PHAP Special Events

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 between IHL medical-care protections and the framework of global counterterrorism obligations imposed by the U.N. Security Council;

- Prosecutions—in Peru, Colombia, and the United States—based on various forms of medical assistance to terrorists in armed conflicts;

- The technical legal definitions of key concepts, such as the so-called special protections under IHL for “medical personnel,” “medical units,” and “medical transports”;

- Gaps between treaty-based medical-care protections applicable in international armed conflicts versus those applicable in non-international armed conflicts;

- Gaps between treaty-based medical-care obligations imposed on states party to the Additional Protocols of 1977 versus states not party to those conventions; and

- Whether customary IHL may fill some or all of those gaps.

Read more at https://phap.org/OEV-3Nov2015

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 and reflections from both the audience and panelists through the live polls, chat and Q&A. The objective of the webinar was to gather perspectives on questions including if humanitarian action is possible without humanitarian principles, if the humanitarian aid environment has become more or less politicized over the last ten years, if commercial entities can be principled and if any actions need to be taken to strengthen the more consistent application of principles.

Read more at https://phap.org/OEV-8oct2015

The United Nations and its partners are scaling up their response to the recent earthquake in Nepal. A needs assessement is being rapidly undertaken and the resulting Flash Appeal was launched on Wednesday 29 April.

The UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UN OCHA) together with PHAP hosted a webinar on Thursday 30 April at 14:00 (CEST) specifically for private sector entities wishing to engage. Colleagues in Nepal presented the current situation, priority needs identified in the Flash Appeal, and provided guidance on how to contribute or collaborate in the coordinated relief efforts.

Read more at https://phap.org/30Apr2015

On 2 April 2015, PHAP hosted a live online discussion event as part of its current Exchange Hub on measuring success in protection programming.

The humanitarian community has come under increased pressure to achieve more meaningful results and demonstrate impact through protection programming. Protection programs need to be accountable for the funds they receive and the activities they implement. However, measuring results in protection programming is not straightforward – while traditional results-based management techniques are useful, we must be more creative in the development of further tools and methods that meet the particular challenges faced in protection.

The event focused on clarifying the overarching goals of protection programming, which is often not sufficiently addressed in more technical discussions about measurement and evaluation. The event featured a panel discussion with a panel of experts from ECHO, UNHCR, UNICEF, and World Vision International.

This Exchange Hub is organized in collaboration with InterAction’s Results-Based Protection Program and ALNAP’s program on Evaluating protection in humanitarian action. On February 25, PHAP hosted an introductory online briefing on the current status of InterAction's and ALNAP's projects.

Read more at https://phap.org/2Apr2015

On 25 February 2015, PHAP hosted an online introductory briefing on the topic of its Third Exchange Hub: Measuring success in protection programming. Participants learned more about the current status of two key initiatives in this area: InterAction’s Results-Based Protection Program and ALNAP’s program on Evaluating protection in humanitarian action.

The event included short briefings from Francesca Bonino, Research Fellow at ALNAP and head of their program on evaluating protection, and Jessica Lenz, Senior Program Manager with InterAction who leads the Results-Based Protection program.

Read more at https://phap.org/25Feb2015

On 17 September 2014, PHAP hosted an online event discussing the new IASC Humanitarian Programme Cycle (HPC) from an NGO perspective. As part of the Transformative Agenda, the Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC) revised its Humanitarian Programme Cycle (HPC) – a replacement for the previous Consolidated Appeals Processes (CAPs) – so that it could be more useful for HCTs, NGOs and other responders in-country. This webinar provided a briefing on the process of devising this new HPC, what this process was trying to achieve, and what NGOs should expect from this revised approach.

The event featured Joel Charny, Vice President of Humanitarian Policy and Practice at InterAction, and Gareth Price Jones, Humanitarian Affairs Representative from Oxfam International, and is organized together with the International Council of Voluntary Agencies (ICVA).

Spurred by the large-scale crises in Haiti and Pakistan in 2010, the Humanitarian Programme Cycle was created to guide humanitarian coordination, leadership and accountability in crises and conflicts. It seeks to do this by clearly defining the complementary roles and responsibilities of different organizations involved in humanitarian response. The HPC is a collective, consultative process that hopes to enable all those involved in humanitarian response to see their role in relation to others and position their work according to agreed upon objectives. Specifically, the HPC hopes to create a single strategic process between all international and national actors involved in response, including clusters, sectors, humanitarian agencies, national authorities, national civic society organizations and, above all, affected people.

The NGO community has been active in influencing this process through representatives from InterAction, Oxfam International, and the Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC). These representatives have been trying to simplify the HPC process in order to make the ultimate product relevant, useful and effective for NGOs and maximize the HPC’s impact across the world.

Read more at https://phap.org/17Sep2014

Speakers: Naz Modirzadeh, Founding Director of the Harvard Law School Program on International Law and Armed Conflict (PILAC) & Dustin Lewis, Senior Researcher, PILAC

In December 2014, President Obama said that the United States “combat mission in Afghanistan is ending, and the longest war in American history is coming to a responsible conclusion.” Yet over a year later hostilities continue. What are the stakes for humanitarian organizations in the ongoing application—or not—of international humanitarian law (IHL) in Afghanistan and in other contemporary armed conflicts? Does international law provide sufficient guidance for humanitarians and other battlefield actors to discern when today’s armed conflicts end? At this PHAP online IHL expert briefing, Naz Modirzadeh and Dustin Lewis, of the Harvard Law School Program on International Law and Armed Conflict (PILAC), will discuss initial PILAC research on the “end” of armed conflict under IHL. Among the issues they will explore are:

What are the IHL criteria pertaining to the end of armed conflict?

Who benefits, and who is disadvantaged, from a presumption of the continued application of IHL—both its more permissive and its more restrictive elements?

What is at stake for humanitarian actors, for the parties to the conflict, and for affected civilian populations?

Read more at https://phap.org/OEV-23Feb2016