Phap: Learning Sessions And Webinars

Understanding the legal bases for detention is important for those working in situations of armed conflict, even if they are not focusing on the issue in their work. However, while detention in international armed conflicts is regulated in detail under international humanitarian law (IHL), the situation in non-international armed conflicts (NIACs) is less clear.Knowing the basics of this topic and its current state of discussion has become essential. The debate has been further intensified after the ruling on the 2014 Serdar Mohammed case against UK authorities regarding unlawful detention, in which IHL was considered neither authorizing nor regulating detention in NIACs. The issue becomes further complicated when dealing with internationalized NIACs as in Iraq or Afghanistan, where the application of international human rights law or domestic law by one state in the territory of another state has been questioned.In this learning session, Professor Gabor Rona will provide PHAP members with an introduction to

Pooled funds have enabled more timely and flexible funding for responding to sudden humanitarian crises, and have made it possible to operate in otherwise underfunded emergency settings. In the context of the World Humanitarian Summit, the UN Secretary-General (SG) recommended that member states and other donors should double the Central Emergency Response Fund (CERF) to $1 billion, with the Grand Bargain calling for an exploration of whether NGOs could directly access CERF. The SG also called to increase the aid funneled through the Country-based Pooled Funds (CBPFs) to 15 per cent by 2018. Given the current and growing importance of pooled funding, it is important that humanitarian NGOs understand how these mechanisms function and how they can be accessed in order to be part of improving the overall response to humanitarian crises.NGOs are also managing a growing number of pooled funding mechanisms. The START fund (established and managed by a consortium of NGOs) is providing a quick alternative avenue for

Funding agreements between implementing organizations and donors can significantly reduce transfer and administrative costs, but such direct funding relationships can also lead to challenges and additional burdens for NGOs. Different rules and processes between donors, pre-qualification requirements, delayed disbursements, and overly restrictive budget lines have long been common issues faced by NGOs. While there are initiatives to improve this situation, notably through the "Grand Bargain," the donor landscape has become more complex with the growing importance of so-called "emerging donors" for humanitarian work.The fourth session of the learning stream on humanitarian financing, organized by ICVA and PHAP, aimed to provide a clearer understanding of the changing context for NGOs and bilateral funding. Join this event to hear from speakers from the European Commission and the U.S. OFDA, as well as from NGOs with experience of working bilaterally with these two donors.Read more and access related resources a

Guest expert: Bonnie Docherty, Lecturer on Law and Senior Clinical Instructor at Harvard Law School’s International Human Rights ClinicWhile some militaries have worked to reduce civilian casualties in armed conflict, greater attention should be paid to determinations of “hostile intent.” Troops have the right to fire in self-defense if someone demonstrates hostile intent, i.e., a “threat of imminent use of force,” but misidentifications of such intent have endangered civilians. Recent US operations, especially in Afghanistan and Iraq, show that militaries could improve civilian protection without jeopardizing troops’ lives by clarifying the rule and improving implementation.Targeted at legal experts and humanitarian practitioners seeking an advanced understanding of rules related to civilian protection in armed conflict, this expert briefing featured a presentation by Bonnie Docherty from Harvard Law School on recent research carried out on the issue of hostile intent.More information and resources at https:

In this PHAP Expert Legal Briefing, Naz Modirzadeh and Dustin Lewis, from the Harvard Law School Program on International Law in Armed Conflict, explored developments in technology, accountability, and international law pertaining to armed conflict. The background concern is that in war, as in so many areas, power and authority are increasingly expressed algorithmically. Advancements in artificial intelligence and robotics may implicate—and possibly transform—numerous aspects of armed conflict. For instance, increasingly sophisticated forms of technical autonomy may affect the conduct of hostilities (including the development and use of “autonomous weapons”). But they also might relate to other elements pertaining to war, such as guarding and transporting detainees, providing medical care, and delivering humanitarian assistance. The presenters summarized a recent report from the Harvard Law School Program on International Law and Armed Conflict. That report introduces a new concept—war algorithms—that aims to

Guest expert: Jean-François DurieuxThe 1951 Refugee Convention was a major advance for the protection of people under persecution, defining the concept of refugees and the legal obligation of States to provide them with protection. However, the current system has been put under great stress by the scale and complexity of recent developments, which was the motivation for organizing the UN High-Level Plenary on Addressing Large Movements of Refugees and Migrants in September 2016. Having an understanding of the relevant legal frameworks for the protection of refugees is, in this context, critical for those working in the humanitarian sector.This learning session provided an introduction to refugee law and other legal frameworks granting protection to refugees. Participants were provided with a presentation on the fundamental concepts in these legal frameworks and their legal and operational limitations. Following this, there was an opportunity for questions.Read more and access session resources at https://phap

