You have extensive experience in the humanitarian field, notably as a former delegate and now Vice-President of the ICRC. What are the characteristics and current challenges of humanitarian diplomacy?
I would describe it as the mobilisation of diplomatic strategies, tools, and approaches to save lives, alleviate suffering and protect human dignity in emergencies and protracted crises, be they man-made or not. These efforts are typically undertaken by states as well as international, regional, and non-governmental organisations. Some institutions are entrusted with a specific mandate, as is the case of the ICRC under international humanitarian law (IHL), whereby humanitarian diplomacy ultimately aims to influence warring parties to comply with their IHL obligations.
When it comes to current challenges, we face both longstanding and newer ones. Limited humanitarian access and security risks affecting relief workers are not new but have become particularly acute, restricting the ability to effectively assist and protect conflict-affected people in several contexts. The same applies to IHL violations and overly lax interpretation of the law, which have reached appalling levels causing devastating human suffering and destruction. This, together with a growing sense of double standards, undermines the fundamental objective of preserving humanity in war. Such a trend must be stopped and reversed.
Newer challenges include advances in information and communication technologies, which facilitate the instant spread of misinformation and hate speech targeting specific groups in armed conflict or humanitarian actors themselves. In addition, the rapid development of new means and methods of warfare drawing on AI and machine learning necessitates urgent regulatory measures to ensure compliance with fundamental IHL principles.
One could also mention heightened geopolitical tensions combined with climate change and environmental shocks, which raise serious humanitarian concerns. Or renewed risks of armed conflict at sea, which could disrupt critical infrastructure and world trade, 80% of which depends on safe maritime routes.
How should humanitarian diplomacy evolve to meet the many challenges of our world in crisis?
Next to traditional, state-centric efforts that remain essential to strengthen universal compliance with IHL and other relevant bodies of law, investing in novel or adaptative forms of diplomacy can also help meet today’s challenges. Think of multistakeholder initiatives that tap into the expertise, resources and influence of regional groupings, civil society or cities. Business and academia also play an increasing role, not least with regard to new technologies that can both mitigate and exacerbate humanitarian crises.
Fundamental IHL principles such as protecting civilians in armed conflict, treating prisoners humanely, and caring for the wounded are found in virtually all religious and philosophical traditions. Yet, contemporary international legal frameworks are often associated with a Western- dominated post–World War II order. Building on norms and references that strongly resonate in distinct cultural set- tings can transcend traditional North-South and East-West divides and strengthen universal support for such norms.
Finally, humanitarian diplomacy operates at the inter- section of ethics, law and interests. Carving out solutions that address vital humanitarian needs while taking into account the interests of the parties involved is often key to overcoming diplomatic deadlocks. This is all the more important that the first steps toward peace are often humanitarian, such as warring parties agreeing on the release of detainees and the restitution of dead bodies for dignified burial.
You mentioned the role of academia. What is your view on scientific diplomacy?
Scientific diplomacy has become a foreign policy instrument of choice for richer and poorer countries alike. International scientific collaborations can be leveraged in support of diplomatic efforts to tackle global challenges, for example by generating relevant evidence and baselines for action. A well-known example is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) whereby scientists from all around the world share knowledge on climate change and inform science-based policymaking.
Situated at the intersection of science, politics and international relations, scientific diplomacy has met with resistance when the evidence does not align with specific political or geostrategic objectives. Scientific facts have also been dismissed in the context of mounting distrust toward the elites. Hence, we have seen a variety of scenarios ranging from states investing in scientific diplomacy as a soft power instrument to others terminating or limiting scientific cooperation over political or security concerns.
That said, scientific cooperation holds a vastly untapped potential when it comes to fostering research-policy trans- fers in support of global policy objectives. Transboundary partnerships that bring together interdisciplinary research with policy and practice greatly contribute to generating and transferring knowledge, technology and policies to address global challenges.
On that basis, what conclusion do you draw?
In the context of dwindling foreign aid budgets, investing in humanitarian and scientific diplomacy becomes all the more strategic. The former helps foster an enabling environment for peace and stability while the latter appears as a cost-effective instrument to strengthen international cooperation, build capacities, and innovate to preserve and promote global public goods.
This article was published in Globe #35, the Graduate Institute Review.
