1 IFRC, World Disasters Report 2018: Leaving No One Behind, Geneva, 2018, p. 168Google Scholar. According to this report, in the last decade (2008–17) more than 3,700 natural hazards have been recorded, 2 billion individuals have been affected by such events, around 700,000 people have lost their lives as a result of disasters, and damages have been estimated at $1.65 trillion. Such data do not include technological hazards, armed conflicts or conflict-related famine.

2 de Guttry, Andrea, “Surveying the Law”, in de Guttry, Andrea, Gestri, Marco and Venturini, Gabriella (eds), International Disaster Response Law, Springer, Berlin, 2012, p. 4CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 Caron, David, “Preface”, in Caron, David, Kelly, Michael and Telesetsky, Anastasia (eds), The International Law of Disaster Relief, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2014, p. xxCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4 Fisher, David, “Domestic Regulation of International Humanitarian Relief in Disasters and Armed Conflict: A Comparative Analysis”, International Review of the Red Cross, Vol. 89, No. 866, 2007, p. 353CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5 Fisher, David, “The Future of International Disaster Response Law”, German Yearbook of International Law, Vol. 55, 2012, p. 89Google Scholar.

6 See the failure of the 1984 Draft Convention on Expediting the Delivery of Emergency Assistance, UN Doc. A/39/267/Add.2–E/1984/96/Add.2, 18 June 1984, elaborated at the initiative of the UN Disaster Relief Coordinator.

7 Convention Establishing an International Relief Union, 135 LNTS 247, 12 July 1927 (entered into force 27 December 1932). Due to multiple elements such as financial shortcomings, lack of support by involved States and increasing isolationism, the International Relief Union was largely ineffective in the 1930s and attempts to reactivate it in the aftermath of World War II failed, thus leading to the transfer of its assets to the UN Economic and Social Council in 1967. See MacAlister-Smith, Peter, “The International Relief Union: Reflections on Establishing an International Relief Union of July 12, 1927”, Legal History Review, Vol. 54, 1986Google Scholar.

8 Allan, Craig and O'Donnell, Therese, “A Call to Alms? Natural Disasters, R2P, Duties of Cooperation and Unchartered Consequences”, Journal of Conflict and Security Law, Vol. 17, No. 3, 2012, p. 345CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

9 E.g. Convention on Assistance in the Case of a Nuclear Accident or Radiological Emergency, 1457 UNTS 134, 26 September 1986 (entered into force 26 February 1987).

10 See in particular the Tampere Convention on the Provision of Telecommunication Resources for Disaster Mitigation and Relief Operations, 2296 UNTS 5, 18 June 1998 (entered into force 8 January 2005).

11 For instance, only forty-nine States are parties to the Tampere Convention, above note 10.

12 For an overview of regional instruments, see the database of the International Disaster Law Project, available at: http://disasterlaw.sssup.it/disasters-database/list-of-instruments-included-in-the-database/ (all internet references were accessed in December 2018). On the “regionalization” of international disaster law, see IFRC, Law and Legal Issues in International Disaster Response: A Desk Study, Geneva, 2007, pp. 62–79.

13 See Constitutive Act of the African Union, 2158 UNTS 3, 11 July 2000 (entered into force 26 May 2001), Art. 13(1)(e); Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, 2702 UNTS 3, 13 December 2007 (entered into force 1 December 2009), Art. 196.

14 For instance, the Inter-American Convention to Facilitate Disaster Assistance elaborated by the Organization of American States in 1991 and entered into force on 16 October 1996 (available at: www.oas.org/juridico/english/sigs/a-54.html) has only six States Parties. For the irrelevance of the Arab Cooperation Agreement on Regulating and Facilitating Relief Operations, concluded by the League of Arab States in 1987, see IFRC, above note 12, p. 78. An unofficial English translation of this treaty is available at: www.ifrc.org/Docs/idrl/N644EN.pdf.

15 A. de Guttry, above note 2, pp. 11–17.

16 For a survey, see the International Disaster Law Project database, above note 12. See also Cubie, Dug, “An Analysis of Soft Law Applicable to Humanitarian Assistance: Relative Normativity in Action?”, Journal of International Humanitarian Legal Studies, Vol. 2, No. 2, 2011Google Scholar; Natoli, Tommaso, “Non-State Humanitarian Actors and Human Rights in Disaster Scenarios: Normative Role, Standard Setting and Accountability”, in Giustiniani, Flavia Zorzi, Sommario, Emanuele, Casolari, Federico and Bartolini, Giulio (eds), Routledge Handbook of Human Rights and Disasters, Routledge, London, 2018Google Scholar.

