summit, even from states who were skeptical about the whole idea from the beginning because after all it does not establish anything more than it calls for “constructive engagement” in the process of establishing this “forum of states”. However the point remains that, it is remarkable how when it comes to the mechanisms which shall strengthen compliance with the law, one which the ICRC and Switzerland have spent years pushing for, the commitment comes out as weak as it is, while we see commitment like the one revolving around the code of conduct on the veto restraint at the Security Council (which is also contested by a considerable number of states) being stronger and straight to the point as “commits to [join] [promote implementation of] the Code of Conduct regarding Security Council action against genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes.” (Emphasis added).
But then again, one cannot blame states for refusing or at least being skeptical about a rendering change or additions to a system which they agreed on and were satisfied with. Besides, push change a bit too far, and no one will respect any of whatever they are respecting at this very moment, therefore risking the collapse of the whole system.
One must also not forget that it was not solely how things were pictured at the conference particularly that refusal was led by Arab states and Russia, and remember that there are many more states, particularly those with a history in violating IHL, cannot accept such a mechanism.
Moving on to the last part, what are we to expect from Arab states during the Summit in light of all the action we are witnessing in the region? To narrow the scope of issues we’re intending to speculate on, I’ll stick to the aspect which discussed above, core responsibility number 2.
As far as I know, I shall at this stage refer only to the reports of the regional consultation which were held in Amman back in March 2015. During the consultations participants, which included both representatives of states and civil society organisations, much was demanded and emphasizes, and much indeed falls within the overall scope of the commitments spoken of above for the purpose of protecting civilians and ensuring respect for the laws of war. Nothing radical in demands I would say, but as a minimum, Governments were demanded to ratify international instruments pertaining to the protection of civilians and to ensure national legislation in conformity with international law and demanded beside regional organisations and the international community to hold perpetrators of violations accountable in an objective and universal manner, inter alia through the International Criminal Court.
One particular demand was emphasised by the participants and was duplicated under several thematic discussion was “context-specific practices” in humanitarian aid, which basically meant that “all stakeholders should explore synergies between protection frameworks grounded in international law and those based on other traditions and norms in order to develop context-specific practices to better protect civilians.”
Mediocre recommendations give out a message loud and clear of how conservative towards change all stakeholder are in the region, and that is probably understandable, however we can all agree that public outcry like hashtags and Facebook posts don’t quite do the trick.
I would be inclined to say that WHS is indeed a very big opportunity to reduce the suffering of millions of people throughout the globe and the Arab region; with all is suffering, unfortunately stands at the top of the line in need of concrete action.