Humanitarian principles: what they are and why they are debated
- Page updated onOctober 2, 2026
The humanitarian principles of humanity, impartiality, neutrality and independence have evolved over the years. They remain necessary today to ensure the credibility of the humanitarian system and the trust that governments, armed groups and communities place in it. This keeps humanitarian actors' safe and sustained access to the population affected by crises and emergencies free from interference. Their application, however, is not without debate and criticism.
Table of contents:
What are humanitarian principles?
Humanitarian principles are distinctive norms of conduct in humanitarian action
When we talk about humanitarian principles, we are referring to the four guiding principles of humanitarian assistance recognised by the United Nations: humanity, impartiality, neutrality and independence (UN General Assembly, 2004).
The humanitarian principles are a set of values and standards of conduct that underpin humanitarian action in any disaster or complex emergency (OCHA, 2022). Put very briefly, the humanitarian principles establish that humanitarian organisations must work to relieve human suffering (humanity), without discrimination of any kind (impartiality), without taking sides in conflicts or controversies (neutrality) and autonomously from political, military and economic powers (independence).
Humanitarian principles are not only a moral compass, but also have practical operational relevance and mark a fundamental distinction between humanitarian action and other forms of international cooperation (OCHA, 2022):
- For example, military interventions by a government in emergencies, despite being able to provide assistance to affected people, cannot be strictly considered humanitarian action, as they are strongly linked to the political objectives and strategic interests of the government in question.
- Likewise, humanitarian principles establish a distinction between humanitarian action and development cooperation, which is typically aligned with the priorities of recipient governments and, moreover, pursues different objectives.
Although the humanitarian principles are closely related to international humanitarian law, they are not binding law. They are ethical and operational standards that acquire legal force when they are incorporated into laws, treaties and institutional mandates. Their authority, however, does not stem from this, but from their widespread voluntary adoption and the moral legitimacy this confers (Spiegel et al., 2026).
The four humanitarian principles are humanity, impartiality, neutrality and independence
Today, four internationally accepted humanitarian principles constitute the ethical and operational foundation for effective, accountable and quality humanitarian action (OCHA, 2022).
They are as follows:
- Humanity. We work to prevent and alleviate suffering caused by conflicts and disasters and to protect life and health, while respecting and restoring human dignity. "Humanity" as a principle goes a step further than the paternalistic concept of "charity" and even integrates the will to analyse and address the root causes of crises.
- Impartiality. We do not discriminate on the basis of nationality, race, religion, gender, political opinion, etc. Humanitarian assistance is based on helping individuals in proportion to their suffering and needs, giving priority to the most urgent ones.
- Neutrality. We do not take sides in hostilities or engage in controversies of a political, racial or religious nature. We refrain from acts or statements that could be interpreted as favouring or disadvantaging any of the parties involved.
- Independence. We maintain our autonomy from political, economic and military powers. We make our own decisions free from any conditioning, both in the countries where we intervene and in the countries that provide funding for that intervention.
Are humanitarian principles common to all organisations?
The four humanitarian principles of humanity, impartiality, neutrality and independence are widely established and have been recognised by many humanitarian organisations. Their application, however, is not and cannot be uniform across all humanitarian organisations.
Humanitarian principles in the Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement
The four humanitarian principles recognised by the United Nations have their origins in the principles of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement. However, the Movement's ethics are underpinned by seven principles, not four.
The founding of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) in 1863 inspired the development of modern humanitarianism, marked from the outset by the need for humanitarian assistance to be neutral and impartial (ICRC, 2021). These terms, however, would take years to be understood as principles. Moreover, at the time they coexisted with many other ideas and ethical foundations, such as patriotism, compassion or even obedience to military authorities (Glasman, 2020).
During the Second World War, the ICRC's moral authority was put to the test and was strongly questioned by the national societies. Moreover, these societies collectively published their own selection of fundamental principles, thus marking a new path forward (Glasman, 2020). In response to this tension, Jean Pictet, supervised by Max Huber, wrote his doctoral thesis in 1955 entitled "Les Principes de la Croix-Rouge", in which he enumerated seven fundamental principles (humanity, impartiality, neutrality, independence, proportionality, equality and universality), followed by ten further organisational principles (Pictet, 1955).
A decade later, in 1965, the ICRC succeeded in having the principles finally adopted by the Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement (ICRC, 2015), with some variations from the original text: humanity, impartiality, neutrality, independence, voluntary service, unity and universality.