17 For example, the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction, UN Doc. A/RES/ 69/283, 23 June 2015 (Sendai Framework).

18 Pauwelyn, Joost, Wessel, Ramses and Wouters, Jan (eds), Informal International Lawmaking, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2012CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

19 African Union Convention for the Protection and Assistance of Internally Displaced Persons in Africa (Kampala Convention), 23 October 2009 (entered into force 6 December 2012), Art. 1(q), available at: https://au.int/en/treaties/african-union-convention-protection-and-assistance-internally-displaced-persons-africa.

20 Sivakumaran, Sandesh, “Techniques in International Law-Making: Extrapolation, Analogy, Form and the Emergence of an International Law of Disaster Relief”, European Journal of International Law, Vol. 28, No. 4, 2017, pp. 1103–1104CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

21 For the text of the IDRL Guidelines, see the Annex to Resolution 4 of the 30th International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent, reproduced in IFRC/ICRC, Report of the 30th International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent, Geneva, 2007, pp. 51–58.

22 For an assessment, see IFRC, Ready or Not? Third Progress Report on the Implementation of the IDRL Guidelines, Geneva, 2015, pp. 7–9.Google Scholar

23 ILC, Report of the International Law Commission: Fifty-Ninth Session (7 May–5 June and 9 July–10 August 2007), UN Doc. A/62/10, 2007, p. 230, para. 375.

24 See comments and observations received from governments and international organizations, UN Doc. A/CN.4/696, 14 March 2016, and UN Doc. A/CN.4/696/Add.1, 28 April 2016.

25 ILC, Report of the International Law Commission: Sixty-Sixth Session (5 May–6 June and 7 July–8 August 2014), UN Doc. A/69/10, 2014, para. 55. For an analysis of the text adopted on first reading, see Giulio Bartolini, Tommaso Natoli and Alice Riccardi, Report of the Expert Meeting on the ILC's Draft Articles on the Protection of Persons in the Event of Disasters, International Law and Disasters Working Papers Series, Vol. 3, 2015, available at: http://disasterlaw.sssup.it/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Bartolini-Natoli-Riccardi-Report-of-the-Expert-Meeting-2015-DEF.pdf.

26 For the text of the DAs with commentaries, see ILC, Report of the International Law Commission: Sixty-Eighth Session (2 May–10 June and 4 July–12 August 2016), UN Doc. A/71/10, 2016 (DAs Report), pp. 13–73, available at: http://legal.un.org/ilc/reports/2016/english/a_71_10.pdf. The text of the DAs is also reproduced in Annex 1, below.

27 DAs Report, above note 26, p. 13, para. 46.

28 See Cogan, Jacob Katz, “The Changing Form of the International Law Commission's Work”, in Virzo, Roberto and Ingravallo, Ivan (eds), Evolutions in the Law of International Organizations, Brill, Leiden and Boston, MA, 2015Google Scholar.

29 ILC, Report of the International Law Commission, Fifty-Eighth Session (1 May–9 June and 3 July–11 August 2006), UN Doc. A/61/10, 2006, para. 46.

30 See the ILC recommendations regarding the Draft Articles on Responsibility of States (ILC, Report of the International Law Commission: Fifty-Third Session (23 April–1 June and 2 July–10 August 2001), UN Doc. A/56/10, 2001, paras 72–73), the Draft Articles on the Law of Transboundary Aquifers (ILC, Report of the International Law Commission: Sixtieth Session (5 May–6 June and 7 July–8 August 2008), UN Doc. A/63/10, 2008, para. 49), the Draft Articles on Responsibility of International Organizations (ILC, Report of the International Law Commission, Sixty-Third Session (26 April–3 June and 4 July–12 August 2011), UN Doc. A/66/10, 2011, para. 85) and the Draft Articles on the Effects of Armed Conflicts on Treaties (ibid., para. 97).

31 For a similar approach related to the Draft Articles on State Responsibility, see David Caron, “The ILC Articles on State Responsibility: The Paradoxical Relationship between Form and Authority”, American Journal of International Law, Vol. 96, No. 4, 2002, p. 862.

32 See, for example, the Draft Articles on the Law of Transboundary Aquifers, with commentaries, in ILC, Report of the International Law Commission, Sixtieth Session (5 May–6 June and 7 July–8 August 2008), UN Doc. A/63/10, 2008, para. 53).