UN agencies often partner with international and local NGOs to implement humanitarian assistance and protection. NGOs, on their part, are faced with the challenge of understanding and dealing with different, and often complex, UN partnership frameworks. Understanding how these frameworks function, and how humanitarian funding through the UN is evolving, was the topic of the second session of the learning stream on humanitarian financing, jointly organized by ICVA and PHAP.In this session, experts from two major agencies – the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and the World Food Program (WFP) – presented their organizations’ approaches to implementing partnerships and discussed challenges related to the existing funding modalities together with an NGO representative. Participants were provided with an overview of key procedures, as well as trends and challenges regarding UN humanitarian funding opportunities for NGOs.Read more at https://phap.org/12oct2016

Guest expert: Kristin Hausler, BIICLCo-hosts: Noëlle Quénivet and Angharad LaingIn addition to the loss of human life and creating severe humanitarian crises, the destruction of cultural heritage has played a prominent role in the ongoing conflicts in Syria and Iraq, and in the recent conflict in Mali. For example, this issue recently came into the spotlight in September 2015, when the International Criminal Court (ICC) Prosecutor’s Office opened the first ever war crime case for destruction of cultural heritage during the 2012 military coup d’état in Mali, where rebel groups considerably damaged Timbuktu’s cultural sites and historical monuments.In this learning session, Kristin Hausler of the British Institute of International and Comparative Law (BIICL) provided an introduction to the current legal frameworks that protect cultural heritage during both international and non-international armed conflicts, and how they apply to state actors and non-state armed groups.Read more at https://phap.org/29sep2016

Humanitarian financing worldwide is changing – how does it impact NGOs active in humanitarian work? In the first learning session on demystifying humanitarian financing, organized jointly by ICVA and PHAP, experts from OECD, Development Initiatives, and World Vision gave presentations and answered questions regarding the current state of humanitarian financing and how recent trends are affecting NGOs.The first session of this series concentrated on the current realities and emerging trends of humanitarian financing. Participants will be provided with an overview of the different traditional and emerging financing streams coexisting in the humanitarian sector, with a focus on how NGOs access humanitarian funding and the challenges they currently face.Read more at https://phap.org/15sep2016

With Naz K. Modirzadeh and Dustin A. Lewis, Harvard Law School Program on International Law and Armed Conflict (PILAC)Thirteen of the sanctions regimes established by the U.N. Security Council could implicate key elements of principled humanitarian action. Those sanctions might affect humanitarian programming in numerous contexts, including the Central African Republic, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. Some see “humanitarian exemptions” as a way to resolve possible conflicts between sanctions and principled humanitarian action. But what are “humanitarian exemptions”? Who and what do and should they cover? And what is the debate surrounding them?At this expert online briefing, Naz K. Modirzadeh and Dustin A. Lewis of the Harvard Law School Program on International Law and Armed Conflict (PILAC) synthesized recent research in order to: - Summarize the legal status, content, and nature of relevant U.N. sanctions regimes; - Define and analyze the two general cat

With Bruno Demeyere, Legal Adviser at the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC)For more info, go to https://phap.org/9jun2016What do the 1949 Geneva Conventions say about the right of impartial humanitarian organizations to offer their services and about the way in which Parties to a conflict need to respond to such an offer? How has practice over the past 60 years in this area influenced the interpretation of the law?In the 1950s, the ICRC published a set of commentaries on the four Geneva Conventions, giving practical guidance on their meaning and implementation. In order to capture the practice gained in implementing and interpreting the Geneva Conventions since then, a multi-year project to update these commentaries is underway. The first new commentary in this series was published earlier this spring by the ICRC: the updated Commentary on the First Geneva Convention.Importantly, this new publication includes an updated commentary on the scope and meaning of Common Articles 3(2) and 9, dealing w

Following events focusing on the three other core principles, PHAP’s final discussion in this series spotlights the principle of independence, looking in particular at how it relates to how humanitarian action is funded.The principle of independence calls upon humanitarians to practice an autonomy vis-à-vis political, military, ideological, religious, or economic interests and pressures. It highlights the interrelatedness of the core principles – it acts as a precondition or an enabler of humanity, impartiality, and humanity. Independence is thus profoundly pragmatic. It defines itself not on paper or in speech but through actions.The capacity to act impartially, to remain neutral in a given context, or even to give operational meaning to the call of humanity, all require that an organization possess certain resources, expertise, and capacity. That principle comes under consistent threat by financial constraints, for humanitarian relief requires funding, and the availability of funding often fails to align wi

In its series of discussions on how the core humanitarian principles relate to some of the practical issues raised in the World Humanitarian Summit consultation process, on 1 October 2015, PHAP hosted session on the principle of neutrality. In conflict settings there is perhaps no more certain way for humanitarians to lose access than the perception of their having chosen sides. Paradoxically, neutrality is the principle most often challenged by humanitarians themselves, viewed as prohibiting public advocacy or as interfering with organizational values such as solidarity. Many organizations have developed specific definitions or interpretations of neutrality that diverge from that of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC).Neutrality functions as a key, gaining the trust of armed groups to "unlock" access to zones under their control. By establishing its neutrality, humanitarian aid – especially aid delivered to an "enemy" – demands that it be judged neither a hostile act, nor a contribution to th

