2017年-查塔姆研究所_Recommendations_for_Reducing_Tensions_in_the_Interplay_Between_Sanctions_Counterterrorism_Measures_and_Humanitarian_Action_33页_427kb

Summary of "Recommendations for Reducing Tensions in the Interplay Between Sanctions, Counterterrorism Measures and Humanitarian Action"

Core Content

This document addresses the growing tensions between sanctions, counterterrorism measures, and humanitarian action, particularly in contexts where civilians are under the control of non-state armed groups (NSAGs). It highlights the risks that these measures pose to humanitarian operations and proposes ways to mitigate them.

Main Issues

• Civilian Vulnerability: Civilians in need often find themselves under the control of NSAGs, which are subject to sanctions and counterterrorism measures. These measures can inadvertently restrict the ability of humanitarian organizations to provide aid, as they broadly prohibit the provision of funds or assets to such groups.
• Interpretation of Prohibitions: The prohibitions in sanctions and counterterrorism instruments can be interpreted to include incidental payments or relief supplies that benefit NSAGs, even if not intended.
• Impact on Humanitarian Operations: Banking sector restrictions, imposed by private actors and states, have significantly limited the financial services available to humanitarian organizations, especially in 'high-risk' contexts.
• Need for Exemptions: The inclusion of exemptions for humanitarian action in sanctions regimes is the most effective way to ensure that such operations are not hindered. However, only one UN Security Council regime (Somalia) includes such an exemption.
• Role of States: States, particularly as donors and implementers of sanctions, play a critical role in mitigating these tensions by engaging with humanitarian actors and influencing the regulatory framework.

Key Recommendations

1. Exemptions for Humanitarian Action

• Exemptions in sanctions regimes are the most effective solution to prevent humanitarian activities from being inadvertently restricted.
• Somalia Example: The 2010 exemption for humanitarian action in Somalia was a result of a focused and public push by humanitarian actors.
• Challenges: The Security Council is cautious and requires active advocacy to adopt such exemptions. Some humanitarian organizations are hesitant due to concerns about politicization or conditions attached to exemptions.

2. Systematic Awareness and Information Gathering

• Raising awareness among UN members and the broader humanitarian community is essential.
• Information Collection: Information on the adverse impact of sanctions on humanitarian action should be collected before, during, and after the implementation of sanctions.
• Consultation Mechanisms: The Security Council and its committees should systematically consult humanitarian actors to better understand and address the issues.

3. Enhancing Dialogue and Coordination

• A systematic and formalized dialogue between the Security Council, humanitarian organizations, and other stakeholders is necessary.
• Informal Expert Groups: The informal expert group on the protection of civilians should be expanded to include thematic discussions on the impact of sanctions on humanitarian action.
• Public Reports: The inclusion of adverse impact information in public reports by the Security Council and its panels of experts can raise awareness and pressure for change.

4. National and Regional Implementation

• National Level: States should consult with humanitarian organizations before and after adopting sanctions at the national level.
• EU Dimension: The EU has made some progress in adjusting sanctions to exclude humanitarian action, but further research and engagement are needed.
• Banking Sector: Humanitarian organizations should build stronger relationships with banks to educate them about the sector's risks and needs, which may reduce the restrictions imposed on their operations.

5. Alternative Solutions: Licensing

• Licensing is an alternative to exemptions, but it is less effective due to its time-consuming and costly nature.
• Licensing also raises concerns among banks and humanitarian organizations about legal ambiguity and politicization.

6. Need for a Coherent Position

• Humanitarian organizations should develop a unified position on the need for exemptions to increase their influence on the Security Council and other bodies.
• The absence of a common stance may hinder the effectiveness of advocacy efforts.

Conclusion

The document emphasizes that while the international regulatory framework is not perfect, it is possible to reduce the tensions between sanctions, counterterrorism measures, and humanitarian action through a combination of exemptions, systematic information gathering, and improved dialogue. The role of states, particularly as donors and implementers, is crucial in this process, and progress is more likely at the national level than at the international level. The paper calls for further research, engagement, and the development of practical solutions to ensure that humanitarian action can continue without undue restrictions.