Dead letter or living document? Ten years of the Code of Conduct for disaster relief

Abstract

This paper examines the present value of the Code of Conduct for the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement and Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) in Disaster Relief, in view of discussions on neutrality and the Western bias of the humanitarian aid system, and assesses how it can retain its relevance in future. The Code of Conduct was launched just after the Rwanda genocide of April 1994. A decade later, the crises in Afghanistan and Iraq have sparked renewed interest in humanitarian principles and in whether the code can serve as an instrument to define humanitarianism and guide humanitarian decision-making and coordination. More than 300 organisations have now subscribed to it. This paper is based on the findings of a survey of code signatories and the outcomes of a conference on the value and future of the code, held in The Hague, Netherlands, in September 2004 to mark its tenth anniversary.

Nongovernmental organizations coordination models in natural hazards: A systematic review

“…It seeks to maintain the high standards of independence, effectiveness, and impact to which disaster response NGOs and the ICRC Movement aspires. [14]…”

Canadian military involvement in humanitarian assistance: progress and prudence in natural disaster response

“…Scholars on Canada's foreign aid policies have recognized that over time, Canada's aid objectives have been moving away from humane internationalism -more altruistic provision of aid where priority is the interests of those for whom the aid is intended -towards internationalism realism, where domestic gains, be they diplomatic, trade or security related, or simply for achieving prestige, form the priority of the aid intervention (see for instance Pratt 2007;Brown 2011). This article has shown that especially in light of the visibility afforded to the donor country, primarily through media coverage, governments might lean on the side of financing military assets where alternate means may better meet the humanitarian principle of responding to needs in the disaster-affected area (see Smillie 2004;Hilhorst 2005;Walkers 2005). Furthermore, when the military response dominates media, the public may believe that military action is the only way -and perhaps the best way -in which to address humanitarian emergencies, adding pressure for subsequent disaster-relief interventions to rely heavily on the use of military assets.…”

Understanding Donor Behaviour: Actors and Processes in Disaster-Relief Decision-Making

“…They are also supposed to respond to humanitarian crises in ways that are fair, impartial and independent (see Hilhorst 2005;Walkers 2005). While welcome, Canada's response to the Pakistan floods has been argued to fall far short of what may reasonably be expected from a donor that responds on the basis of needs given the magnitude of the disaster, especially when compared to its response to the 2010 Haiti earthquake (see for instance Guardian 2010; The Canadian Journalism Project 2010; The Star 2010).…”