¹ See notes 33 and 34 below.

² See notes 46–48 below.

³ See Brauman, R., “Contre l'humanitarisme”, Esprit, 12 1991, pp. 77–85, p. 79.Google Scholar

⁴ See address by Cornelio Sommaruga, President of the ICRC, to the International Conference for the Protection of War Victims, International Review of the Red Cross (IRRC), No. 296, 09–10 1993, pp. 365–368.Google Scholar

⁵ See Article 3 common to the four Geneva Conventions of 1949, Articles 9/9/9/10 of the four Conventions and Article 5, para. 3, of Additional Protocol I.

⁶ See Article 5, paras. 2(d) and 3, of the Statutes. It should be borne in mind that the Movement's Statutes are adopted by the International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent, which brings together, in principle every four years, the ICRC, the National Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, the Federation of those Societies and the States party to the 1949 Conventions. For the text of the Statutes, see the Handbook of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, published by the ICRC and the Federation, 13th edition, Geneva, 1994, pp. 417–432.Google Scholar

⁷ Monnier, J., “Développement du droit international humanitaire et droit de la neutrality”, Quatre études du droit international humanitaire, Henry Dunant Institute, Geneva, 1985, pp. 5–16, p. 5.Google Scholar

⁸ Schindler, D., “Transformation in the law of neutrality since 1945”, Humanitarian Law of Armed Conflict - Challenges Ahead, Delissen, A. J. M. and Tanja, G. J. eds., Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Dordrecht, 1991, pp. 367–386, p. 370.Google Scholar

⁹ Ibid., p. 371 et seq.; see also by the same author “Aspects contemporains de la neutralité”, Académie de droit international, Recueil des Cours, 1967, II, Tome 121, pp. 221–321, p. 272 Google Scholar. The intermediate positions in question have been enshrined in international humanitarian law in that Article 4 B, para. 2, of the Third Geneva Convention of 1949 refers to “neutral or non-belligerent Powers” (our emphasis) and Article 9, para. 2(a), of Additional Protocol I to “a neutral or other State which is not a Party to that conflict” (our emphasis).

¹⁰ Monnier, J., op. cit. (note 7), p. 8.Google Scholar

¹¹ Schindler, D., op. cit. (note 9), pp. 307 Google Scholar et seq.; see Dominicé, C., “La neutralité et l'assistance humanitaire”, Annales de droit international médical, No. 35, 1991, pp. 118–126, p. 118 Google Scholar, and Monnier, J., op. cit. (note 7), p. 9.Google Scholar

¹² Torrelli, M., “La neutralité en question”, Revue Générate de Droit International Public, Tome 96/1992/1, pp. 5–43, p. 7.Google Scholar

¹³ Schindler, D., op. cit. (note 8), p. 379.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Ibid., p. 380.

¹⁵ Meyrowitz, H., Le principe de l'égalité des belligérants devant le droit de la guerre, Paris, 1970, p. 392.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Swinarski, C., “La notion d'un organisme neutre et le droit international”, Studies and essays on international humanitarian law and Red Cross principles in honour of Jean Pictet, Swinarski, C. ed., ICRC, Geneva, 1984, pp. 819–835, p. 823.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Ibid., p. 833.

¹⁸ See Sommaruga, C., President of the ICRC, “Swiss neutrality, ICRC neutrality: are they indissociable? — An independence worth protecting”, IRRC, No. 288, 05–06 1992, pp. 264–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁹ Swinarski, C., op. cit. (note 16), p. 826 Google Scholar. Schindler, D., “Die Neutralität des Roten Kreuzes”, Des Menschen Recht zwischen Freiheit und Verantwortung, Festschrift für K. J. Partsch zum 75. Geburtstag, Jekewitz, J., Klein, K. H., Kühne, J. D., Petersmann, H., Wolfrura, R. (eds.), Dunker & Humblot, Berlin, 1989, pp. 141–152, p. 145.Google Scholar

²⁰ See Articles 10/10/10/11 of the four Geneva Conventions and Article 5 of Additional Protocol I. For the international personality of the ICRC, see in particular Dominicé, C., “L'Accord de siège conclu par le Comité international de la Croix-Rouge avec la Suisse”, Revue Générate de Droit International Public, Tome IC-1995, pp. 5–36, p. 25 et seq. Google Scholar

²¹ See section 2B below.

²² See section 3B below.

²³ See section 2B below.

²⁴ See the articles quoted in note 5 above.

²⁵ Pictet, J., The Fundamental Principles of the Red Cross, Commentary, Henry Dunant Institute, Geneva, 1979, pp. 61–62.Google Scholar

²⁶ In regard to the Statutes, see note 6 above.

