Category: International Organizations and Agreements

Background

Humanitarian efforts have evolved in the 21st century, largely driven by the goal of aid organizations to optimize their impact and reduce costs. One significant change is the rise in the use of cash and voucher assistance (CVA) programs, which now constitute a larger portion of aid initiatives. CVA involves giving recipients direct cash or electronic funds as humanitarian aid, different from in-kind support that provides specific items like food and water. The shift towards more CVA and less in-kind aid reflects a shift towards a rights-based approach to humanitarian assistance, replacing the traditional charity-based model. This change in approach has also led nations like the United States to focus more on the humanitarian system.

CVA’s expansion as a humanitarian aid approach has largely been driven by the Cash Learning Partnership (CALP) since 2005. CALP works to amplify CVA programs carried out by various humanitarian agencies. American government bodies responsible for U.S. aid programs, like USAID and the Department of State, collaborate with CALP directly, incorporating their guidance into the implementation of CVA. CALP has outlined its five main roles as follows:

1. Capacity Building – Provide individual humanitarian organizations with training and workshops that will enhance their ability to deliver quality CVA programming.
2. Coordination – Connect carriers of CVA programming and humanitarian organizations in order to improve the consistency and quality of cash aid provisions as well as solidify coordination mechanisms between actors.
3. Knowledge Management – Establish a forum for CVA actors to exchange knowledge and experience about cash-based aid programming and solidify coordination efforts in information.
4. Research – Conduct research regarding CVA and build an evidence base in order to provide the best policy recommendations and improve the quality of CVA programs.
5. Policy – Generate policy recommendations with a primary focus on improving the efficacy and efficiency of CVA worldwide. Builds structured policy through conventions and debates between a diverse set of voices, much of which is highlighted in the State of the World’s Cash Report.

Positive Attributes of CVA

CVA offers beneficiaries more flexibility compared to in-kind aid. This reduces their vulnerability, as they can obtain needed resources faster. CALP studies show that recipients prefer cash because it provides choice and control, allowing them to buy what they need locally. In-kind aid may not always match their requirements, leading to less efficient humanitarian efforts as beneficiaries seek alternative means for necessary funds. CVA has been found to be effective across humanitarian aid types, including general and reproductive health, nutrition, poverty, gender, and labor market.

Corruption and Misuse in CVA Aid Channels

Opponents argue that CVA is uniquely susceptible to corruption. Corruption exists in regular aid distribution channels, but intermediary officials are more capable of siphoning liquid cash compared to physical resources. This problem is more pronounced in countries with higher corruption rates, which often require more assistance.

Flexibility offers choice but also raises the potential for recipients to mismanage funds. Critics contend that people in need are more likely to misuse cash compared to in-kind aid. While opponents acknowledge that aid misuse exists in both CVA and in-kind aid, they assert that cash, being less controlled and more versatile, provides greater opportunities for recipients to mishandle resources compared to physical goods and services.

Inflation Caused by CVA

Some economists opposing the growth of CVA also highlight that increased flow of cash in local economies where CVA programs are prominent inflates the prices of popular commodities, thus countering the intended effect by making needed resources less accessible to low income residents. A study on CVA programs in the Philippines found that the cash inflow caused by CVA has a larger direct impact on the market and prices, creating negative spillover for non-beneficiary households.

An alternative to CVA is Universal Ultra Basic Income (UUBI), which suggests providing reduced financial support to populations in remote or impoverished regions to avoid inflation. Instead, UUBI targets the poorest households, aiming to enhance economic conditions through targeted cash assistance.

Efficiency of CVA

CALP’s research underscores the current inefficiencies in implementing CVA programs. A primary cause is the lack of coordination among organizations involved in CVA and humanitarian aid as a whole. The current network for cash-based aid includes duplications and parallel projects, resulting in higher costs and wastage compared to in-kind aid. CALP acts as a bridge between humanitarian groups, working to streamline this network through agreements and improved communication among partners. This has enhanced the global efficiency, scalability, and sustainability of CVA as a form of aid. In the United States, despite some skepticism, government departments responsible for humanitarian aid, such as the Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration in the Department of State (DOS), have shown support for CALP’s goals of more efficient and widespread CVA programming.