33 UN Doc. A/RES/71/141, 13 December 2016, para. 2.

34 UN Doc. A/RES/73/209, 20 December 2018.

35 According to Article 15 of the Statute of the ILC adopted in 1947, “the expression ‘codification of international law’ is used for convenience as meaning the more precise formulation and systematization of rules of international law in fields where there already has been extensive State practice, precedent and doctrine”.

36 DAs Report, above note 26, pp. 17–18, para. 2.

37 See Murphy, Sean D., “Protection of Persons in the Event of Disasters and Other Topics: The Sixty-Eighth Session of the International Law Commission”, American Journal of International Law, Vol. 110, No. 4, 2016, p. 719CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Tladi, Dire, “The International Law Commission's Draft Articles on the Protection of Persons in the Event of Disasters: Codification, Progressive Development or Creation of Law from Thin Air?”, Chinese Journal of International Law, Vol. 16, No. 3, 2017, p. 426CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

38 For comments made by States, international organizations, the ICRC and the IFRC, see above note 24.

39 S. Sivakumaran, above note 20, p. 1131.

40 See for instance, the analysis below regarding procedural obligations on notifications provided in Articles 12.2, 13.3 and 17 of the DAs.

41 As an example see Eduardo Valencia-Ospina, Seventh Report on the Protection of Persons in the Event of Disasters, UN Doc. A/CN.4/668, 27 February 2014, paras 15–24, with references to universal, regional and bilateral treaties, UN General Assembly resolutions, recommendations of the Council of Europe, and documents of the Institut de Droit International (IDI), IFRC, Inter-Agency Standing Committee and UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs.

42 Walter Kälin, “How Hard is Soft Law? The Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement and the Need for a Normative Framework”, 19 December 2001, p. 6, available at: www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/20011219.pdf. The Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement are cited in the commentary to the DAs on several occasions: see DAs Report, above note 26, pp. 30–31, 60. On this issue see Pronto, Arnold, “Understanding the Hard/Soft Distinction in International Law”, Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, Vol. 48, No. 4, 2015Google Scholar.

43 For a preliminary assessment that international disaster law shares fundamental principles with other branches of international law, see Eduardo Valencia-Ospina, Preliminary Report on the Protection of Persons in the Event of Disasters, UN Doc. A/CN.4/598, 5 May 2008, paras 20, 24.

44 On this concept see Nthakomwa, Martin, “Cycles of a Disaster”, in Penuel, Bradley and Statler, Matt (eds), Encyclopedia of Disaster Relief, SAGE Publications, New York, 2011Google Scholar.

45 Peel, Jacqueline and Fisher, David, “International Law at the Intersection of Environmental Protection and Disaster Risk Reduction”, in Peel, Jacqueline and Fisher, David (eds), The Role of International Environmental Law in Disaster Risk Reduction, Brill, Leiden and Boston, BA 2016, p. 11CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

46 See para. 5 of the preamble, reproduced in Annex 1 below.

47 DAs Report, above note 26, p. 26, para. 20.

48 Salomons, Dirk, “The Perils of Dunantism: The Need for a Rights-Based Approach to Humanitarianism”, in Zwitter, Andrej (ed.), Humanitarian Action: Global, Regional and Domestic Legal Responses, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2014Google Scholar; Costa, Karen da and Pospieszna, Paulina, “The Relationship between Human Rights and Disaster Risk Reduction Revisited: Bringing the Legal Perspective into the Discussion”, Journal of International Humanitarian Legal Studies, Vol. 6, No. 1, 2015, pp. 67–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

49 Kälin, Walter, “The Human Rights Dimension of Natural or Human-Made Disasters”, German Yearbook of International Law, Vol. 55, 2012, p. 132Google Scholar.

50 Ramcharan, Bertrand, “Human Rights and Human Security”, Disarmament Forum, Vol. 1, No. 1, 2004, p. 42Google Scholar.

51 DAs Report, above note 26, p. 20, para. 1.

52 The Resolution on Humanitarian Assistance, adopted by the IDI at the Bruges session held in 2003, is reproduced in International Review of the Red Cross, Vol. 86, No. 856, 2004, pp. 874–878. On this document, see Kolb, Robert, “De l'assistance humanitaire: La Résolution sur l'assistance humanitaire adoptée par l'Institut de droit international lors de sa Session de Bruges en 2003”, International Review of the Red Cross, Vol. 86, No. 856, 2004Google Scholar.

