Ukraine: Principled compromises or compromised principles? A review of principled humanitarian response

Executive summary

If humanitarians expect armed forces to respect their mandates and mission, they must be clear on their own agendas, intentions, and objectives. In Ukraine, the lines between who is humanitarian and who is not have been blurred, however. Partly this can be ascribed to the geo-politics involved. The Russian Federation violated the UN Charter by invading another sovereign state. It has been faced with international sanctions since its annexation of Ukrainian territory in 2014. Since the large-scale invasion in February 2022, a range of countries have supported Ukraine with a large aid package that takes various forms, of which humanitarian aid is only a small part. 

Another factor blurring the lines can be attributed to the organisations providing aid. For various reasons, they have refrained (often inadvertently) from establishing a clear distinction between their humanitarian work and other types of assistance. This report lays out those reasons and provides explanations. Essentially, humanitarians can do better in safeguarding their mission and explaining what makes their work humanitarian. The delivery of humanitarian aid in complex environments is by nature a balancing act between oft-competing priorities, and there is no such thing as a fully principled approach. "Principled compromises" are called for, however, rather than "compromised principles."