1

Roundtable on CivilMilitary Coordination

The Concept of Protection: Towards a Mutual Understanding
Monday 12 December 2011
International Committee of the Red Cross,
19 Avenue de la Paix, CH 1202, Geneva
Roundtable Summary
The Humanitarian Policy Group (HPG) at the Overseas Development Institute (ODI)
and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) organised a one-day
roundtable meeting to discuss the commonalities and differences in how international
humanitarian and military actors understand and put into practice the concept of
protection of civilians. The roundtable brought together key international military and
humanitarian actors to explore their respective objectives, rationale and approaches to
protection of civilians. The discussion also examined the specific roles and
responsibilities that each have in supporting enhanced protection of civilian
populations.
The roundtable was the first in a series of events to be held as part of HPGs two-year
research and public affairs project CivilMilitary Coordination: The Search for
Common Ground. In order to promote an open and frank debate, the meeting was
held under the Chatham House rule and participation was by invitation only. What
follows is a summary of the discussion.
Protecting Civilians
Despite the long history of humanitarian and political efforts to promote compliance
with International Humanitarian Law (IHL), International Human Rights Law (IHRL)
and Refugee Law, civilians continue to bear the brunt of armed violence, be it in
conflicts or in emerging crises. In many conflict situations medical and health workers
are prime targets, ambulances are blocked by belligerents and doctors harassed,
denying the right of wounded or sick people to medical care. The recent conflict in
Libya has also brought to the fore the frequent abuse of the rights of migrants in a
country in conflict, where rumors and suspicions suddenly exposed thousands of
migrants to violence. In Libya and elsewhere, the theatre of conflict is changing, with
belligerents increasingly undertaking military operations in densely populated urban
areas, with resulting high levels of civilian casualties, disruption of basic services and
damage to civilian infrastructure.
These trends exemplify the enduring need to uphold the principles of distinction,
precaution and proportionality, and the need for greater accountability for violations
of IHL and IHRL. These trends also demonstrate the importance of understanding
protection in a way that takes into account both the vulnerabilities and the resilience
of civilian populations at risk.
2
Since civilians continue to bear the brunt of violence, the various international actors
present on the ground in conflict and other humanitarian crises should reflect on how
to consolidate their contribution to the protection of civilian populations. Any efforts
in this regard, however, must be based on the understanding that the primary
responsibility for the protection of civilians clearly lies with states both on their own
territory and in their military operations in other contexts.
There is an increasing appreciation of the need for a greater degree of mutual
understanding and some form of interaction or dialogue between international
military and humanitarian actors in order to maximise the contribution they each can
make to protecting civilians. For the ICRC for example, the military have traditionally
been their natural partners in the organisations efforts to secure adherence to IHL.
However, although international humanitarian and international military actors have
been present in the same theatres over several decades there has not always been a
common or coherent dialogue between them on the threats facing civilian populations
and what each set of actors can or should do to reduce those threats. Important
questions remain about who is best placed to do what; what form interaction between
humanitarian and military actors should take; and what the most intelligent
assignment of working methods would be. In terms of ensuring more constructive
dialogue or interaction between these two sets of actors it is clear that the starting
point is to consider the differing concepts and terminology each use in reference to
protection of civilians.
Concepts of Protection: An Overview
Many actors can be involved in the enhancement of the protection environment for
civilians. States have the primary legal responsibility for protection, both in their
responsibilities towards their own citizens and in terms of the actions of their military
and police forces engaged in other countries. UN peacekeeping missions and/or
regional governmental organisations such as the African Union also have some
responsibilities in that respect, especially those mandated by the UN Security Council
to provide protection for civilian populations. Non-State armed groups also have
obligations under IHL and their respect for the legal framework is an important
contribution to the protection of civilians. From a different perspective, international
organisations such as the ICRC, which are legally mandated by member states, or
specialised UN entities such as UNHCR, UNICEF and OHCHR, which are mandated
by the UN General Assembly, have an important role in providing protection. These
mandates may be bound in time and subject to renewal. Lastly, NGOs and civil
society actors also have an important role to play.
