The Principle of Neutrality: Its Origins and Views of International Organizations

International humanitarian law is fundamentally built on the principle of neutrality, which was first codified in the 1949 Geneva Conventions. It states that humanitarian organizations must not take sides in armed conflicts in order to maintain access to all those affected. In practice, this principle means that aid must be provided to anyone in need, regardless of which side of the conflict they belong to. In addition to the principle of neutrality, the principles of humanity, impartiality and independence are fundamental to humanitarian action, and guide most, if not all, international humanitarian organizations.

However, the relevance of this principle is being questioned increasingly in the setting of modern wars. In the 1980s, “Doctors Without Borders” (Médecins Sans Frontières) was among the first to openly speak up against the crimes of communist regimes, thereby challenging traditional humanitarian neutrality. This happened after the genocide in Cambodia (1975–1979) and the man-made famine in Ethiopia (1983–1985), which demonstrated that the principle of neutrality is not always effective, as regimes responsible for mass atrocities controlled the distribution of aid.

Following the Rwandan genocide in 1994, the humanitarian sector recognized the urgent need for greater ethical clarity, leading to a new surge of discussion. Around 800,000 people, most of them Tutsis, were killed in Rwanda by the government, military, and Hutu militias in a genocide that took place over 100 days between April and July 1994. Many international organizations, including the Red Cross and the UN, did not call the events a “genocide.” Aid was provided without filtering, which allowed aggressors to receive the same resources as the victims. Refugee camps at the borders (especially in Zaire, now the Democratic Republic of the Congo) effectively became shelters for the organizers of the genocide, who received humanitarian assistance there.

This happened against the Cold War (1947–1991) backdrop, during which the global confrontation between the USA and the USSR made humanitarian aid in armed conflicts a convenient tool for political propaganda. For example, the USA provided aid to countries aligned with the West, through USAID and other programs, while the USSR supported its allies through Soviet humanitarian initiatives. In conflicts associated with the Cold War such as the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and the Soviet-Afghan War (1979–1989) — humanitarian missions often could not operate in areas controlled by communist or pro-Western governments if they believed such operations could undermine their politics.

Russia’s war against Ukraine is one of the best examples in the modern world, where the principle of neutrality continues to be abused. Many international organizations face a dilemma: can they remain neutral in a situation where one side is an obvious aggressor, and the other is a victim of war crimes? Today, over 183 000 of war crimes in Ukraine have been committed by Russian forces, including mass executions of civilians, torture, and the destruction of critical infrastructure.

Since Russia denies international humanitarian organizations access to occupied territories and the evacuation of civilians and wounded are mostly handled by military forces, adherence to the classical understanding of neutrality appears not only detached from reality but also contributes to worsening the humanitarian crisis.

• Solidarity as an Alternative to Neutrality

Under a wave of criticism, humanitarian law specialists began proposing an alternative solution — the path of solidarity with the affected parties.

  For example, the article “Humanitarian Resistance”, authored by Dr Hugo Slim and published by the Humanitarian Practice Network, states that international humanitarian organizations and the governments that finance them should support humanitarian resistance at the local level, as has been observed in Syria, Myanmar, Ukraine, and Tigray. These examples demonstrate how organizations and governments shift from neutrality to solidarity by actively supporting affected communities and acknowledging the impossibility of remaining neutral in cases of clear contravention of international humanitarian law.

Moreover, some Western governments openly frame their humanitarian aid to Ukraine as part of a broader political stance regarding the war, reflecting their solidarity with the Ukrainian people. Political narratives have a significant impact on humanitarian aid decision-making, and their variability is influenced both by external state policies and internal developments within Ukraine. More on this can be found in the study (“War Narratives in Ukraine: Humanitarian Response Between Solidarity and Resistance.”).

Our network actively urges international structures to reconsider the approach to neutrality and to move toward a practice of solidarity with the Ukrainian people. This means not only providing humanitarian aid but also recognizing that Ukrainian local organizations play a key role in ensuring rescue, rehabilitation, and protection for those affected.