In 1979, moreover, these principles were set out in a hierarchy (Pictet, 1979). For the ICRC, then, humanity and impartiality are substantive principles, which require the support of other derived principles: neutrality and independence. These two are central to the organisation's mandate, as they allow it to negotiate access to affected people with any party or actor.
Humanitarian principles in the United Nations
With the end of the Cold War and the creation of OCHA in 1991, the United Nations recognised the three fundamental principles of humanity, impartiality and neutrality (UN General Assembly, 1991). Years later, in 2003, the principle of independence was added to this list, forming the set of four principles we know today (UN General Assembly, 2004).
This, however, needs to be qualified for United Nations agencies. Resolution 58/114 defines independence as the autonomy of humanitarian objectives from the political, economic or military aims of any actor. It does not, by contrast, require institutional autonomy from states, from which these agencies derive their mandate and, to a large extent, their funding.
The humanitarian principles in NGOs
In 1994 the Code of Conduct for the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement and NGOs in Disaster Relief was published, as an effort to universalise the humanitarian principles (SCHR, 1994).
The code includes ten principles: humanity, impartiality, independence, a fourth principle similar to neutrality (aid will not be used to further a particular political or religious standpoint), and others of a more operational nature. It also includes additional recommendations addressed to third parties on the operating environment they should create so that humanitarian organisations can operate safely while complying with the humanitarian principles: humanitarian space.
The code of conduct was proposed as a voluntary code for organisations willing to sign up to it, in line with international humanitarian law. Once signed, however, it is legally binding on the signatory organisation, although there are no external mechanisms to monitor or verify it, nor any sanctions for non-compliance (Sharpe, 2023).
Since its publication it has been signed by hundreds of NGOs and it is an annex to the Sphere Handbook. Each NGO, however, can adopt its own framework of principles. The four already mentioned are widely shared, but organisations may read them in their own way or take on additional ones. Médecins Sans Frontières, for instance, has a long tradition of témoignage, or witnessing: speaking publicly about the suffering it observes (Gorin, 2021). Other organisations, likewise, have placed greater emphasis on their links to the human rights framework or to dignity.
It is worth noting that, since 2011, adherence to and respect for the four humanitarian principles has been an operational requirement for taking part in the IASC's humanitarian coordination mechanisms. It is not a legal obligation, but a condition of participation (IASC, 2015).
Humanitarian principles coexist with other ethical principles and norms
Humanitarian principles are not the only reference principles in humanitarian action. There are other complementary frameworks but with different approaches. Among them, the protection principles and the Core Humanitarian Standard stand out:
- The protection principles are set out in the Sphere Handbook, under the umbrella of the Humanitarian Charter, whose starting point is the humanitarian imperative. There are four: avoid causing harm, ensure access to assistance according to needs, protect people from violence and coercion, and support them in claiming their rights. These principles have also been reformulated by the Global Protection Cluster with an operational approach oriented towards the mainstreaming of protection in humanitarian action.
- The Core Humanitarian Standard also sets out a list, not strictly of principles, but of nine quality and accountability commitments for humanitarian action.
🧠 Let's pause and reflect
In which specific situations in humanitarian health action does neutrality facilitate access to affected people, and in which may it hinder or be insufficient, and how should an organization guide that decision?
- Think and write your answer.
- Click on «Copy and open».
- Paste to receive feedback.
📚 This is the NotebookLM for this topic. It uses only carefully selected references. | What is NotebookLM?
Are the humanitarian principles always applicable? Debates and challenges
Today, despite the four humanitarian principles having been officially adopted by the United Nations humanitarian system for more than two decades, the critical debate about their relevance and applicability continues.
What in theory seems easy often turns out to be genuinely difficult in practice, giving rise to complex ethical dilemmas. Is it really possible not to take sides in the face of injustices or apparent human rights violations? Is it possible to require local humanitarian professionals to remain neutral when aid and health workers, their families and communities are attacked? To what extent is impartiality applicable when humanitarian needs are always abysmally greater than the humanitarian assistance available? (Slim, 2024)
The debate on humanitarian principles: moral compass or tools for humanitarian access?
Humanity and impartiality are the pillars of humanitarian principles, are reflected in International Humanitarian Law and offer a moral compass for humanitarian actors (Mardini, 2022). It is clear that we must alleviate suffering without discrimination. However, these principles do not resolve the ethical dilemmas that continually arise when there are insufficient resources to meet all the humanitarian needs of all people affected by all crises. In such cases it may be necessary to discriminate in favour of those with the most severe and urgent needs, but addressing the most severe and urgent needs is precisely more expensive and requires more resources to protect fewer people.
