What does it mean to be “neutral”? (Estimated 5 minute reading time)

Humanitarian actors, whether field workers or researchers, are generally familiar with the origins of humanitarian aid and assistance stretching back as far as Henri Dunant and Florence Nightingale in the mid-19^th century. This is at least the period proclaimed to be the beginnings of humanitarian aid workers and their field work. During the course of his work, Dunant would inevitably be responsible for the notion of impartiality and neutrality linked to the provision of humanitarian aid. Later these two core concepts would become pillars of both International Humanitarian Law (IHL) and the International Committee of the Red Cross (Alexander, 2015).

Then in 1991, the UN General Assembly adopted Resolution 46/182, which incorporated impartiality and neutrality with two separate humanitarian principles: humanity and independence. Very few might question the principle of humanity as an overarching premise. Yet in comparison, neutrality has been a widely contested concept generating a vastly different response. If impartiality entails humanitarian action is to be carried out on the basis of need and makes no distinction between recipients, neutrality serves as a statement whereby actors abstain from taking sides. This entails humanitarian actors avoid engaging in controversies of a political or ideological nature. On the surface, neutrality appears to make sense. In essence and in action, humanitarian actors engage in activities to alleviate suffering and save lives, and preserve human dignity.

Yet, the greater issue within this discussion has broadened out to encompass grave violations against human rights and certain institutions silence on such matters. The main reasoning behind neutrality, as the organizations suggest, is that by abandoning this perspective, humanitarian actors risk losing access to the most heavily impacted groups. Furthermore, they assert that silence is by no means compliance but rather straightforward neutrality as a means to continue providing humanitarian assistance. As a counter to this point, a secondary model emerged which points to the need to abandon neutrality. In this manner, there appear to be two main perspectives in the discussion on neutrality: the neutral humanitarian model and the activist humanitarian model (Slim, 2020).

Compared to the neutral humanitarian model, the activist model disregards this approach on the basis of the rule of law and human rights concerns. From this perspective, differing organizations would argue that if a society or state is to be governed by the rule of law, there would be no need for humanitarian aid organizations to remain neutral because the government abides by the law, specifically in reference to IHL. Furthermore, the second argument informs us that grave human rights violations would not be announced by humanitarian actors because the actors are neutral, which undermines the basis of human rights. Of course, this presupposes adherence to both the rule of law and human rights, which may not always be the case at the state or local level.

Instead, the activist model utilizes a process of naming and shaming. This is a straightforward practice whereby actors or organizations publicly decry, denounce, or discourage a particular event or set of events. As one primary example, it is the key driver behind the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) from the UN Human Rights Council.

Now thirty years after the adoption of the four humanitarian principles, the question still arises as to whether neutrality matters in the age of rapid information distribution. Is it possible that organizations stay silent on matters with the objective of staying neutral? It is indeed possible, however, there may be another group or individual to sound alarm bells. Therefore, it remains a point many researchers, academics, and field workers continue to reflect on. Following the first question, a second question arises as to which approach yields the greatest results and provides the highest level of assistance? These are both equally complex questions and there is limited empirical evidence on the second question. Within a complex set of norms, it might suffice to say both yield results, depending on the context of the assistance. Obviously, questions of neutrality are less pertinent in the provision of humanitarian aid stemming from natural catastrophe compared to armed conflicts. Yet, during times of conflict, this discussion of neutrality remains relevant. If there is at least one key takeaway from the big question on neutrality, it could be derived from this statement:

“Legally, operationally, and morally, we can take sides and still be humanitarians” (Slim, 2020)