²⁷ Harroff-Tavel, M., “Neutrality and impartiality—The importance of these principles to the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement and the difficulties involved in applying them”, IRRC, No. 273, 11–12 1989, pp. 536–552, p. 537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²⁸ Pictet, J., op. cit. (note 25), pp. 54–56.Google Scholar

²⁹ Harroff-Tavel, M., op. cit. (note 27), p. 538.Google Scholar

³⁰ Pictet, J., Red Cross Principles, ICRC, Geneva, 1956, pp. 70–71.Google Scholar

³¹ Sandoz, Y., “Le droit d'initiative du CICR”, Jahrbuch für internationales Recht, Vol. 22, 1979, pp. 353–373, p. 368 Google Scholar; Harroff-Tavel, M., op. cit. (note 27), p. 544.Google Scholar

³² See “Action by the ICRC in the event of breaches of international humanitarian law”, IRRC, No. 221, 03–04 1981, pp. 76–83, p. 81 et seq. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³³ On the link between neutrality and the attitude of the ICRC with regard to violations of humanitarian law, see Pictet, J., op. cit. (note 30), p. 73 Google Scholar and, for a paper on “silence”, Kouchner, B., Le malheur des autres. Éditions Odile Jacob, Paris, 1991, p. 107 Google Scholar et seq.

³⁴ See, for example, A. Desthexe, former Secretary-General of Médecins sans frontières, who in a work admittedly written in his personal capacity said the following: “The humanitarian world needs only one neutral organization: the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) is essential and quite sufficient (…). Private humanitarian action must break free from the double yoke of simple compassion and neutrality and arm itself with a demand for justice.” Desthexe, A., Rwanda: essai sur le génocide, Editions Complexe, Brussels, 1994, p. 87.Google Scholar

³⁵ Sandoz, Y., “‘Droit’ or ‘devoir d'ingérence’ and the right to assistance: the issues involved”, IRRC, No. 288, 05–06 1992, pp. 215–227, p. 226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³⁶ Op. cit. (note 32), p. 81.Google Scholar

³⁷ Pictet, J., op. cit. (note 30), p. 48.Google Scholar

³⁸ Kassard, V., “Vous dites neutralité?”, Messages—Journal interne des Médecins sans frontières. No. 78, 05 1995, p. 2.Google Scholar

³⁹ In the article cited in note 38, for instance, V. Kassard states: “Médecins sans frontières practices occasional neutrality—neutrality yes, but MSF action first—and it is sometimes invoked as a brake on speaking out!”.

⁴⁰ See inter alia Pictet, J., op. cit. (note 30), p. 58 Google Scholar; Sandoz, Y., op. cit. (note 35), p. 234 Google Scholar; Harroff-Tavel, M., op. cit. (note 27), p. 580 Google Scholar; Meurant, J., “Principes fondamentaux de la Croix-Rouge et humanitarisme moderne”, Studies and essays in honour of Jean Pictet, op. cit. (note 16), pp. 893–911, p. 899.Google Scholar

⁴¹ For instance, “The Mohonk Criteria for Humanitarian Assistance in Complex Emergencies” (published by the World Conference on Religion and Peace, February 1994), which mention neutrality and impartiality among their principles, are guidelines covering a field of activity far wider than the mere provision of relief.

⁴² See for example von Baarda, T. A., “The involvement of the Security Council in maintaining international humanitarian law”, Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights, Vol. 12, 1994, No. 2, pp. 137–152, p. 146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴³ Pictet, J., Humanitarian law and the protection of war victims, A. W. Sijthoff, Leyden/Henry Dunant Institute, Geneva, 1975, p. 44.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Torrelli, M., “From humanitarian assistance to intervention on humanitarian grounds”, IRRC, No. 288, 05–06 1992, pp. 228–248, p. 241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴⁵ See Pugh, M., International Peacekeeping, Vol. 1, Winter 1994, No. 4, pp. 503–505, p. 503 CrossRefGoogle Scholar: Weiss, T. G. and Minear, L., “Humanitarian aid across borders: Sustaining civilians in times of war”, Lynne Rienner Publishers, Colorado and London, 1993 Google Scholar; for comments on neutrality in the work in question, see Smith, G., “Relief operations and military strategy”, pp. 97–116, p. 98.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ See “Military support for humanitarian aid operations; IISS—strategic comments”, IISS—International Institute for Strategic Studies, No. 2, 22 02 1995.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ See Duke, S., “The United Nations and intra-State conflict”, International Peacekeeping, Vol. 1, No. 4, Winter 1994, pp. 375–393, p. 389 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Similarly, see Betts, R. K., “The delusions of impartiality”, Foreign Affairs, 11–12 1994, pp. 20–33, p. 20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴⁸ See Donini, A., “Beyond neutrality: on the compatibility of military intervention and humanitarian assistance”, The Fletcher Forum of World Affairs, Vol. 19, No. 2, Summer/Fall 1995, pp. 31–45, p. 44.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ “Humanitarianism unbound”, African Rights, Discussion Paper No. 5, 11 1994, p. 25.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ For instance, resolution 43/131 of 8 December 1988 recalls that “in the event of natural disasters and similar emergency situations, the principles of humanity, neutrality and impartiality must be given utmost consideration by all those involved in providing humanitarian assistance”. In resolution 45/100 of 14 December 1990, the General Assembly expresses awareness “that alongside the action of Governments and intergovernmental organizations, the speed and efficiency of this assistance often depend on the help and aid of local and non-governmental organizations working in an impartial manner and with strictly humanitarian motives” and “stresses the important contribution made in providing humanitarian assistance by intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations working impartially and with strictly humanitarian motives”. In resolution 48/57 of 14 December 1993, the General Assembly “stresses the importance of the Emergency Relief Coordinator participating fully in the overall United Nations planning of responses to emergencies in order to serve as the humanitarian advocate in ensuring that the humanitarian dimension, particularly the principles of humanity, neutrality and impartiality of relief assistance, is taken fully into account”. Lastly, in resolution 49/139 of 20 December 1994, it “takes note of the measures outlined by the Secretary-General in his report for strengthening field coordination of humanitarian assistance, and acknowledges the need further to develop and strengthen system-wide coordination, including cooperation among operational agencies, the Department of Humanitarian Affairs and non-governmental organizations, in accordance with the provisions of resolution 46/182, to improve the capability for a quick and coordinated response to natural disasters and other emergencies while preserving the non-political, neutral and impartial character of humanitarian action”.