Recent research is focusing on the cost-effectiveness of CVA, especially electronic CVA. Since aid distribution often occurs in-region, the electronic infrastructure may not be sufficiently advanced to manage the complex cash and large transactions required by certain CVA programs. To mitigate the cost inefficiencies resulting from inadequate technology, CALP suggests collaborating with local agencies prior to developing CVA frameworks to address regional variations. Therefore, there is a suggested connection between improving program efficiency and reducing costs by enhancing coordination and communication among organizations, which is in line with CALP’s operational priorities.

Specific choices in CVA programming might affect the impact on beneficiaries. One area of contention is whether attaching conditions to cash assistance (called conditional CVA) is more effective than providing cash without conditions (known as unconditional CVA). A study of Mexico’s PROGRESA/Oportunidades, a well-established CVA program, challenges the notion that conditional CVA leads to significant economic growth. It points out that wealthier families, who are less in need but can meet the aid requirements, tend to benefit more than low and middle-income families who are in greater need. However, some critics argue that more precisely targeted conditional CVA programs could address this issue highlighted by the study.

International fisheries management is the combined efforts of nations across the globe to ensure long-term operational success of fisheries and marine resources. It depends on setting realistic policies and establishing regulations that take both marine conservation and the economies of fishing communities into account. International fisheries management is crucial to ensuring that the global ocean system remains healthy enough to sustain global fishery needs, from feeding citizens to maintaining conservation of natural resources.

At the root of international fisheries management is the challenge of reducing illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing. 

• Illegal fishing directly breaches international or regional fishing law. 
• Unreported fishing is a lack of reporting or intentional misreporting of fishing activities to Regional Fisheries Management Organizations (RFMOs).
• Unregulated fishing is fishing that occurs in areas outside of the vessel’s nationality, or in areas where conservation and management measures are not in place. 

IUU fishing threatens economic and environmental damage to the global ocean system and global fishing economy. Countries currently employ similar strategies to combat IUU fishing, and join forces to do so by forming Regional Fisheries Management Organizations (RFMOs). The European Commission writes that RFMOs are “open both to countries in the region (‘coastal states’) and countries that have interests in those fisheries (‘distant water fishing nations’).” Regional Fisheries Management Organizations (RFMOs) allow for countries to work together toward common goals in their fisheries.

The European Union (EU), United States (US), and Canada are three big players in current management strategies, with similar strategies, policies, and regulations to combat IUU fishing. The EU verifies marine fishery products with catch certificates and the correct flag state—only these verified products are allowed to enter the EU. The European Commission acts as the governing enforcement body on behalf of the EU Member States of illegal fishing activities, carding countries and states that fail to regulate IUU fishing. The Interagency Working Group belongs to the US, and combines 21 government agencies for a cohesive and comprehensive approach to combating IUU fishing. The group is developing a five-year strategy to decrease IUU fishing through a combination of increased surveillance, encouragement of sustainable fishing practices, and assurance that only legal and reported seafood enters trade systems. Lastly, in Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) is working to combat overfishing, with the long-term goal of creating and maintaining sustainable fisheries. They have stopped overfishing in the North Atlantic Ocean, and are working toward doing so in the North Pacific Ocean. The DFO is focused on increasing surveillance and monitoring at sea, specifically on traceability and certification. The fisheries enforcement agencies of the EU, US, and Canada have made surveillance, certification, and conservation the focal point of their approach to international fisheries management. However, through time, many have critiqued their management strategies. 