The cultures, strategies and acceptable trade-offs in pursuit of the protection
objectives of international military and humanitarian actors are essentially different.
Most significantly, international military actors can pursue coercive means to achieve
physical protection of civilians, while humanitarian actors pursue non-coercive
means. However, even within these categories actors are not homogenous. There are
significant differences within both the international military and the humanitarian
community in how their members understand and operationalise the concept of
protection. Given this diversity, the key challenge is how humanitarians could
coordinate their strategies with international military actors to identify roles and
responsibilities and leverage available resources and capacities, with the aim of
3
maximising the benefits to the civilian population, all within the framework of
humanitarian principles.
The starting point in this regard is the concept itself. Protection is a broad term and
there is no shared definition between international military and humanitarian actors. It
is important to emphasise that protection is not restricted to physical security, but
rather that the term encompasses a broader spectrum of human security and human
dignity. Within international policy and operational debates, there are three common
interpretations of the term protection:
1. Protection as a set of legal obligations, for example those incumbent upon
parties to armed conflict according to IHL.
2. Protection as an overall objective (a result to be achieved). Aiming to see
the population better protected might often be an objective shared between
international military actors and humanitarian actors. However, it is also often
the case that these actors will differ in their prioritisation of protection as an
objective; protection of civilians may be a secondary objective for military
actors (for example as part of a stabilisation strategy), but it is invariably a
primary objective for humanitarian actors.
3. Protection as a concrete activity or set of activities. Humanitarian actors
now often undertake specific protection activities as part of their overall
humanitarian response. These may include quiet diplomacy or public
advocacy with state and non-state actors, refugee status determination, tracing
missing persons, providing legal assistance or information on rights. More
recently, professional standards have been developed by the ICRC to establish
a common baseline on humanitarian protection work. In that sense, the
protection activities which humanitarian actors may undertake are distinct
from legal action (e.g. prosecutions) or political action (e.g. sanctions,
advocacy) or military or security action (to provide physical protection),
which other actors may undertake even if all of these actions are aimed at
ensuring that the rights of the individual are respected.
Participants also raised concerns that greater emphasis must be placed on ensuring
that international humanitarian and military actors provide protection in reaction to
what the population considers as actual or perceived threats to their safety and
security. Proximity with the individual community under threat is therefore central
not only to identify those threats, but also to understand the vulnerability of civilian
populations to these threats and their resilience or capacity to cope or mitigate the
threat themselves.
The following matrix sets out the different concepts and types of action discussed.
4
HUMANITARIANS MILITARY
C
O
N
C
E
P
T
U
A
L

U
N
D
E
R
S
T
A
N
D
I
N
G
Core protection
activities/ protection
as a sector
Mainstreaming
protection
(safe
programming, do
no harm)
Protecting by
respecting rules
Implementing
protection activities
(e.g. as an external
peacekeeping/
mandated force)
Code of conduct
(individual
behaviour, not
directly related to
use of force)
Respect for
protective norms
while using force
(IHL, refugee law)
Enhancing PoC;
addressing external
threats
A
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
/
M
e
a
n
s

o
f

i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
Non-Coercive:
Depends on mandate and context,
includes the five modes common to
humanitarian action: denunciation,
mobilisation, persuasion, support and
substitution. It can take the form of legal
assistance, material assistance,
advocacy, training and public outreach.
Coercive:
Dependent on mandate and resources, includes
patrols, manoeuvres, kinetic engagement.
