Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T16:39:37.695Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The meaning of the word “humanitarian” in relation to the Fundamental Principles of the Red Cross and Red Crescent

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 January 2010

Jeau-Luc Blondel
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

It has rightly been said that the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement does not stand for any specific philosophy or moral doctrine. Neither the fundamental principles nor international humanitarian law (IHL) provide a methodical interpretation of human nature or an inventory of the moral rights and obligations of the Movement's members. The Movement adheres to no particular ideology or political system. On the contrary, its universality enables it, with varying degrees of success, to adapt to or even influence various political regimes or tendencies in order to promote humanitarian aims. This ability can be attributed in particular to its respect for the principle of neutrality.

Type
On the Fundamental Principles of the Red Cross and Red Crescent
Information
International Review of the Red Cross (1961 - 1997) , Volume 29 , Issue 273 , December 1989 , pp. 507 - 515
Copyright
Copyright © International Committee of the Red Cross 1989

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Harroff-Tavel, Marion, “The doctrine of the Red Cross and, in particular, of the ICRC”, Dissemination, No. 2, 08 1985, p. 7.Google Scholar

2 Pictet, Jean, Development and Principles of International Humanitarian Law, Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht, Henry Dunant Institute, Geneva, 1983, p. 5.Google Scholar

3 Pictet, Jean, ed., Commentary, Vol. I — The 1949 Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, ICRC, Geneva, 1952, p. 111.Google Scholar

4 Ibid., p. 108.

5 Sandoz, Y., Swinarski, C., Zimmermann, B., eds., Commentary on the Additional Protocols of 8 June 1977 to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht, ICRC, Geneva, 1987, p. 945, para. 3337 (on Art. 81 of Protocol I).Google Scholar

6 Sandoz, Yves, “Le droit d'initiative du Comité international de la Croix-Rouge”, German Yearbook of International Law, No. 22, 1979, p. 368.Google Scholar

7 Torelli, Maurice, Le médecin et les droits de l'homme, Berger-Levrault, Paris, 1983.Google Scholar

8 See article in this issue by ProfessorKalshoven, F., “Impartiality and Neutrality in Humanitarian Law and Practice” (p. 516 and notes 1 and 4).Google Scholar

9 See article in this issue by Harroff-Tavel, Marion, “Neutrality and Impartiality — The importance of these principles for the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement and the difficulties involved in applying them” (p. 536), which explains this point in greater detail.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

10 See in particular the articles by Theodor Meron and Hans-Peter Gasser in the issue of the International Review of the Red Cross devoted to internal disturbances and tension (No. 262, 01–02 1988).Google Scholar