• The Opinion of International Organizations

 When preparing the material, we interviewed Kris Flegg (Humanitarian Appeals Manager at Christian Aid) and Lizz Harrison (Emergency Programs Manager at CAFOD, at the time of interview) — two experts with extensive experience in crisis response and building partnerships in complex humanitarian contexts.

 What is your organization’s approach to the principles of neutrality and solidarity in your work in Ukraine?

 “We operate according to humanitarian principles and consider ourselves neutral,” explains Lizz Harrison from CAFOD. “Our focus in any country is always on civilians. One of the gray areas regarding the principle of neutrality for us are  veterans, especially those who have recently left the army and are still in the process of arranging their documents to claim their new status. However, we also talk about solidarity with our partners, we demonstrate that we are here to support them, and that includes ensuring fair administrative costs for their organisation and supporting them to advocate on their priority interests.”

Kris Flegg from Christian Aid adds: “We clearly draw the line — our aid cannot be used to support the army. But we do not exclude partners who have a history of interaction with the military. For example, we can support projects involving veterans — as long as they are no longer active military personnel.”

What criteria do you use to select partners, knowing that these organizations have projects related to the military in their portfolios?

   “We can support partners who have both humanitarian and military-related activities, provided those activities and funds are clearly separated. This separation must apply to finances, personnel, and public communications,” says Lizz. “We don’t have a strict policy on terminology used in external communications, but we do not tolerate calls for violence or hate speech from any partner. Also, we cannot allow our logo to appear in publications or posts that call for support of the Ukrainian army or military fundraising.”

  “We have quite similar principles on this matter. Once, we had a case where a partner’s social media content raised concerns. We immediately suspended funding and launched an investigation. Reputation and the protection of those we help are critical for us,” shared Kris.

How do you ensure transparency in such partnerships?

 “It’s about trust,” says Lizz. “We have standard reporting and monitoring, but trust starts from the negotiation phase. If we agree that partners won’t spend funds on military needs, we trust that they won’t cross that line.”

Kris adds: “All tough and long conversations about conditions of cooperation we start before funding. This is part of the long-term partnerships we build over years.”

   What advice would you give to Ukrainian organizations that are seeking partnerships now but also want to continue supporting the army through crowdfunding or other fundraising methods?

“Separate your bank accounts. Set up separate project management systems. Check your social media. And also — clearly communicate your priorities to potential partners, so you don’t waste each other’s time,” advises Lizz Harrison.

Kris agrees: “At the beginning of any partnership, it’s important to outline your management processes and demonstrate a responsible division of activities — this builds trust and saves time.”

  Is there a chance that in the future international organizations will shift their approach to neutrality in order to support the affected side in a conflict? Could the experience of humanitarian response in Ukraine influence international discourse?

   “Humanitarian principles have been shaped over decades — a single war is not likely to bring about their total transformation,” notes Lizz. “However, we are already seeing a shift in the conversation, with growing emphasis on solidarity with affected communities and a greater focus on working with local organizations, rather than relying on large international responses.”

    Kris concludes: “Neutrality as a principle will likely remain unchanged. But in practice, our work is solidarity with local partners. We want them to survive. That’s our everyday reality.”

   “Thus, for international organizations, solidarity is not a rejection of neutrality, but an evolving interpretation of it, focused on strengthening local organizations and giving the affected side a better chance to survive and recover.”

What Can You Do as a Local Organization?

1. Speak up.
   We recommend that Ukrainian local organizations get to know more about more deeply with international processes and their origins in order to negotiate more effectively and advocate for their position. Also, if you have the opportunity to speak at an international conference, don’t forget to mention the message ‘solidarity instead of neutrality’.

2. Choose partners with solidarity approach.
   It is important to communicate with partners while expecting solidarity from them and clearly explaining how this solidarity should be demonstrated. The shift from neutrality to solidarity will allow international organizations to respond more effectively to the realities of modern conflicts and to better support those who need it most.

3. Sign the open letter “Solidarity in Action”.
   Read and sign our open letter — it contains more examples and explanations.