Stand-alone
protection
programmes
Integrating
protection
objectives in
existing
programmes
Training,
coaching
Offensive:
proactively
search out
threats with
aim of
defeating
belligerent
Responsive:
presence of
force as
deterrent, or
defensive action
R
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
e

f
o
r

P
o
C

a
g
e
n
d
a
Organisation mandated for
protection with a specific role
and accountability (status
determination for refugees; visits
to PoWs)
Humanitarian imperative:
protection as key priority to be
addressed
Legal
obligation:
compliance
with IHL,
refugee
law, IHRL
Tactical:
component
counter-
insurgency,
stabilisation/
integration
approach/
protection as a
subsidiary
objective
Mandated
responsibility
(e.g. UN SC
Res)
5
Concepts of Protection: Military/Security Doctrine and Practice
For international military actors, their role in protecting civilians depends first and
foremost on whether they are de facto a party to the conflict. The terms of reference
or mandate under which they are operating in a given context and the nature of their
actions might be a useful indicator in this respect. In a peace enforcement operation
for example they will likely be directly intervening in the conflict and may
proactively pursue other parties to the conflict. In a more traditional peacekeeping
situation, international forces are bound to impartially implement their protection of
civilians mandate. In other contexts international forces may be tasked to promote
regime change, and may become an occupying force. However, IHL applicability
must be determined solely on the basis of the facts on the ground and on the
fulfillment of legal criteria stemming from IHL-relevant norms, irrespective of the
mandate assigned to multinational forces by the Security Council.
From the perspective of a national military deployed as part of an international force,
experiences in Afghanistan and DRC demonstrate how their relationship to the
conflict and legal framework under which they engage shapes their understanding of
their role in protecting civilians. For example, in Afghanistan troop-contributing
countries (TCCs) to the NATO force saw themselves as undertaking combat
operations and therefore as combatants bound by IHL. For troop-contributing
countries in such contexts the obligation to comply with IHL is reflected in national
doctrine, and it is the responsibility of every soldier to adhere to this legal framework.
In others contexts, national militaries deployed as part of a UN peace support
operation are undertaking a UN peacekeeping role, which is understood differently. In
DRC for example, although MONUC (now MONUSCO) troops were bound by IHL
whenever they engaged in combat operations, their role in protection went beyond
their own respect for IHL and other pertinent rules, and included activities aimed at
proactively protecting the civilian population from threats posed by armed groups. In
either case, existing national doctrine may be problematic, since it may not have been
adapted to such scenarios or may not offer sufficient operational or tactical guidance
on how to prosecute a protection mandate.
For its part, UN DPKO has engaged in recent years in the development of various
doctrinal and operational guidance on protection of civilians in UN peacekeeping
missions and has outlined a holistic UN mission approach to protection through three
tiers of action: protection through political processes, protection from physical
violence and establishment of a protective environment. UN DPKOs
conceptualisation and its related doctrine and guidance on protection of civilians in
peacekeeping missions has been recognised and validated by a number of bilateral
and multilateral organisations. The African Union, for example, has similarly
emphasised the importance of a multi-dimensional approach to protection of civilians
and is integrating protection into the different dimensions of its security architecture,
through political, military and human rights mechanisms. In this regard, the AU Peace
and Security Commission has developed guidelines on protection of civilians, which
detail the responsibilities of the various pillars within the African Peace and Security
Architecture (APSA), including the Peace and Security Council, the Continental Early
Warning System, the African Stand-by Force (ASF), the Panel of the Wise and the
Peace Fund.
6
The European Union also acknowledges the importance of a comprehensive approach
to protection, notwithstanding the need to ensure a distinct role for humanitarian
action. However, whatever the international actor, there are key challenges in
implementing protection of civilians mandates, including ensuring adequate
capabilities to react to dynamic threats; the ability or willingness of the host nation to
support the UN mandate; effective engagement with non-state armed actors; and
managing the expectations of affected communities, who may simultaneously have
high expectations that international forces will protect them, but may also harbour
suspicions about the intentions of international actors in their country.
During discussions participants acknowledged that, since the first UN Security
Council resolution on the issue of protection of civilians in 1999, much has been
achieved at strategic, operational and tactical levels in terms of securing more
effective protection. However, participants also noted that progress has been slow
amongst individual member states and within multilateral organisations, including the
UN. Participants acknowledged that effective protection of civilians requires political,
military, security and humanitarian approaches or actions, but a number noted that
these operate within a political framework and that, in order to ensure effective action
on the ground, humanitarian action to support protection of civilians must remain a
distinct set of actions, outside of any political agenda.
