On August 19th (as the previous IDRL newsletter was being finalized), the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel entered into force. With some important exceptions, it imposes new responsibilities on states to protect the safety of international personnel in disaster relief operations. Its impact on the Red Cross/Red Crescent will be only indirect, but it might be significant for the larger humanitarian community. The following questions explore what it changes and whether it is likely to make a difference.
What is new in the Optional Protocol?
The underlying Convention that the Optional Protocol was designed to modify was adopted in 1994, with the intention of combating the increasing trend of violence directed against UN personnel in situations of armed conflict. It requires state parties to take a number of steps to prevent and punish attacks on UN and associated personnel or on their homes, premises or transport. This includes criminalizing, pursuing and imposing appropriate penalties for these kinds of attacks and taking “all appropriate steps” to prevent such crimes from taking place.
The scope of the underlying Convention was limited to peacekeeping operations and individual situations designated as especially risky by the Security Council or General Assembly. The Optional Protocol extends that scope to include “peacebuilding” missions and operations for the delivery of “emergency humanitarian assistance”.
Does it apply to natural disasters?
The drafting history makes clear that the reference to “emergency humanitarian assistance” was understood by the negotiators of the Optional Protocol also to apply to relief in natural disaster settings. However, some delegations felt that natural disasters were not as risky as other kinds of humanitarian emergency. As a compromise, an exception was included in article 2.3, which allows state parties to “opt-out” of the Protocol’s obligations at the outset of a specific natural disaster response operation.
Are there really specific security issues in natural disasters?
In conflict settings, the chances for relief personnel to become the incidental victims of fire have always been high. Moreover, in recent years, the incidence of deliberate, politically-motivated attacks on humanitarians has increased sharply. These kinds of risk are obviously much rarer in the natural disaster context.
However, disaster relief operations are not without their dangers. Major disasters can lead to a break-down in law and order. Large aid operations – characterized by swift movements of large quantities of commodities and money – can become tempting targets for criminals.
Moreover, when relief provisions are perceived to be inadequate or unfairly disseminated, affected communities themselves may turn on relief agencies. As noted by Lars Tangen, Manager of the IFRC Security Unit, “over the last five or six years, new security concerns have been raised related to our interaction with beneficiaries, for instance after the tsunami or in Haiti. If beneficiaries consider that we are not respecting the promises that we have made, or that we are not doing a good job, they might react violently, kidnapping people or even killing them.” This year alone, riots have broken out in both Haiti and Pakistan over relief aid.
Will the Optional Protocol apply to the Red Cross/Red Crescent?
No. As defined by the underlying Convention, coverage is limited to UN personnel and experts, government and inter-governmental personnel assigned by agreement with a UN agency, and NGOs acting under an agreement with the UN to carry out activities under a UN mission.
Neither the underlying Convention nor the Optional Protocol applies to the components of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement. This was not an oversight, but the result of the express request of the Movement. Due to the fundamental principle of independence, the components of the Movement cannot act under the direction of the UN or other inter-governmental bodies.
Still, Lars Tangen of the IFRC welcomed the development as an important step for the humanitarian community and indicated his hope that it may indirectly benefit the Red Cross and Red Crescent as well: “Hopefully, in the long term, it might be a bridge to get more attention on security and safety for aid workers in general.”
Where will the new Optional Protocol apply?
The Optional Protocol will only bind states that ratify it. At present, that includes 22 countries, the vast majority of which are in Europe. However, there are 89 parties to the underlying Convention, so it may be hoped that this number will increase over time.
What are the next steps?
As mentioned above, the Optional Protocol requires states to criminalize attacks on UN and associated personnel – including in natural disaster settings. States parties to the Optional Protocol should now bring their domestic law into compliance with this obligation. In addition, they should ensure that security-related planning for disaster operations includes provisions to prevent these sorts of crimes against international relief providers.
While the Optional Protocol does not require states to apply these same types of protection to the Red Cross and Red Crescent in disasters – there is certainly nothing that prevents them from doing so and strong practical arguments that they should. It is to be hoped, therefore, that states who may be updating their domestic laws under the Convention to take the opportunity to also ensure protection for the components of the Red Cross and Red Crescent.