Critiques of Fisheries Management Strategies

The paradox of fisheries management is balancing conservation/environmental needs with social/economic needs. Much of environmental and public policy is dynamic, including international fisheries management—however, many critiques have remained consistent since fishery management entered mainstream public policy in the 1970s. These issues are “the innovativeness of fishermen in seeking ways to improve their harvests” and “changing social priorities that are largely unpredictable and outside the control of fisheries managers.” This suggests that the challenges faced nearly 50 years ago are still present today, and that there is a stasis in management strategies.

Countries that fail to combat illegal fishing sufficiently in the eyes of the EU can receive a red or yellow card from the Commission. Failures include legal gaps, a lack of control over vessels, poor conservation measures and management structures, failure in cooperation with regional and multilateral bodies, and failures in traceability and fish processing. Individual countries have the responsibility to ensure that laws against illegal fishing are clear, and consistently enforce them through fleet surveillance. Furthermore, they must base conservation methods on scientific fact. 

Conservationists argue that there are causes beyond overfishing and the environment impacting crises in the world’s fisheries. They argue that a conservationist approach that is “less sensitive to the inadequate results of fisheries science” must be employed to ensure future success of fisheries.

Successes of Fisheries Management Strategies

Clear and direct rules that outline best practices for transshipment (the transfer of catch between vessels at sea) will ensure that IUU fishing cannot occur, and the seafood supply chain can be monitored every step of the way, providing accurate data to countries about transshipment processes at sea. Global Fishing Watch’s Carrier Vessel Portal is a further success that speaks to the worldwide effort to increase transparency and surveillance at sea. This online tool uses “satellite data, machine learning technology and information provided by RFMOs to identify and display potential transshipment activity in near real time.” The challenge in regulating and encouraging best practices for transshipment is oftentimes the distance between land and the transshipment process, which is occurring out at sea. This tool provides surveillance and transparency in the transshipment process, removing some of that mystery. 

Increased conservation measures are a success in international fisheries management. The International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) has set a quota for blue sharks, which are often caught in tuna fisheries, and the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) and the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC) have completely prohibited capture and retention of manta and mobula rays in the Indo-Pacific ocean region.

Successful international fisheries management depends on the collective effort and collaboration between nations in order to achieve a future ocean that is sustainable and healthy. Recent advances in technology have allowed for increased surveillance, thus decreasing IUU fishing. While many of the challenges that face international fisheries management strategies have not changed in decades, RFMOs and UNCLOS are making positive strides in creating legislation that acknowledges global dependence on fisheries, while also keeping conservation and longevity in mind.

The Geneva Conventions are a series of international treaties whose development began in 1864 and culminated in 1949. The goal of the first convention was to protect and preserve the health and dignity of captured persons during armed conflict. After the events of WWII, the 1949 convention took on new humanitarian importance and managed to gain ratification by every UN member state. The standards set forth by the Geneva Conventions remain the preeminent guidelines for international human rights during war. Additional protocols were added to the Geneva Conventions in 1977 which have not been ratified by the United States.

Key Provisions

The first exemplary component comes from article three, section one of the 1949 treaty. Regarding people who took no action in the hostilities, including soldiers who laid down their arms, were injured, or were detained, this clause prohibits acts such as:

a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; b) taking of hostages; c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment; d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court.

As these restrictions show, the conventions prioritize the twin pillars of physical health and moral dignity. Another excerpt from article twenty-seven of the 1949 treaty asserts a similar goal in stating:

Protected persons are entitled, in all circumstances, to respect for their persons, their honour, their family rights, their religious convictions and practices, and their manners and customs. They shall at all times be humanely treated, and shall be protected especially against all acts of violence or threats thereof and against insults and public curiosity.

Though well intentioned, these protections only apply during periods of armed conflict. This is just one of the many limitations that affect the ability of the Geneva Conventions to adequately protect the safety and dignity of people affected by violent conflict. 