Discussions highlighted further the operational challenges in implementing protection
mandates related to the leadership, capacities and guidance of international military
actors. Leadership was raised as a key factor in how protection of civilians objectives
were shaped and pursued in past UN peacekeeping missions. Participants highlighted
that UN Force Commanders need to interpret their mandate in light of a complex field
and political reality. In this regard they must be independent and able to place the
appropriate emphasis on implementation of tasks relating to their responsibilities with
regard to protection of civilians a responsibility that is often one of many within
their mandate.
Many participants also noted that, notwithstanding the recent efforts by UN DPKO,
the African Union and the European Union, there is still a significant gap in military
doctrine on operationalising protection of civilians mandates, beyond the necessary
respect for the legal framework (IHL, personal codes of conduct, relevant IHRL
norms). Some participants noted that the process of developing guidelines and
doctrines is also necessary for determining different responsibilities and capacities,
and to provide guidance on how military and humanitarian actors may interact in a
principled but effective manner. Several participants also raised the issue of lessons
learnt, noting that both the military and humanitarian communities generally
undertake lessons learnt on their own actions and responses, but these are rarely
shared widely and there is often little input or engagement from the other community,
even where they are operating in the same theatre.
With regard to training of military or police forces deployed under protection of
civilians mandates, there was clear consensus that a high level of pre-deployment-, in-
theatre and specialised training is essential to effectively prosecute protection
mandates. However, participants acknowledged that few TCCs are able or willing to
provide such specialised training, which often needs to be particular to the type of
7
violations occurring in a given context (such as SGBV training for UN/AU forces in
UNAMID). More comprehensive training on what is expected from troops in terms of
protection of civilians would improve capacity in peacekeeping situations. Some
participants noted that training on operationalising protection is also necessary for
police and other civilian components of a UN peace-support or other type of
multilateral mission. In this regard, a number of participants highlighted the important
contribution that civilian police contingents make to protection of civilians, and the
need for greater clarity on the distinction between police and military actions.
In addition, participants emphasised the importance of distinguishing between the
required compliance with IHL and activities that some participants believed went
above and beyond obligations under IHL to provide protection. In particular some
participants challenged the suggestion that embedded accountability mechanisms
such as those in Afghanistan may constitute actions that go beyond what is required
of the international forces under IHL. Participants nevertheless emphasised that these
are effective and important mechanisms through which to regulate implementation of
IHL, and that they have been effective inculcating a sense of responsibility within
international forces for civilian casualties.
Concepts of Protection: Humanitarian Policy and Practice
The imperative for humanitarian actors operating in conflict situations is to save lives
and alleviate the suffering which arises from violations of international humanitarian
and human rights laws. Whilst protection activities undertaken by humanitarian actors
can enhance the longer-term social and economic stability of individuals and
communities, which in turn may contribute to wider peace-consolidation objectives,
this outcome is a secondary consideration and cannot override the humanitarian
imperative.
Humanitarians are not in a position to provide physical protection, but may be able to
effect a reduction in the threats faced by civilian populations. This may be through
undertaking activities which build a protective environment and support resilience,
offering remedial care to victims and facilitating access to justice. Humanitarian
actors also identify deliberate deprivation of basic services and emergency assistance,
as well as the fear of violence that may undermine access to basic services and
assistance, as a serious protection threat.
In response to threats, humanitarian actors generally undertake two types of
protection activities:
1. Dedicated protection activities which seek to prevent actual abuses and the
fear of abuse.
2. Integrating protection concerns into other humanitarian activities,
referred to variously as do no harm, mainstreaming protection and good
programming.
Under the former approach, protection is a distinct set of objectives that stands alone.
