Relief Rules

International Rules

On the international level, through gradual evolution rather than revolution, a set of customs and rules have been formed through treaties that are now part of International Humanitarian Law, which largely emerged from the Geneva Convention of 1949 and additional protocols of 1977. In addition, the United Nations (UN) Convention on the Rights of the Child of 1989 has increasingly become the most important legal instrument that guides relief operations, particularly in relation to the protection of children in disaster situations.

On another level, the regional, national, and local application of international humanitarian law has been very problematic. Helping those in need is a natural instinct among relief organizations, agencies, governments, and individuals. The increasing involvement of multiple players during disasters, although beneficial, has at times undermined efforts for effective relief responses. Multiple stakeholder involvement can result in service fragmentation and therefore require a high degree of coordination both within an organization and externally with other players in the field. The relatively large international response to disasters, driven by instant global media coverage, has not necessarily translated into effective relief responses. For example, as a direct response to the aftermath of genocide in Rwanda in 1994, hundreds of international agencies responded arbitrarily to the needs of victims of genocide. Perhaps there has never been a situation in which relief agencies displayed such major operational and strategic failings than in Rwanda.

Critics may argue that the deluge of international agencies and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) that descended on the young government inadvertently underlined the need for policies to guide future disaster relief operations. Subsequent, poorly coordinated relief operations, for example in Liberia in the early and mid-1990s, made international discussions about rules, principles, codes of practice, quality management systems, and conventions relevant. The SPHERE Project and the predecessors of the Humanitarian Accountability Partnership International (HAP), both based in Geneva, Switzerland, were the direct result of such operational ineffectiveness as the post-Rwanda genocide disaster relief, and a recognition of the need to improve practices. SPHERE supports humanitarian workers by harmonizing the understanding of minimum emergency relief requirements and technical standards.

HAP, a formalized partnership of humanitarian agencies, seeks to advance improved performance in the sector by making humanitarian action more accountable to its intended beneficiaries, through self-regulation and compliance verification. Through a process of consultation, including beneficiaries of humanitarian [Page 577]aid, the HAP Standard in Humanitarian Accountability and Quality Management was developed to measure, validate, and improve the accountability and quality management systems of aid agencies. As the first global self-regulatory body, HAP also set up a quality assurance system, which monitors compliance and certifies agencies that comply with the standard.

...