53 Hafner, Gerhard, “Doctrinal Views versus State Views on Humanitarian Assistance in the Event of Disasters: Comparing the Work of the Institut de Droit International with that of the International Law Commission”, in Wolfrum, Rüdiger, Seršić, Maja and Šošić, Trpimir (eds), Contemporary Developments in International Law: Essays in Honour of Budislav Vukas, Brill, Leiden and Boston, MA, 2016, p. 520Google Scholar.

54 D. Tladi, above note 37, p. 429.

55 E. Valencia-Ospina, above note 43, p. 152.

56 For an overview, see Giulio Bartolini, “A Taxonomy of Disasters in International Law”, in F. Zorzi Giustiniani et al. (eds), above note 16.

57 DAs Report, above note 26, p. 22, para. 4.

58 Ibid., p. 23, para. 4.

59 Ibid., p. 23, para. 4.

60 See Quarantelli, Enrico Louis (ed.), What Is a Disaster? Perspectives on the Question, Routledge, New York, 1998Google Scholar; Perry, Ronald and Quarantelli, Enrico Louis (eds), What Is a Disaster? New Answers to Old Questions, Xlibris, Philadelphia, PA, 2005Google Scholar.

61 DAs Report, above note 26, p. 24, para. 10.

62 Rodenhäuser, Tilman and Giacca, Gilles, “The International Humanitarian Law Framework for Humanitarian Relief during Armed Conflicts and Complex Emergencies”, in Breau, Susan and Samuel, Katja (eds), Research Handbook on Disasters and International Law, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, 2016, p. 132Google Scholar.

63 See UN General Assembly, Report of the Open-Ended Intergovernmental Expert Working Group on Indicators and Terminology relating to Disaster Risk Reduction, UN Doc. A/71/644, 1 December 2016, p. 18, where the definition of disaster excludes “the occurrence or risk of armed conflict and other situations of social instability or tension which are subject to international humanitarian law and national legislation”.

64 For example, Susan Breau and Katja Samuel include in this term “financial, ‘natural’ and ‘man-made’ events (including armed conflict)”. See “Introduction”, in S. Breau and K. Samuel (eds), above note 62, p. 3.

65 On this debate, see Gabriella Venturini, “Disasters and Armed Conflicts”, in A. de Guttry, M. Gestri and G. Venturini (eds), above note 2; Gavshon, Daniela, “The Applicability of IHL in Mixed Situations of Disaster and Conflict”, Journal of Conflict and Security Law, Vol. 14, No. 2, 2009CrossRefGoogle Scholar; T. Rodenhäuser and G. Giacca, above note 62; Sarah Williams and Gabrielle Simm, “Assistance to Disaster Victims in an Armed Conflict: The Role of International Humanitarian Law”, in F. Zorzi Giustiniani et al. (eds), above note 16.

66 ILC, above note 25, pp. 137–138, paras 1–3.

67 Ibid., p. 73, para. 10.

68 For a comparison of obligations to allow and facilitate international humanitarian relief in armed conflicts and disasters, see D. Fisher, above note 4, pp. 347–355.

69 The ICRC comments (January 2016) are available at: http://legal.un.org/docs/?path=../ilc/sessions/68/pdfs/english/pop_icrc.pdf&lang=E. See, similarly, T. Rodenhäuser and G. Giacca, above note 62, p. 150.

70 For some critical remarks see Thouvenin, Jean-Marc, “La définition de la catastrophe par la CDI: Vers une catastrophe juridique?”, in Sanjuaán, Rafael Prieto and Thouvenin, Jean-Marc (eds), International Law and Disasters: Studies on Prevention and Assistance to Victims, Grupo Editorial Ibán̄ez, Bogotá, 2011Google Scholar.

71 See, for instance, reference to the term “community” in the ASEAN Agreement on Disaster Management and Emergency Response, 26 July 2005 (entered into force 24 December 2009) (ASEAN Agreement), Art. 1(3), available at: http://agreement.asean.org/media/download/20140119170000.pdf; and in the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation Agreement on Rapid Response to Natural Disasters, 11 November 2011 (entered into force 9 September 2016), Art. 1(3), available at: http://saarc-sec.org/uploads/digital_library_document/28_Rapid_response_to_Natural_disasters.pdf. For an overview of relevant practice, see G. Bartolini, above note 56, pp. 17–18.