This third event in PHAP's series on the core principles focuses on impartiality. If the principle of humanity drives humanitarians towards crisis to alleviate suffering, impartiality steers programmatic choices more directly. In fact, impartiality can be seen as carrying a triple function: creating an ethical prohibition against aid being given on a discriminatory basis; determining that operations must identify and address the needs of the most vulnerable; and building trust/ acceptance within a conflict context. By virtue of its obligational nature, impartiality warrants particular attention on the part of humanitarians. The Geneva Conventions codify the duty of non-discrimination as a necessary quality of humanitarian assistance, and humanitarian law provides a right of initiative to impartial humanitarian organizations.The capacity of humanitarian action is limited, neither the sector nor individual agencies can meet all the needs of all those who suffer. In crisis situations, where the unmet needs – oft

On 16 September 2015, PHAP hosted a live online consultation event on the draft Humanitarian UAV Code of Conduct and Related Guidelines, in collaboration with UAViators, UNOCHA and the World Humanitarian Summit.This event featured: - Presentations from Patrick Meier of UAViators and Brian Grogan of UNOCHA on the draft Humanitarian UAV Code of Conduct and Related Guidelines. - The possibility to have your questions answered regarding these documents by a panel of experts, including also Col Angela Fitzsimmons, Chief of the Assessment Team in the Office of Military Affairs at UNDPKO, Guilhem Ravier, Head of the Protection of the Civilian Population Unit with the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), Joel Kaiser, Emergency Response Officer with Medair, and Michele Lynch, who manages the Global Technology Project for the American Red Cross. - An opportunity for participants to provide their input and perspectives on the draft Code of Conduct as well as each of the related guidelines throughout the even

On 8 September, PHAP hosted the first of four discussion and consultation events on practical dilemmas of principled humanitarian action. The event began with a lecture on the topic by Dr Hugo Slim, Head of Policy at the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). This was followed by a moderated discussion among a panel of experts, featuring Sir John Holmes, Director of the Ditchley Foundation and was previously the UN Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator; Andy Hill, Civil-Military Adviser in the UK Department for International Development (DFID); and Karen Welsh, the founder and CEO of Blue Glass Development. The event provided the opportunity for participants to provide their perspectives on the topic discussed, through the live chat, through posing questions to the panelists, and through live pollsRead more at https://phap.org/8Sep2015

In 2014, reports suggested that a surge of foreign jihadists were participating in armed conflicts in Syria, Iraq, and elsewhere. The U.N. Security Council responded by imposing new obligations on member states to counter the threat posed by “foreign terrorist fighters” (FTFs). In the intervening year, states have taken actions to implement those FTF obligations. Meanwhile, many states continue to fund and otherwise throw their support behind life-saving humanitarian relief for civilians in armed conflicts around the world—including conflicts involving terrorists. Yet, in recent years, members of the humanitarian community have become increasingly aware of the real, perceived, and potential impacts of counterterrorism laws on humanitarian action.At this PHAP online expert IHL briefing, Dustin Lewis and Naz Modirzadeh, two of the authors of a recent report from the Harvard Law School Program on International Law and Armed Conflict (HLS PILAC), will present their research on suppressing “foreign terrorist fight

The last fifteen years have witnessed a surge in armed conflicts involving designated terrorists. State responses to terrorism raise complex issues concerning international humanitarian law (IHL). Experts have debated legal and policy frameworks pertaining to the use of lethal force in counterterrorism operations, as well as the legal grounds to detain alleged wartime terrorists. Yet so far one vitally important area has evaded the same level of focus: how state responses to terrorism threaten to erode the foundational ethic of IHL entailed in impartial wartime medical care for all wounded and sick fighters hors de combat, friend and foe alike.At this PHAP online expert IHL briefing, Dustin Lewis and Naz Modirzadeh, two of the authors of a recent report from the Harvard Law School Program on International Law and Armed Conflict (HLS PILAC) presented their research on IHL and medical care concerning terrorists in armed conflict. The presenters discussed and answered questions relating to: - The intersections b

On 8 October 2015, PHAP hosted an online briefing and discussion on the forthcoming study by the Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC) on principled humanitarian action in situations of armed conflict.The Norwegian Refugee Council, with the support of OFDA/USAID and Handicap International, have recently commissioned a research paper on “Principles and Pragmatism in Conflict Settings: Field Perspectives” (forthcoming November 2015).This study has involved a close examination of the relevance and implementation of principles from the perspectives of different actors in Colombia, Syria/Turkey, South Sudan, and Nepal. The case studies have explored challenges faced in the field, perceptions of principles and their application, the role of the private sector in principled humanitarian response, and the influence of states on principled action.The research consultants, having just returned from the field, presented the initial findings from these countries, identify cross-cutting issues, and spur a targeted discussion an