In the case of neutrality and independence, these are principles (also fundamental) of a completely different nature from the previous ones. Neutrality and independence have no moral value of their own; they are practical, operational tools that are sometimes necessary in order to engage with all parties to a conflict (for strictly humanitarian purposes), earn their trust, create and maintain a safe humanitarian space, and reach people affected by the humanitarian crisis wherever they are (Mardini, 2022).
Impartiality must be interpreted through the lens of equity and applied actively
When the Red Cross adopted the humanitarian principle of impartiality in the 1965 Proclamation, it did so by combining two complementary principles: non-discrimination and proportionality. Non-discrimination refers to equality of rights between people, while proportionality is closely tied to equity: the aim is to assist those in need in proportion to the degree of their suffering and its urgency (Pictet, 1979). Time, however, has exposed major challenges in upholding this principle, which have diluted both its meaning and its value.
One such challenge arises when political elites and parties to a conflict instrumentalise humanitarian aid, whether to allow assistance to reach their allies or to punish their opponents through starvation (Craze & Luedke, 2022).
Another challenge, however, arises from a passive understanding of impartiality, without self-criticism or any commitment to recognising oppression and trying to understand why it happens. Automatically asserting that an organisation does not discriminate against its beneficiaries is of little use if that organisation does not examine how it internally reproduces racist and neocolonial attitudes (Rejali, 2020) or reinforces historical structural inequalities, and if it makes no active effort to identify with communities who is in greatest need, why, and how to work with them (DuBois & Healy, 2024). Likewise, such a humanitarian organisation's impartiality may end up being merely aspirational if multilateral institutions, states and donors neither protect the humanitarian space nor are held accountable for doing so.
Neutrality is a contested humanitarian principle, one that different actors adopt in different ways
Neutrality, in the sense of not taking sides in conflicts, is not mentioned in the Geneva Conventions (Leader, 2000), nor is it a condition for humanitarian action to be recognised or protected (Spiegel et al., 2026). Its origin lies not there but in the development of the ICRC. Indeed, when it was written into the code of conduct for all NGOs, its meaning was qualified: aid will not be used to further a particular political or religious standpoint.
There are those who argue that there can be both neutral and non-neutral humanitarian action, and that both can be valid (Slim, 2020). In some cases or for some actors, neutrality may be the tool that guarantees safe access to affected people, but in other scenarios neutrality may not be sufficient, may not be necessary, or may even be an obstacle for actors who only work in territory controlled by a single party (The New Humanitarian, 2020).
Where injustices or human rights violations are identified, remaining neutral can in practice mean siding with the stronger party (Healy, 2021). For this reason there are humanitarian actors who embrace neutrality as a fundamental principle yet sometimes choose to set it aside when they believe it conflicts with the principle of humanity, which is a moral imperative. This is what allows them to firmly condemn atrocities and killings and to name their perpetrators, or to take sides on politically contested issues such as racial oppression, universal access to health care for migrants, sexual and reproductive rights (and the decriminalisation of abortion), or to denounce corporate practices affecting access to essential medicines (Terry, 2000).
Independence is largely conditioned by humanitarian funding
As regards independence, and bearing in mind that the majority of humanitarian action is funded by governmental donors, to what extent is it possible not to become an instrument of their foreign policy or security agenda? It is clear that one way of committing to independence is to define clearly the programme of interventions we wish to implement, based on the needs of the population, and to seek varied and diverse funding that allows us to carry out our plans. Unfortunately, this often remains no more than good intentions, when the majority of donors share a similar political agenda and determine in their calls for proposals the geographical areas, sectoral priorities and types of intervention that are eligible for funding.
On occasion, organisations decide to refuse funds from a donor country in a given territory if they consider that donor to have ties with a belligerent party to the conflict in that territory, or in areas where that donor country maintains military control (Dyukova & Chetcuti, 2014). However, this may be insufficient to maintain independence if the same organisation accepts funds from that same donor country for interventions in other territories. In any case, few humanitarian organisations have the financial capacity or the determination to completely refuse funds from a particular donor across all their countries of intervention.
Finally, organisations may find themselves in an ethical dilemma if, in order to continue their operations, they need to accept funds that are not directed towards what they had originally planned. This deviation from the original programme, based on an independent assessment of the needs of the population, can result in a (near-blind) following of the donor's interests and agenda.
Often, it is precisely the donors who have the responsibility and capacity to impose their political agenda less, to attach fewer conditions to the terms on which financial contributions are offered and thus improve humanitarian financing, and to exert less pressure on humanitarian actors, in order to respect and promote their independence and integrity.
Do we need other humanitarian principles?
