The principle is central to establishing and maintaining access to affected populations in natural disasters or complex emergency situations.
• To protect life and health • To define the purpose of the movement [4] The Code of Conduct for the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement and NGOs in Disaster Relief (RC/NGO Code) introduces the concept of the humanitarian imperative which expands the principle of humanity to include the right to receive and to give humanitarian assistance.
"[5] Provision of humanitarian assistance must be impartial and no discrimination on the basis of nationality, race, gender, religion, political opinion or class.
[4] For most non-governmental humanitarian agencies (NGHAs), the principle of impartiality is unambiguous even if it is sometimes difficult to apply, especially in rapidly changing situations.
However, for the UN agencies, particularly where the UN is involved in peacekeeping activities as the result of a Security Council resolution, it is not clear if the UN is in a position to act in an impartial manner if one of the parties is in violation of terms of the UN Charter.
The principle of neutrality was specifically addressed to the Red Cross Movement to prevent it from not only taking sides in a conflict, but not to "engage at any time in controversies of a political, racial, religious or ideological nature."
"Neutrality remains closely linked with the definition which introduced the concept into international law to designate the status of a State which decided to stand apart from an armed conflict.
According to this interpretation, the UN agency or a government can provide neutral humanitarian aid as long as it does it impartially, based upon need alone.
While neutrality is an important principle in the work of Humanitarian Aid, there is a long-standing controversy in the field on how it should be implemented.
[11] In a conservative interpretation, it also means that humanitarian workers do not speak out about what they see, even in the case of egregious human rights violations, including genocide.
For this argument, choosing sides during a conflict amounts to discrimination, and works against the fundamental principles of humanitarian aid.
[13][14] Two of the major players in this debate are the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), and Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) (also known as Doctors Without Borders).
Historically, the ICRC interpreted "neutrality" to mean no public criticism, unwilling to speak out about what they were seeing, in hopes of maintaining their ability to provide aid.
[11] MSF, on the other hand, never adopted the policy of absolute confidentiality, and considers "'bearing witness to the plight of victims as an additional measure of protection".
In a 2020 opinion piece, Hugo Slim argues that legally, operationally, and morally, it is acceptable for humanitarians to take sides.
The ICRC, has set the example for maintaining its independence (and neutrality) by raising its funds from governments through the use of separate annual appeals for headquarters costs and field operations.
In 2004, the General Assembly resolution 58/114 added independence as the fourth core principle essential to humanitarian action.
The fourth principle was as result of co-opting of humanitarian assistance in highly politicized context to address challenges faced in preserving independence for local partners and in relation to targeting of beneficiaries and the delivery of need based services in affected areas.
This is the body responsible for bringing together UN agencies, Red Cross Movement and NGOs working in humanitarian action.
However a humane response implies that humanitarian workers are not to take advantage of the vulnerabilities of those affected by war and violence.
A number of reports which identified the sexual exploitation of refugees in west Africa prodded the humanitarian community to work together in examining the problem and to take measures to prevent abuses.
In July 2002, the UN's Interagency Standing Committee (IASC) adopted a plan of action which stated: Sexual exploitation and abuse by humanitarian workers constitute acts of gross misconduct and are therefore grounds for termination of employment.
The plan explicitly prohibited the "Exchange of money, employment, goods, or services for sex, including sexual favours or other forms of humiliating, degrading or exploitative behaviour."
The major NGHAs as well as the UN agencies engaged in humanitarian response committed themselves to setting up internal structures to prevent sexual exploitation and abuse of beneficiaries.
The SCHR carries out peer reviews among its members which look in part at the issue of compliance with principles set out in the RC/NGO Code Pictet, Jean (1979).