Introduction
From 11-13 February 1998 a conference on "The Promotion and
Protection of Human Rights in Acute Crisis" was held in London, organised by the
UK Department for International Development and the University of Essex Human
Rights Centre. The purpose of the conference was to examine, in depth, the need
for, and the implications of, a human rights-based response by the international
community to situations of internal conflict and political instability.
Recommendations arising from the conference are set out in the following
section.
Participants, of which a list is contained in Appendix A of
this report, came from offices of the main intergovernmental agencies carrying
out peacekeeping, human rights and humanitarian operations; leading
non-governmental organisations working in the area of human rights and
humanitarian assistance; representatives of several donor governments, as well
as academic authorities on various aspects of the field. Discussions were based
on a working paper prepared by Ms Kate Mackintosh for the University of Essex
Human Rights Centre and papers presented by various participants. The agenda,
with chairs and presenters, is contained in Appendix B and their biographies in
Appendix C. All participants were asked to speak in their personal capacities,
without commitment on behalf of their organisations.
While the focus of the conference was on the challenge of
protecting human rights in the midst of acute conflict and violence, in opening
it the Secretary of State for International Development, the Rt Hon Clare Short
MP, placed the subject within a broader framework of conflict prevention and
post-conflict peace-building.
Conflict within society, over resources or its direction is
based on many factors, but frequently includes ethnic and religious division.
Such conflicts are neither unusual nor inevitably a problem. It is the failure
to manage such conflicts, without resort to violence and social breakdown, that
is the main concern. The international community has an interest in and a
responsibility to contribute towards the prevention of destructive conflict in
all societies. Prevention will require many different approaches, but all should
be based on the linkage between respect for all human rights, the rule of law,
development, democracy and peace. The conference valued the important final
report of the Carnegie Commission on the Prevention of Deadly Conflict.1 This offers to states and the
international community as a whole, a range of proposals for action that would
reduce the number and duration of acute crises in the world.
Nevertheless, situations of intense internal conflict within
states continue to proliferate, posing many dilemmas for the international
community, for individual donor countries and international, as well as
national, humanitarian organisations. The sheer scale of human victims in such
conflicts justifies international concern and engagement in efforts to protect
the millions of civilians put at risk. The stark evidence in such conflicts of
complete disregard by state and non-state actors of the requirements of human
rights and international humanitarian law, equally justifies international
action to ensure both the protection of civilians, and the accountability of
those responsible for gross violations of human rights and humanitarian law for
the building of lasting peace.
Then there is the vital phase of international involvement,
after the fighting has stopped, in helping the local society to build a stable
peace that does not contain the seeds of renewed violence and conflict. To build
enduring peace a coherent policy must inform international engagement, which
itself must go beyond the provision of humanitarian assistance. Humanitarian
assistance must be seen as an essential component of, rather than as a
substitute for, a holistic policy approach. This is all the more vital, as
sadly, there will be more cases of acute crisis, such as the examples of Bosnia,
Rwanda and the Great Lakes, discussed at the conference. The need for a coherent
and principled response (that is, governed by the duty to protect human rights)
is recognised, but far from being achieved. The United Nations as a whole, has
been moving to lay the basis for such a response to acute crises. Following the
adoption of the Secretary-General’s reform strategy for the organisation, four
Executive Committees were created in January 1997, in order to create policy and
strengthen decision-making processes in the main sectors of the UNs work - Peace
and Security, Humanitarian Affairs, Economic and Social Affairs, Development
Operations and Human Rights. As a cross-cutting issue in the work of the entire
UN system, it was decided that the fifth sector, human rights, should be
mainstreamed into all aspects of the organisation’s activities. This has
resulted, since April 1997, in the adoption of a "strategic framework" approach
for relief and development activities in countries undergoing acute crisis (see
Colleen Duggan).
Another factor for the international community to address is
the growing trend of regional involvement in peacekeeping operations. While this
undoubtedly offers a valuable contribution to crisis management, serious issues
of political and legal accountability and of respect for human rights and
humanitarian principles have arisen. The primary leadership in peacekeeping must
continue to be exercised by the United Nations as the body responsible for
international peace and security. To provide that leadership, the United Nations
needs the support and political will of all its members.
In the context of acute crises to which the international
community is called upon to respond, a human rights focus raises some dilemmas.
Identifying and debating these dilemmas was one purpose of the conference and
the papers prepared for it. Tension can arise between human rights protection
and the provision of humanitarian assistance to those in acute need during
conflict. Put directly, should humanitarian agencies be prepared to shelter and
feed suspected criminals under international law, such as the ‘génocidaires’
in the Great Lakes region, in order to ensure that the bulk of Rwandan refugees
should not die of starvation? There is also sometimes perceived to be a
potential conflict between the calls for justice on the one hand, and
reconciliation and peace building on the other. The exigencies of securing
support from those involved in fighting is sometimes seen to conflict with the
duty to document and render accountable those guilty of serious human rights
violations during the conflict. This tension, if resolved inappropriately, can
lead to the cycle of impunity that may be the breeding ground for future crises.
The general thrust of the discussion in the conference was to
the effect that, while the different perspectives and operational approaches of
the many international actors working to alleviate or end violent conflict will
always be real, a common commitment to a human rights-based approach should
ensure that such dilemmas can be resolved in a principled way. Across the range
of interventions - military action to protect civilians, peacekeeping
operations, human rights field operations and humanitarian assistance - there is
need for a greater convergence in the planning and implementation of common
goals. Those goals must also be realistic and false expectations of what can be
achieved by humanitarian organisations alone should not be promoted by states.
Indeed no coherent strategy can be followed in the absence, both of the
political will to give effect to it, including by military means if necessary,
and the commitment of substantial financial and material resources to ensure
that the various components of the strategy are in place. The issue is now no
longer whether there should be a human rights-based approach, but on how to give
effect to it.
The purpose of the conference then was to generate ideas as
to how in a practical sense, effective international responses to the new
challenges of internal conflict can be advanced. The recommendations in the
following section were been drawn up by the organisers following the conference.
While reflecting the organisers’ sense of the general approach of the
Conference, they are not necessarily subscribed to by each participant. They are
addressed as appropriate to the international community as a whole, the United
Nations agencies, other bodies and to donor countries.
The written papers included with this report offer important
and concrete suggestions for action from the perspectives of the different
agencies and institutions called upon to act in such crises, as well as setting
out the international legal framework drawn from human rights, humanitarian law
and refugee law. These suggestions informed many of the recommendations and
deserve study in their own right.