The strength of the humanitarian principles does not lie in their being obligatory in practice. Nor are they fixed or immutable. On the contrary, they have been widely discussed and debated. What is more, there have also been proposals to reformulate them and give them new meaning, and even to put forward other principles.
Do no harm, solidarity and accountability
In 2026, the Johns Hopkins Center for Humanitarian Health and The Lancet Commission on health, conflict and forced displacement proposed recognising, alongside the four fundamental principles, others that have been gaining ground in the operational dimension of humanitarian action, such as do no harm, solidarity and accountability (Spiegel et al., 2026).
- Do no harm. This principle comes from the field of medical ethics and requires humanitarian action to be continually assessed to ensure it does not exacerbate conflicts, worsen vulnerabilities or expose people to additional risks.
- Solidarity. This principle is framed as the ethical and operational commitment to stand alongside the people affected by humanitarian crises and hand in hand with local humanitarian organisations, through equitable partnership agreements and by sharing the risks.
- Accountability. This principle relates to transparent information, feedback and the participation of crisis-affected populations in shared decision-making, drawing on the Core Humanitarian Standard.
Equity, solidarity, compassion and diversity
That has not been the only proposal. Other authors have also sought to stimulate debate on the humanitarian principles by putting forward alternatives, such as equity, solidarity, compassion and diversity (Clarke & Parris, 2019):
- Equity. This principle reflects the differences in people's opportunities and in their vulnerability to humanitarian crises, as a result of their gender, socioeconomic class and the region where they live, but also as a consequence of the effects of climate change and the destruction of ecosystems, which generate intergenerational inequity.
- Solidarity. This principle entails the collective obligation to meet other people's needs, but also to question the causes of those needs with a critical eye and to demand accountability.
- Compassion. This principle appeals to a human emotion, set against indifference or lethargy in the face of injustice, as the driver of a response springing from a feeling common to every belief and religion, one that goes beyond a professional transaction bound by obligation or duty.
- Diversity. This principle requires taking into account the differences that exist between people, recognising them and celebrating them.
The humanitarian principles are still debated, and will continue to be
It is in the very nature of the humanitarian principles that their value stems from being adopted voluntarily and from organisations, states, parties to conflict and communities continuing to recognise them as legitimate. Critical analysis and debate about them, ever in motion since 1955, are what keep them alive decades later, even if they are often lost from view.
There seems to be no consensus today on how they should continue to adapt to the changing reality of contemporary humanitarian crises and conflicts. Still less amid the humanitarian funding crisis that, since 2025, has been straining the ropes once again: aid is being politicised and instrumentalised, the lack of resources forces prioritisation, and dependence on a handful of donors and their agendas is growing.
References
- Clarke, M., & Parris, B. W. (2019). Vale the humanitarian principles: New principles for a new environment (Working Paper No. 1) [Working paper]. The Humanitarian Leader. https://doi.org/10.21153/thl2019volno0art1032
- Craze, J., & Luedke, A. (2022, August 22). Why humanitarians should stop hiding behind impartiality. The New Humanitarian. https://www.thenewhumanitarian.org/opinion/2022/08/22/impartiality-humanitarian-aid-South-Sudan-conflict
- DuBois, M., & Healy, S. (2024). Imperfect relief: Challenges to the impartiality and identity of humanitarian action. International Review of the Red Cross, 106(925), 90–119. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1816383124000092
- Dyukova, Y., & Chetcuti, P. (2014). Los principios humanitarios en conflicto: Asegurar el respeto a los principios humanitarios en conflictos armados y en otras situaciones de violencia: experiencia y posicionamiento de ACF. ACF International. https://accioncontraelhambre.org/sites/default/files/documents/los_principios_humanitarios_en_conflicto.pdf
- Glasman, J. (2020, November 13). The invention of impartiality: The history of a humanitarian principle, from a legal, strategic and algorithmic perspective. Humanitarian Alternatives, 15. https://www.alternatives-humanitaires.org/en/2020/11/13/the-invention-of-impartiality-the-history-of-a-humanitarian-principle-from-a-legal-strategic-and-algorithmic-perspective/
- Gorin, V. (2021). Witnessing and témoignage in MSF’s advocacy. Journal of Humanitarian Affairs, 3(2), 28–33. https://doi.org/10.7227/JHA.063
- Healy, S. (2021, August 19). Neutrality: Principle or tool? Humanitarian Practice Network. https://odihpn.org/en/publication/neutrality-principle-or-tool/
- Inter-Agency Standing Committee. (2015). Reference module for cluster coordination at country level (revised July 2015). IASC. https://interagencystandingcommittee.org/iasc-transformative-agenda/iasc-reference-module-cluster-coordination-country-level-revised-july-2015
- International Committee of the Red Cross. (2015). The fundamental principles of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement. https://www.icrc.org/sites/default/files/topic/file_plus_list/4046-the_fundamental_principles_of_the_international_red_cross_and_red_crescent_movement.pdf
- International Committee of the Red Cross. (2021, May 4). The fundamental principles of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement. Cross-Files, ICRC Archives, Audiovisual and Library. https://blogs.icrc.org/cross-files/the-fundamental-principles-of-the-international-red-cross-and-red-crescent-movement/
- Leader, N. (2000). The politics of principle: The principles of humanitarian action in practice (HPG Report 2). Overseas Development Institute. https://media.odi.org/documents/311.pdf
- Mardini, R. (2022, June 16). Back to basics: Humanitarian principles in contemporary armed conflict. ICRC Humanitarian Law & Policy Blog. https://blogs.icrc.org/law-and-policy/2022/06/16/back-to-basics-humanitarian-principles/
- Pictet, J. (1955). Les principes de la Croix-Rouge. Geneva: E. Droz and ICRC.