The ICRC, for example, puts a strong emphasis on building a bilateral and
confidential dialogue with all actors involved in violence to address protection issues.
Standalone protection activities of this kind often require specialised staff that have
8
the expertise and resources to implement technical programmes. Mainstreaming
involves integrating protection concerns into ongoing humanitarian programmes or
action, such as designing or planning IDP or refugee camps so that latrines are sited in
well-lit safe areas of the camp, and accommodation is adequate and safe.
Humanitarian organisations have also been involved in developing conceptual tools.
To give one example, OCHA has played a lead role in updating the UN aide-memoire
on armed conflict. This is being revised to reflect the kinds of protection concerns
seen in conflict situations today, and is intended to assist the member states of the UN
Security Council in developing mandates with appropriate language on protection of
civilians.
However, it was also noted that humanitarian actors face a range of challenges in the
implementation of their protection work, including with respect to the changing
nature of conflict and violence against civilians, wherein the distinction between
armed conflict and generalised violence is often blurred, sexual violence has become
a defining feature or tactic in some conflict contexts and, finally, conflicts are often
protracted. Humanitarian actors also, many noted, face major challenges relating to
the politicisation of humanitarian assistance and the decreasing space for principled
humanitarian action, as well as high levels of insecurity and the consequent emphasis
among many humanitarian actors on protective risk mitigation strategies.
Commonalities and Differences
Discussants compared the changes that international humanitarian, military and
political communities had undergone over the last two decades, as a result of the
changing nature of conflict, and considered what more remains to be done to ensure
more constructive engagement between the two sets of actors aimed at enhancing the
protection of civilians. Discussants felt it important to recall the origins of the concept
the need to enhance the protection of civilians arose in the 1990s among
humanitarian actors as a pragmatic response to the well-fed dead: the realisation that
providing assistance to people would not be sufficient to save their lives and restore
their dignity in the face of continuous threats to their security. However, it is clear that
the dialogue between international humanitarian and military actors is not sufficient,
that key issues continue to be debated and that the two communities have failed to
find an appropriate way to engage with each other, impacting on their respective
ability to provide protection.
From a military perspective, developments in recent years relating to military doctrine
and strategies have been complex and many states have been slow to adapt their
national doctrinal framework to reflect the realities of modern warfare, including
protection of civilians and how the concept should be operationalised on the ground.
Counter-insurgency doctrine, for example, some participants argued, confuses state
security with the protection of civilians, although these are two different, if
interconnected, objectives. Counter-insurgency and stabilisation strategies often take
a similar approach in engaging with communities, but tactics may present real dangers
arming local militia to protect their communities, for example, is not the same as
building community resilience to protection threats and can generate new or
exacerbate existing threats to the civilian population. Few national militaries have
clear guidance on how protection of civilians can be addressed at operational or
9
tactical levels some participants considered this to be problematic, noting that
greater clarity is required to inform tactical decisions. Given the challenges in
protecting civilians, participants also highlighted the need to emphasise the role of
civilian police, ensuring appropriate use of civilian police versus military contingents.
A number of participants felt that the boundary between military and humanitarian
actors, including on protection, has become increasingly blurred and that it is essential
to better manage this relationship in order to maintain an informed but distinct set of
humanitarian actions. In this regard, while some participants highlighted the view that
it is important for international military and humanitarian actors to engage in joint
planning and even joint pre-deployment exercises in order to facilitate more effective
and principled coordination at operational levels, others were concerned about this
trend, as it might jeopardise the perceived neutrality and independence of
humanitarian action. There was general consensus however that some form of
interaction and constructive dialogue should nevertheless begin as early possible in a
crisis context, so that concerns relating to the protection of civilians can be factored in
and can shape how the interaction develops. This does not mean that humanitarians
should or must endorse the international political or security/military agenda that
other actors might have. Such interaction will require more openness from the
military to consider protection of civilians as a primary objective and not simply a
means to another end (i.e. to win hearts and minds); such a shift might in turn
influence their overarching military objectives and strategies and tactics.