72 UN General Assembly, above note 63, p. 13.

73 Ibid., pp. 24–25, para. 14.

74 Ibid., p. 26.

75 Piero Calvi Parisetti, “The Use of Civil and Military Defense Assets in Emergency Situations”, in A. de Guttry, M. Gestri and G. Venturini (eds), above note 2.

76 Eduardo Valencia-Ospina, Eighth Report on the Protection of Persons in the Event of Disasters, UN Doc. A/CN.4/697, 17 March 2016, para. 91.

77 See the commentary to Article 5 of the DAs: “It also serves as a reminder of the duty of States to ensure compliance with all relevant human rights obligations applicable both during the disaster and the pre-disaster phase.” DAs Report, above note 26, p. 31, para. 1.

78 Ibid., p. 28, para. 1.

79 Ibid., p. 28, para.1.

80 Kristian Cerdevall Lauta, “Human Rights and Natural Disasters”, in S. Breau and K. Samuel (eds), above note 62, p. 94.

81 See, in this regard, W. Kälin, above note 49; Dug Cubie and Marlies Hesselman, “Accountability for the Human Rights Implications of Natural Disasters: A Proposal for Systemic International Oversight”, Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights, Vol. 33, No. 1, 2015; F. Zorzi Giustiniani et al. (eds), above note 16.

82 Human Rights Council, Final Research-Based Report of the Human Rights Council Advisory Committee on Best Practices and Main Challenges in the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights in Post-Disaster and Post-Conflict Situations, UN Doc. A/HRC/28/76, 10 February 2015.

83 DAs Report, above note 26, p. 31, para. 1.

84 Ibid., p. 32, para. 5.

85 E. Valencia-Ospina, above note 76, paras 109–120.

86 See, for example, UN General Assembly, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, UN Doc. A/HRC/37/61, 25 January 2018 (focusing on the right to food in the context of natural disasters); Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, General Recommendation No. 37 (2018) on the Gender-Related Dimensions of Disaster Risk Reduction in the Context of Climate Change, UN Doc. CEDAW/C/GC/37, 13 March 2018; Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 36 (2018) on Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, on the Right to Life, UN Doc. CCPR/C/GC/36, 30 October 2018, paras 26, 62.

87 For a comment on this provision of the resolution, see R. Kolb, above note 52, pp. 861–863.

88 For further references to doctrine, see Annalisa Creta, “A (Human) Right to Humanitarian Assistance in Disaster Situations? Surveying Public International Law”, in A. de Guttry, M. Gestri and G. Venturini (eds), above note 2.

89 E. Valencia-Ospina, above note 76, para. 113.

90 DAs Report, above note 26, p. 32, para. 7.

91 Emanuele Sommario, “Limitation and Derogation Provisions In International Human Rights Law Treaties and Their Use in Disaster Settings”, in F. Zorzi Giustiniani et al. (eds), above note 16.

92 Anne Peters, Beyond Human Rights: The Legal Status of the Individual in International Law, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2016, pp. 240–246.

93 According to Article 214(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, above note 13, the EU's operations for victims of disasters “shall be conducted in compliance … with the principles of impartiality, neutrality and non-discrimination”. Under Article 3 of the Framework Convention on Civil Defence Assistance, 2172 UNTS 213, 22 May 2000 (entered into force 23 September 2001), “[a]ssistance shall be provided without discrimination, particularly with regard to race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or any other opinion, to national or social origin, to wealth, birth, or any other criterion”, and “[a]ssistance shall be undertaken in a spirit of humanity, solidarity and impartiality”.

94 D. Fisher, above note 5, p. 101.

95 DAs Report, above note 26, p. 33, para. 1.

96 Ibid., p. 34, para. 5.

97 Ibid., p. 33, para. 4.

98 Jean Pictet, The Fundamental Principles of the Red Cross, ICRC, Geneva, 1979, pp. 23–28. On this theoretical debate, see Federico Casolari, “Addressing Discrimination in Disaster Scenarios”, in F. Zorzi Giustiniani et al., above note 16.

99 With reference to disaster settings, see Mary Crock, “The Protection of Vulnerable Groups”, in S. Breau and K. Samuel (eds), above note 62.

100 Human Rights Council, Promotion and Protection of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in Disaster Risk Reduction, Prevention and Preparedness Initiatives, UN Doc. A/HRC/27/66, 7 August 2014; Migrants in Countries in Crisis, Guidelines to Protect Migrants in Countries Experiencing Conflict or Natural Disaster, 2016, available at: https://micicinitiative.iom.int/guidelines.