- Pictet, J. (1979). The fundamental principles of the Red Cross: Commentary. International Committee of the Red Cross. https://www.icrc.org/en/article/fundamental-principles-red-cross-commentary
- Rejali, S. (2020, July 16). Race, equity, and neo-colonial legacies: Identifying paths forward for principled humanitarian action [Blog post]. Humanitarian Law & Policy Blog. International Committee of the Red Cross. https://blogs.icrc.org/law-and-policy/2020/07/16/race-equity-neo-colonial-legacies-humanitarian/
- Sharpe, M. (2023, March 16). It’s all relative: The humanitarian principles in historical and legal perspective. ICRC Humanitarian Law & Policy Blog. https://blogs.icrc.org/law-and-policy/2023/03/16/humanitarian-principles-historical-legal/
- Slim, H. (2020, August 27). You don’t have to be neutral to be a good humanitarian. The New Humanitarian. https://www.thenewhumanitarian.org/opinion/2020/08/27/humanitarian-principles-neutrality
- Slim, H. (2024, January 11). Painful choices: How humanitarians can prioritize in a world of rising need. Global Public Policy Institute. https://gppi.net/2024/01/11/how-humanitarians-can-prioritize
- Spiegel, P., Martinez, E., Abrahim, O., Undie, C.-C., Altare, C., Schmid, B., Abbara, A., Bahattab, A., Bojorquez, I., Cantor, D., Jouhaud, R., Alier, K. K., Maxwell, D., Moya, A., Ontas, E., Rashid, S. F., Rao, M., Slim, H., Abdelhay, A., . . . Blanchet, K. (2026). Johns Hopkins Center for Humanitarian Health–Lancet Commission on health, conflict, and forced displacement: Health in a world of crises and impunity. The Lancet. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(26)00564-7
- Steering Committee for Humanitarian Response. (1994). Code of conduct for the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement and NGOs in disaster relief. International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies. https://www.ifrc.org/document/code-conduct-international-red-cross-and-red-crescent-movement-and-ngos-disaster-relief
- Terry, F. (2000, December). The principle of neutrality: Is it relevant to MSF? Médecins Sans Frontières. https://www.msf.fr/sites/www.msf.fr/files/2000-12-01-Terry.pdf
- The New Humanitarian. (2020, September 16). Readers react: Should humanitarian aid always be neutral? https://www.thenewhumanitarian.org/opinion/2020/09/16/should-humanitarian-aid-always-be-neutral
- United Nations General Assembly. (1991). Strengthening of the coordination of humanitarian emergency assistance of the United Nations (Resolution 46/182). https://undocs.org/A/RES/46/182
- United Nations General Assembly. (2004). Strengthening of the coordination of emergency humanitarian assistance of the United Nations (Resolution 58/114). https://undocs.org/A/RES/58/114
- United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. (2022, July). OCHA on message: Humanitarian principles. https://www.unocha.org/publications/report/world/ocha-message-humanitarian-principles-enar
NotebookLM
You can review my bibliographic references on humanitarian principles with this NotebookLM, an artificial intelligence-based research assistant. Do you want to know more?
How to cite this page
Abarca, B. (October 2, 2026). Humanitarian principles: what they are and why they are debated. Salud Everywhere. https://saludeverywhere.com/en/humanitarian-aid-and-international-development/humanitarian-principles/