Weak Enforcement of Policies

The main body of enforcement for the Geneva Conventions is the International Criminal Court (ICC) which was established in 2002. For more specific information on the ICC, check out the ACE brief here. The ICC’s creation was an important step towards enforcement, however its effectiveness in holding violators to account has been constrained by its ties to the United Nations. The five permanent members of the UN Security Council (UNSC) have used their veto power to constrain the ICC’s ability to investigate potential war crimes, even if the nations are not party to the ICC themselves. The UNSC influence has played a major permissive role in recent violations of the Geneva Conventions, as the following examples will highlight. 

Following the invasion of Iraq in 2003, British soldiers were accused of war crimes violations related to their treatment of Iraqi detainees. A report from ICC prosecutor Fatou Bensouda confirmed that “there is a reasonable basis to believe that members of the British armed forces committed the war crimes of wilful killing, torture, inhuman/cruel treatment, outrages upon personal dignity, and rape and/or other forms of sexual violence.” Nonetheless, Bensouda concedes that British authorities lacked the necessary forensic evidence needed to secure convictions for the offenses. The UK did not directly prevent the ICC from investigating the conduct of its armed forces. However, the geopolitical influence wielded by the UK exempted it from the level of international scrutiny often faced by other states. 

UNSC veto power has allowed Geneva violations stemming from the Syrian civil war to go unpunished. The Russian-backed Assad regime has been accused of intentionally targeting civilians throughout the conflict. While this should have provided the basis to refer Syria to an ICC investigation, Russia and China have both used their veto power to prevent this from happening. The Syrian government benefits immensely from its alliance with Russia because the regime has been able to commit war crimes and atrocities with limited accountability. Therefore, the ICC’s affiliation with the UN restricts its ability to enforce the Geneva Conventions because the P5 nations seek to protect their respective alliance commitments.

Since the state’s creation in 1948, Israel has beena accused of trying to solidify its physical and cultural security by displacing the Palestinian Arab population in order to permit the settlement of Jewish immigrants from around the world. This could represent a violation of article forty-nine of the fourth Geneva treaty, which states that an occupying power may not transfer its own civilian population into the occupied territory. The same article also prevents the forceful transfer or deportation of protected persons from the occupied territories, an offense of which Israel has also been accused of. It is important to note that these arguments are highly disputed. Earlier this year, the ICC stated its ambition to investigate war crimes committed in Israeli and Palestinian territories since 2014. Israel’s Prime Minister at the time, Benjamin Netanyahu, issued a statement that the nation would not cooperate with an ICC investigation because he viewed it as rooted in antisemitism. The investigation is planned to move forward with or without Israeli support. It is unclear whether Israel’s Western allies, namely the United States, would leverage their influence to prevent the imposition of major punishments. 

ConclusionAs these examples have shown, the enforcement of the Geneva Conventions by the ICC has been limited substantially by UN associations and other geopolitical relationships among states. The result has been that not every instance of violation is treated the same. Investigations can proceed freely, as long as they do not interfere with the interests and alliances of influential nations, such as Russia, the United Kingdom, or the United States. It is this conflict between humanitarian justice and national interests that continues to stunt the effectiveness of the Conventions in dealing with modern conflict. The United States’ refusal to ratify the additional protocols and the ICC represents an effort to distance national interests from court proceedings. In other words, leaders tend to favor flexibility (and the ability to avoid accountability) over binding commitments in the name of abstract values. As a non-party, the US is able to avoid direct scrutiny of its wartime conduct by bodies like the ICC. In recent years, the US government has gone so far as to take up a confrontational posture towards the court. The Trump administration attempted to further limit the court’s ability to investigate US activity, and even imposed sanctions on ICC officials (these have since been ended by the Biden administration and Secretary of State Anthony Blinken). While the current administration has seemed more favorable towards the ICC, full endorsement and ratification remain unlikely. While the Geneva Conventions remain an important component of international law and global human rights, competing domestic and international commitments have undermined enforcement on numerous occasions.