The dilemma between loyalty to an organization and exposing irregularities within it has been observed since 1777, when whistleblowing activities were first documented, when ten sailors affected by mistreatment and feelings of injustice decided to report these irregularities to the most powerful commander in the Continental Navy, Esek Hopkins. Since then, there have been many examples of whistleblowing in the US. Each whistleblower, acted in the name of the greater good, often risking his or her name, reputation and even his or her family’s safety. The first reports were unique because no one knew the institution of whistleblowers, and their activities were often synonymous with denunciation and lack of loyalty to the employer. Over time, attitudes began to change, regulations began to emerge to protect whistleblowers, and even organizations began to stand up to protect their rights. Instead of condemnation, their attitude began to be met with admiration and approval. Whistleblowers began to be rewarded for their activity. Whistleblowing is beginning to become the norm and standard of a democratic state of law. It is understood that a well-built compliance policy, transparent and clear operating rules play a huge role in the success of an organization. A brief presentation of selected stories of whistleblowers is intended to give an idea of the development of this institution. The research methodology used in this article primarily involves the historical-descriptive method.

The issue of whistleblowers is one of great interest and controversy because of EU Directive (EU) 2019/1937 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2019 on the protection of persons who report breaches of Union law. While the English meaning of “whistleblowing” is inherently positive and not associated with anything negative, the Polish translation of the word, “sygnalista”, often does not evoke positive associations. Blowing the whistle versus snitching are two types of activity and it is important to understand the essence of these terms. Unfortunately, the linguistic connotations indicate that Poles do not always read the proper intentions when hearing the word “whistleblower”. Whistleblowing is often seen in Poland as a reprehensible activity, and whistleblowers are usually referred to as denouncers. The meaning of the word “whistleblower” in Poland is rather pejorative. European history, experienced through Nazi practices, the spying age of the Cold War and invigilation by the Soviet Union, has developed firmly established hostility against so-called informers. That is why it is so difficult to attain a level of positive understanding of the meaning of this word in Poland. The current realities of operating an organization, regardless of its legal nature, force it to conform to certain standards. These standards, arising either from legal norms or good practice, form the so-called compliance system. Regulations on whistleblowing are inevitably part of it.

During armed confl ict, people with disabilities are victims of a vicious cycle of violence, social polarization, deteriorating services and deepening poverty. They are among the most marginalized and excluded part of the population affected by the armed confl ict. They are at greater risk in situations of confl ict, most likely to be left behind when populations fl ee and also at greater risk of violence and discrimination. The international normative framework related to people with disabilities in armed confl icts is mainly based on human rights law and international humanitarian law. The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities moves the meaning of disability from regarding persons with disabilities as objects of medical care and charity to recognizing them as subjects with rights. There is still a long way to go in effectively protecting disabled people during armed confl icts. It seems that legal norms in this respect are suffi ciently precise. But as often happens, the executive fails. The international community has a highly developed sense of solidarity and empathy for those in need. However, we are constantly observing many imperfections and shortcomings in the procedures and mechanisms of humanitarian aid operations.