Concerns about information-sharing were raised as a major obstacle to better
interaction. Some participants asserted that, compared to the military, humanitarian
NGOs often have deep field access which the UN does not, or relationships with
communities which give them privileged information on how violence affects the
population and on the perceived threats. However, at present there is, in many
contexts, a level of distrust that prevents NGOs from participating in information-
sharing forums for fear that, in UN integration mission contexts, information they
provide to UN agency partners might be passed to UN military actors or otherwise
used in an inappropriate manner. Other participants highlighted that guidelines on
data collection and data management are available, such as the ICRC Professional
Standards for Protection Work, and that greater adherence to these guidelines is
paramount to avoid risks for the individuals and communities concerned and for
humanitarian actors themselves. Participants also noted that there is an important
difference in terms of sharing data on individuals and/or specific incidents and global
trend analysis, with the latter being less sensitive. Some participants also challenged
the view that NGOs are always closer to affected communities, arguing that in some
instances military actors have greater field presence and engagement with affected
communities than humanitarian actors. This example was used to emphasise the
importance of dialogue and interaction, noting that assumptions about the way of
working of these two sets of actors are not always accurate.
Participants suggested that a number of ways forward could be found, including in the
assessment of protection threats facing communities. Whilst sharing detailed analysis
was not likely to be acceptable or appropriate in some contexts, sharing of general
analysis of protection threats or at least factors to be considered in developing
analysis would be constructive. This would allow a mutual understanding of the
prioritisation each actor makes when defining its protection strategy. Participants also
10
discussed ways to increase sharing of lessons learnt on respective actions aimed at
protecting civilians, and lessons learnt in relation to the interaction between
international military and humanitarian actors operating in the same theatre. Whilst
there was some concern from some participants, many articulated that sharing of
lessons learnt and evaluations would be valuable and, where possible or appropriate,
engagement of both sets of actors in lessons learnt processes would also be useful.
Conclusions and Next Steps
Participants concurred that the protection of civilians agenda will ultimately be
limited by the fact that responsibility lies primarily with states, and that remedial
action to provide protection can rarely address pre-existing threats. Progress on
creating a protective environment and reducing threats also requires engagement with
armed non-state actors themselves, which may be hampered by the host state,
international legislation or the reluctance of these groups to engage in peace processes
or to discuss protection issues with external actors. There was consensus amongst
participants that international humanitarian and military contributions cannot
substitute for political decisions. There was also general agreement that no one actor
can address all protection threats facing civilian populations in conflict situations, and
that different actors have different roles and responsibilities. In that respect, there are
also important roles for other law enforcement, political, human rights and
development actors, which should be taken into account when designing protection
strategies.
In reference to the different ways that military and humanitarian actors understand the
concept of protection, three key areas of overlap or commonality were identified:
1. Promoting adherence by all parties to conflict, including international
military and police forces, to IHL and IHRL.
2. Reducing community threats and vulnerabilities (for the military this
would likely be through coercive means, or the possibility of force; for
humanitarian actors, this would be through non-coercive means).
3. Building a protective environment.
Participants accepted that international humanitarian and military actors do not share
a common repertoire on the protection of civilians, but agreed that both sets of actors
can and do make an effective contribution to protecting affected populations in
conflict and other crisis contexts. Their diverse ways of engaging and understanding
protection of civilians also gives rise to a spectrum of possibilities for interaction and
dialogue, all within the IASC definition of civilmilitary coordination or
CMCOORD. In particular participants identified scope for interaction in the three key
areas set out above.
There was consensus that the contributions which international military and
humanitarian actors can each make in these three areas would be improved by more
effective and constructive dialogue. Although there remain concerns, particularly
amongst some humanitarians, about the nature of engagement between the two sets of
actors, participants agreed that there are a number of practical ways in which
engagement could be strengthened, including in relation to sharing of conflict or
threat analysis and planning, and exchange of lessons learnt.