GSDRC

Governance, social development, conflict and humanitarian knowledge services

  • Research
    • Governance
      • Democracy & elections
      • Public sector management
      • Security & justice
      • Service delivery
      • State-society relations
      • Supporting economic development
    • Social Development
      • Gender
      • Inequalities & exclusion
      • Poverty & wellbeing
      • Social protection
    • Conflict
      • Conflict analysis
      • Conflict prevention
      • Conflict response
      • Conflict sensitivity
      • Impacts of conflict
      • Peacebuilding
    • Humanitarian Issues
      • Humanitarian financing
      • Humanitarian response
      • Recovery & reconstruction
      • Refugees/IDPs
      • Risk & resilience
    • Development Pressures
      • Climate change
      • Food security
      • Fragility
      • Migration & diaspora
      • Population growth
      • Urbanisation
    • Approaches
      • Complexity & systems thinking
      • Institutions & social norms
      • Theories of change
      • Results-based approaches
      • Rights-based approaches
      • Thinking & working politically
    • Aid Instruments
      • Budget support & SWAps
      • Capacity building
      • Civil society partnerships
      • Multilateral aid
      • Private sector partnerships
      • Technical assistance
    • Monitoring and evaluation
      • Indicators
      • Learning
      • M&E approaches
  • Services
    • Research Helpdesk
    • Professional development
  • News & commentary
  • Publication types
    • Helpdesk reports
    • Topic guides
    • Conflict analyses
    • Literature reviews
    • Professional development packs
    • Working Papers
    • Webinars
    • Covid-19 evidence summaries
  • About us
    • Staff profiles
    • International partnerships
    • Privacy policy
    • Terms and conditions
    • Contact Us
Home»GSDRC Publications»Ground rules for military conduct

Ground rules for military conduct

Helpdesk Report
  • Siân Herbert
November 2013

Question

Query: ICRC (and/or other organisations, in one instance at least ICRC+NGOs) development of ground rules for military conduct n recent conflicts. 1) Grateful for the list of principles that they have asked parties to the conflict to sign up to, and the process used to get parties to sign.

2) Is there any evidence that signing up to these principles by state and non-state actors in recent conflicts has delivered any improvement in the treatment of combatants and non-combatants?

Purpose: drawing up ground rules for military conduct for parties to the Syria conflict.

Summary

Under international humanitarian law (IHL), all parties involved in non-international armed conflicts – whether state actors or non-state armed groups – should comply with international standards of behaviour. In many contexts, humanitarian organisations broker ‘ground rules’ with state and non-state actors to ensure compliance with IHL standards.

The literature base in this area is very limited. While there is significant reference in academic papers to ‘ground rules’, there is little documentation of the actual agreements, unless they are very formal agreements such as the well documented example of the ground rules ‘Operation Lifeline Sudan’. The UN has provided the most details regarding ground rules – these usually document ground rules between humanitarian organisations. This provides the evidence used as examples in this report.

While each humanitarian organisation agrees some form of ‘ground rules’ with each actor in the areas they operate in, these agreements are very rarely made publicly available. ICRC’s agreements are always confidential, and vary greatly according to the actor and context (expert input). Many agreements are verbal; others may have written consent, but are not generally formalised in written agreements, and the ICRC never signs official agreements with conflict parties (expert input). ICRC operates under what is called “the con?dential approach” – this is based on the objective of “persuading an authority to meet its obligations without resorting to public pressure” (ICRC, 2012, p.3). Confidentiality is also a key principle underpinning the work of many humanitarian actors working in sensitive conflict environments.

This rapid literature review explains the type of agreements brokered by humanitarian organisations in conflict situations, the underlying principles for these agreements, and the method and process two organisations use to broker these agreements (the IRCR and the UN). It then outlines five case studies of ground rules: Operation Lifeline Sudan; the Somalia NGO Consortium’s Operating Principles and Red Lines; the Basic Operating Guidelines in Nepal; the Principles and Protocols of Humanitarian Operation in Liberia; and the Principles of Engagement for Emergency Humanitarian Assistance in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

 

file type icon See Full Report [PDF]

Enquirer:

  • DFID

University of Birmingham

Connect with us: Bluesky Linkedin X.com

Outputs supported by DFID are © DFID Crown Copyright 2025; outputs supported by the Australian Government are © Australian Government 2025; and outputs supported by the European Commission are © European Union 2025

We use cookies to remember settings and choices, and to count visitor numbers and usage trends. These cookies do not identify you personally. By using this site you indicate agreement with the use of cookies. For details, click "read more" and see "use of cookies".