INTRODUCTION
The protection of people caught up in armed conflict and other situations of violence is a critical challenge. In many armed conflicts, the distinction between civilians and combatants is deliberately blurred. All too often, civilians are exposed to reckless conduct by parties to conflict; they are subjected to attacks, to systematic violations of their rights and to other abuses as well. States and other relevant duty bearers frequently lack the capacity – or the will – to ensure effective protection for people at risk. Worse still, they may themselves perpetrate violence or other abuse against certain segments of the population.
Governments, international organizations and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have not been indifferent to this challenge. The protection response to crises has improved significantly in recent years. A key factor has been the marked increase in the number and diversity of humanitarian and human rights actors involved in promoting the protection of those at risk of violations or other abuses in armed conflict and other situations of violence. Today, a broad range of humanitarian and human rights actors can be found at work in virtually every hot spot in the world, as well as in other critical situations not covered by the global media.
As a result, protection work has become more diversified and sophisticated, a positive and welcome development. However, the increased numbers and diversity of actors have also complicated matters. A strengthened operational presence has meant greater proximity between humanitarian and human rights actors engaged in protection work, who have now developed complementarities in extremely complex operating environments.
The broad gap that previously separated humanitarian and human rights workers has narrowed, and greater coherence has been established. But differences in approaches and aspirations still exist. While the presence in one place of many different actors can produce positive synergies, it can also cause confusion occasionally.
This document recognizes distinctions between the two sets of actors, but is founded on the conviction that there is enough common ground between them for establishing a firm, shared basis for their protection work in armed conflict and other situations of violence, as well as possibilities for maximizing complementarity to provide more effective protection for those who need it.
WHY PROTECTION STANDARDS ARE NEEDED AND STILL RELEVANT
These new possibilities for a stronger or expanded response offer greater breadth and depth of specificity and increased complementarity, but they also inevitably cause unevenness in the quality of the protection work being done. The absence of common professional standards can, in fact, lead to situations in which protection work could actually harm the very people and communities it seeks to protect.
It is now agreed that a protection response cannot be effective without the necessary professional competence. A concerted effort is therefore required to ensure that protection work by humanitarian and human rights actors meets commonly agreed minimum professional standards. These establish a baseline to be respected by all, while respecting the diversity of actors and approaches involved. However, defining what that means, to the satisfaction of everyone concerned, has been a major challenge.
Workshops led by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), between 1996 and 2000, initiated a collaborative project to determine professional standards for strengthening protection in armed conflict and other situations of violence. Besides agreement on a common understanding from which to create shared minimum standards, the project also resulted in the formulation of a generally accepted definition of protection – quoted below – that remains in effect.