Neutrality,_Solidaridy

Before we go any further to answering our question, we need to briefly refer to the history of the Geneva Convention and to do that we must first refer to the International Humanitarian Law (IHL). *New humanitarianism* is the *integration* of human rights and peace *building* into humanitarian orbit, the ending of the distinction between development and humanitarian *relief* and the rejection of the principle of neutrality that we mention above (Fox, 2001). As far as the distinction between humanitarian goal and the human rights approach are concerned, the main goal of the humanitarian approach is to eliminate human suffering and problems in grave situations, whereas the human rights approach tends to emphasize the condition of such situations that relate to current or past violations of relevant legal obligations, such as to constitute abuse or denial of rights (Darcy, 2004) Conventional humanitarianism is duty based rather than rights based. However, there is no inconsistency between rights and aims. In fact, they are both concerned with the prevention of purposeful violence, violation of human rights, assault, discrimination and it is ensured that the laws aiming at protecting people are enforced. Development relief establishes a grave shift from older- more traditional humanitarian values to newer principles that give priority to saving lives. Additionally, according to the latest alterations, prevention of wars and enforcement of justice and fairness are the major means of protecting human lives. The consequence of this modification is the need for adapting the older principles. However, a principle that should never be ignored is that of offering humanitarian aid whenever it is deemed necessary. For instance, in cases that people die because of inability to cover the necessities of life. Furthermore, new humanitarianism is the concept of development relief. Fox, explain that relief and development during the Cold war was considered to be distinct and discrete. But the protracted and complex nature of the today’s wars has forced humanitarians to rethink the link between the two. Development relief marks a fundamental shift from traditional humanitarian principles. Unlike many goals implicit in long-term development, humanitarian relief was notable for its minimalist aim of saving life. Development relief has presented the notion that using humanitarian aid to promote peace and justice will save more lives in the long term. The traditional principles forged throughout the last century need to be adapted to new wars. One principle that we must never forget is the principle of universality, everyone has the right to receive humanitarian relief in times of crisis. People dying without the primary needs, should receive unconditional humanitarian aid. Of course humanitarian aid cannot be divorced from politics. Warring sides, foreign governments and international agencies can manipulate relief for political ends. Fighting for the universal right to unconditional humanitarian relief in times of crisis seems good place to start in defining a new set of humanitarian principles. Otherwise the moral failures of the humanitarian system of the 20th will start to pale in comparison to the betrayals of the new century. *New humanitarianism has been created by the late 20th century crisis and hardships faced by people in developing Third world countries .* Humanitarianism has come to offer new solutions to overcome problems and past inabilities to solve problems. Basically, new humanitarianism is political as there is political consciousness which can evaluate the present and future effect of aid interventions on the politics of conflict and make sure that aid coupled with military and diplomatic *taction* are compatible and effective as resolution strategies. *Obviously ,* any effort move beyond the traditional humanitarian principles that have guided aid agencies for the past century but are now undervalued {draw:frame} {draw:frame}