Rethinking Neutrality in Humanitarian Action: Legal and Practical Perspectives
Rethinking Neutrality in Humanitarian Action: Legal and Practical Perspectives

Summary/Abstract: For decades, the importance and impact of the principle of neutrality in international humanitarian action has been debated in the context of its mission. Most publicists and scientists agree about the positive aspects of neutrality, as evidenced by the successful activities of the International Committee of the Red Cross for more than a century. However, there are also critics of neutrality. In particular, they argue that neutrality is based on “tolerating crimes in exchange for carrying out humanitarian activities.” The main goals of this article are the following: to show the essence of the concept of “neutrality” in order to identify “stumbling blocks” that lead to a “distortion” of the understanding of the positive impact of neutrality in international humanitarian activities; to review the contribution of the International Committee of the Red Cross in the context of a strictly neutral international non-governmental organization; to present possible ways of diplomatically and legally developing the concept of “neutrality.” In this research, general and special scientific methods of legal cognition are used. Among them we can note the following: the logical (including analysis and synthesis, deduction, and abstraction), structural, and comparative, as well as dogmatic, etc. legal methods.

• Details
• Contents