In humanitarian action, the promotion of gender equality is aligned with the fundamental goals of humanity: to alleviate human suffering and respect human dignity. However, the promotion of gender equality in practice and its relationship with the humanitarian principles is complicated. The principle of impartiality and its central needs-based approach provide an essential entry point for efforts to support gender equality, through tailored humanitarian assistance based on analysis of gender-related differences in access to basic services and resources. Impartiality can support agencies to be gender responsive, if this approach is implemented in an inclusive way that responds to the full diversity of people’s needs in conflict contexts. However, in pursuing more ambitious, longer-term objectives that require shifts of a structural nature, impartiality is limited. This is because the principle mainly responds to the outcomes of inequality rather than address its drivers, including social norms, economic systems or government policy. With its focus on needs and vulnerability, the approach underpinning impartiality also risks curtailing the agency of conflict-affected people and reproducing existing power imbalances between affected communities and humanitarian agencies.
In practice, the ability to work in accordance with the principles is dependent on the perceptions of actors in conflict contexts, including affected communities, host governments and warring parties. The absence of objective criteria for the fulfilment of the humanitarian principles means that their compatibility with the promotion of gender equality is highly context dependent. As a result, efforts to overcome systemic barriers to promote and secure the impartial access of marginalized groups to assistance may cause tension with other principles, including neutrality. This is particularly the case in contexts of systemic marginalization, where the achievement of impartiality may necessitate actions to address the social and political barriers facing marginalized communities. However, if the principles, like neutrality, are being applied in a way that prevents humanitarian agencies from meeting the full range of people’s needs in these environments, this will weaken the ability of these organizations to achieve the fundamental goal of humanity. Going forward, there is a need for further critical examination and assessment of the application of the principles in different contexts to understand how, and the extent to which, they pose a barrier to the promotion of gender equality and inclusion.
This paper emphasizes the importance of applying the humanitarian principles within wider efforts to promote peace and address conflict dynamics, including the gendered drivers and outcomes of conflict. The success of such efforts will be dependent on the capacity to overcome power imbalances within the aid sector by promoting the roles of conflict-affected communities in humanitarian action and leadership. This includes women-led organizations, as well as those representing the rights of women, girls and gender-diverse people. While external actors are in a position to support social change in conflict-affected contexts, doing so without the leadership of people in those situations is less likely to achieve contextually responsive and sustainable outcomes. Similarly, local leadership in conflict contexts is not necessarily a straightforward route to achieving gender equality and addressing marginalization. Any effort to support endogenous peace and social change processes in conflict contexts requires political and conflict sensitivity. Over the longer-term, the ability to support change towards more peaceful and equitable societies is also dependent on the success of integrated approaches that can be coordinated across humanitarian, development and peace spheres.
