Humanitarian aid and international development  »  Standards and principles  »

Humanitarian principles

  • Page updated on18 de April de 2025
Humanitarian principles
Photo: Bruno Abarca

The humanitarian principles of humanity, impartiality, neutrality and independence are necessary to ensure the credibility of the humanitarian system and the trust placed in it by governments, armed groups and communities. This is what allows there to be no interference in the safe and sustained access of humanitarian actors to the population affected by crises and emergencies.

Humanitarian principles define humanitarian action

Humanitarian principles also mark a fundamental distinction between humanitarian action and other international cooperation actions. For example, a government's military interventions in emergencies, despite being able to provide assistance to affected people, cannot be strictly considered humanitarian action, as they are strongly linked to political objectives and strategic interests of the government in question. Similarly, the humanitarian principles also establish a distinction between humanitarian action and development cooperation, which is often aligned with the priorities of recipient governments, as well as pursuing different ends.

Today, although the four humanitarian principles have been officially adopted by the United Nations humanitarian system for more than two decades, their relevance and applicability are still being critically debated. What seems easy in theory is often difficult in practice, causing complex ethical dilemmas. Is it really possible not to take sides in the face of injustice or apparent human rights violations? Is it possible to require local humanitarian professionals to remain neutral when their families and communities are under attack?

Humanity, impartiality, neutrality and independence

Today, four internationally accepted humanitarian principles constitute the ethical and operational basis for effective, responsible and quality humanitarian action. They are:

  • Humanity. We work to prevent and alleviate the suffering caused by conflicts and disasters and to protect life and health, while respecting and restoring human dignity. Humanity" as a principle goes beyond the paternalistic concept of "charity" and even integrates the willingness to analyze and address the 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 favorable or detrimental to one of the parties involved.
  • Independence. We maintain our autonomy from political, economic and military powers. We make our own decisions without any conditions in the countries of intervention and in the countries that provide funding for it.

Origin and evolution of the humanitarian principles: from 1863 to 2004

These four principles have been linked to humanitarian action since the origin of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) in 1863, an apolitical organization that inspired the development of modern humanitarianism and that from the beginning was guided by the need for humanitarian assistance that was neutral and impartial. Almost a century later, in 1965, the ICRC formalized its principles (these four, along with voluntarism, unity and universality), already with years of experience striving to apply them. This inspired many humanitarian actors, who recognized the value of these principles in responding to increasingly complex humanitarian crises.

It was not until 1991, however, that the United Nations formally adopted the principles of humanity, impartiality and neutrality. Prior to that date, the political polarization of the Cold War meant that UN operations were either primarily military or a humanitarian assistance tool heavily conditioned by political interests. When these dynamics changed and the door was opened to a much-needed humanitarian reform, it was also necessary to adapt the values and principles that would underpin it. Since then, many agencies have accepted these principles as their own, and compliance with them has been included in the Code of Conduct for the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement and NGOs in Disaster Relief, published in 1994 (after the Rwandan genocide), which today has hundreds of signatory organizations.

The principle of independence, however, was not implemented and adopted until 2004, once the humanitarian system was more mature, better coordinated and with a more consolidated response capacity. With this last step, the importance of humanitarian organizations operating autonomously from political and military powers was legitimized.

Moral compass or tools for humanitarian access?

Humanity and impartiality are the pillars of humanitarian principles, and provide a moral compass for humanitarian actors. Clearly, we must alleviate suffering without discriminating. 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 these cases it may be necessary to discriminate in favor of those with the most severe and urgent needs, but it is precisely alleviating the most severe and urgent needs that is more expensive and requires more resources to protect fewer people.

In the case of neutrality and independence, these are principles (also fundamental) with a completely different nature from the previous ones. Neutrality and independence have no moral value of their own, but are practical and operational tools that are sometimes necessary to be able to dialogue with all parties involved in a conflict (for strictly humanitarian purposes), gain their trust, create and maintain a safe humanitarian space, and gain access to the people affected by the humanitarian crisis wherever they are.

Challenges to the application of neutrality and independence

Neutrality is a controversial humanitarian principle

Neutrality is not explicitly included in the 1994 Code of Conduct for the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement and NGOs in Disaster Relief. Some argue that there can be neutral and non-neutral humanitarian action, and that both can be valid. In some cases or for some actors, neutrality may be the tool to ensure access to affected people, but in other scenarios, neutrality may not be sufficient to ensure safe access to these people, may not be necessary, or may even be an obstacle for actors working only in a territory controlled by a single actor.

In situations where injustice or human rights violations are detected, remaining neutral may, in practice, mean taking sides with the strongest. There are humanitarian actors who embrace neutrality as a fundamental principle who sometimes choose to put it on the back burner if they believe it conflicts with the principle of humanity, which is a moral imperative. This is what enables them to be able to strongly condemn atrocities and massacres and denounce their perpetrators, or to take sides on politically controversial issues, such as racial oppression, the universal access to health care of migrants, the sexual and reproductive rights (and the decriminalization of abortion), or allegations of corporate practices affecting access to essential medicines.

Independence is largely conditioned by humanitarian funding

Regarding independence, and taking into account that most humanitarian action is funded by government donors, to what extent is it possible not to become an instrument of their foreign policy? It is clear that one way to go for independence is to define well the program of interventions we wish to implement, according to the needs of the population, and to seek varied and diverse funding that allows us to develop our plans. Unfortunately, this often remains good intentions, when most donors have a similar political agenda and determine in their calls for proposals the geographic areas, sectoral priorities and types of interventions that are eligible for funding.

Sometimes organizations decide to refuse funds from a donor country in a territory if they consider that the donor has links with a belligerent party to the conflict in that territory, or in areas where the donor country maintains military control. However, this may not be sufficient to maintain independence if the same organization accepts funds from the same donor country for interventions in other territories. In any case few humanitarian organizations have the financial capacity or the determination to completely refuse funds from a particular donor in all of their countries of operation. 

Finally, organizations may find themselves in an ethical dilemma if, in order to continue their operations, they need to accept funds that are not directed to what they had originally planned. This deviation from the original program, based on an independent assessment of the needs of the population, may result in following - almost blindly - the interests and agenda of the donor.

Often, it is precisely the donors who have the responsibility and ability to impose less of their political agenda, to condition less the terms on which financial contributions are offered and thus improve humanitarian funding, and to induce less pressure on humanitarian actors, so as to respect and promote their independence and integrity.

Standards and principles

External links

en_USEnglish
es_ESEspañol en_USEnglish
Scroll to Top