⁵¹ Module prepared by Minear, L. and Weiss, T.. UNDP-DHA, Disaster Management Training Programme, 1994, p. 30.Google Scholar

⁵² See note 41 above.

⁵³ Published in IRRC, No. 297, 11–12 1993, pp. 519–525 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Also worth mentioning are Resolution 12 on humanitarian assistance in situations of armed conflicts adopted by the Council of Delegates in Budapest in 1991, IRRC, No. 286, 01–02 1992, p. 56 Google Scholar, and Resolution 11 on the principles of humanitarian assistance, adopted by the Council of Delegates in Birmingham in 1993, IRRC, No. 297, 11–12 1993, p. 502 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The main purpose of those resolutions is to define humanitarian assistance.

⁵⁴ See for example the “Guidelines on the use of military and civil defence assets in disaster relief”, United Nations DHA, Geneva, Project DPR 213/3 MCDA, 05 1994, p. 62 Google Scholar et seq., p. 64.

⁵⁵ Dominicé, C., op. cit. (note 11), p. 120.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Torrelli, M., op. cit. (note 12), p. 37.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Pictet, J., op. cit. (note 43), p. 44.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Article 3, para. 2; see also Article 5 of the resolution of the Institute of International Law on “The protection of human rights and the principle of non-intervention in internal affairs of states”, Yearbook of the Institute of International Law, 1990, Vol. 63–II, p. 339 et seq. Google Scholar

⁵⁹ Corten, O. and Klein, P., Droit d'ingérence ou obligation de réaction?, University of Brussels, 1992, p. 220.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Ibid., pp. 144–145.

⁶¹ Reports of Judgments, Advisory Opinions and Orders, 1986, p. 125, para. 243.Google Scholar

⁶² Corten, O. and Klein, P., op. cit. (note 59), p. 144.Google Scholar

⁶³ See “Resolutions of the Council of Delegates”, IRRC, No. 297, 11–12 1993, pp. 477–478.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ Commentary on the Additional Protocols of 8 June 1977 to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, Sandoz, Y., Swinarski, C. and Zimmermann, B. eds, ICRC, Geneva, 1986, p. 818, para. 2801.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ See section 2B above.

⁶⁶ Commentary on the Additional Protocols (note 64), p. 818, para. 2802.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ Ibid., para. 2803, and p. 820, para. 2812.

⁶⁸ For example, in his Supplement to an Agenda for Peace, United Nations Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali notes that operations requiring the use of force, except in cases of self-defence, deviate from the principles of consent of the parties, impartiality and the non-use of force, including force designed to ensure the protection of humanitarian operations while hostilities are continuing. In that connection he cites the precedents of Somalia and Bosnia-Herzegovina. See Boutros-Ghali, Boutros, Supplement to an Agenda for Peace: Position paper of the Secretary-General on the occasion of the Fiftieth Anniversary of the United Nations, A/50/60-S/1995/1, 3 01 1995, paras. 33–35.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ In connection with peace-keeping operations having coercive powers, see the address given by Secretary-General Boutros-Ghali, Boutros to the Graduate Institute of International Studies, Geneva, 3 07 1995 (Press release SG/SM/95/147 of 3 07 1995, p. 6).Google Scholar

⁷⁰ In this respect, specialists of the United Nations system appear to prefer the term “impartiality” to “neutrality” (see ICRC, “Symposium on humanitarian action and peacekeeping operations”, Geneva, 22–24 06 1994 Google Scholar, Report, Geneva, 1995, p. 84 Google Scholar). Similarly, the Convention on the safety of United Nations and associated personnel, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 9 December 1994, simply refers to the “impartial and international character” (our emphasis) of the duties of such personnel (see Article 6, para, 1b, of that Convention, the text of which is annexed to resolution A/RES/49/59).