101 Article 8 states: “Cooperation in the response to disasters includes humanitarian assistance, coordination of international relief actions and communications, and making available relief personnel, equipment and goods, and scientific, medical and technical resources.”

102 Para. 3 of the preamble refers to the “fundamental value of solidarity in international relations and the importance of strengthening international cooperation in respect of all phases of a disaster”. On this concept, see Wolfrum, Rüdiger and Kojima, Chie (eds), Solidarity: A Structural Principle of International Law, Springer, Berlin, 2010CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

103 On this debate, see E. Valencia-Ospina, above note 76, paras 142–157.

104 See, for instance, McIntyre, Owen, Environmental Protection of International Watercourses under International Law, Routledge, New York, 2016, p. 319CrossRefGoogle Scholar, on difficulties in providing concrete content to the “general obligation to cooperate” provided by Article 8 of the Draft Articles on the Law of the Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses.

105 DAs Report, above note 26, p. 39, para. 6.

106 Ibid., p. 42, para. 5.

107 Ibid., p. 57, para. 2.

108 Ibid., p. 53, para. 1.

109 See Convention for the Protection of the Mediterranean Sea against Pollution, 1102 UNTS 27, 16 February 1976 (entered into force 12 February 1978), Art. 9(2); International Convention on Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and Cooperation, 1891 UNTS 77, 30 November 1990 (entered into force 13 May 1995), Art. 5(1); World Health Organization (WHO), International Health Regulations, 2005 (entered into force 15 June 2007) Art. 6.1, available at: https://tinyurl.com/y9e2xqrj.

110 For the Sendai Framework adopted in 2015, see above note 17.

111 For an overview of relevant practice, see DAs Report, above note 26, pp. 44–47. For the qualification of DRR practices as informal international law-making approaches, see Corredig, Luca, “Effectiveness and Accountability of Disaster Risk Reduction Practices: An Analysis through the Lens of IN-LAW”, in Berman, Ayelet, Duquet, Sanderijn, Pauwelyn, Joost, Wessel, Ramses A. and Wouters, Jan (eds), Informal International Lawmaking: Case Studies, TOAEP, The Hague, 2012Google Scholar.

112 See, for instance, ASEAN Agreement, above note 71, Arts 5, 6, 7; Decision No. 1313/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on a Union Civil Protection Mechanism, Official Journal of the European Union, L 347/924, 20 December 2013, Arts 5, 6.

113 IFRC and UNDP, The Checklist on Law and Disaster Risk Reduction, October 2015, available at: https://tinyurl.com/pklojko.

114 E. Valencia-Ospina, above note 76, paras 177–186.

115 DAs Report, above note 26, p. 44, para. 5.

116 Ibid., p. 43, para. 4; Human Rights Committee, above note 86, para. 26.

117 Emanuele Sommario and Silvia Venier, “Human Rights Law and Disaster Risk Reduction”, Questions of International Law, Zoom-In 49, 2018.

118 See “UNISDR's Comments and Observations on the Draft Articles on the ‘Protection of Persons in the Event of Disasters’”, December 2015, para. 5, available at: http://legal.un.org/docs/?path=../ilc/sessions/68/pdfs/english/pop_unsdr.pdf&lang=E.

119 DAs Report, above note 26, p. 18, para. 6.

120 Besson, Samantha, “Sovereignty”, in Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (online edition), Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2012Google Scholar, paras 123–127.

121 Giovanni De Siervo, “Actors, Activities, and Coordination in Emergencies”, in A. de Guttry, M. Gestri and G. Venturini (eds), above note 2.

122 UN General Assembly, Strengthening of the Coordination of Humanitarian Emergency Assistance of the United Nations, UN Doc. A/RES/46/182, 19 December 1991, para. 4.

123 UN General Assembly, A More Secure World: Our Shared Responsibility. Report of the High Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change, UN Doc. A/RES/59/565, 2 December 2004, para. 29. With reference to the doctrine of the responsibility to protect, see International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS), The Responsibility to Protect, International Development Research Centre, Ottawa, 2001Google Scholar.

124 See Priorities for Action 2 and 5 of the Hyogo Framework for Action, World Conference on Disaster Reduction, Report of the World Conference on Disaster Reduction, UN Doc. A/CONF.206/6, 16 March 2005, para. 14; Sendai Framework, above note 17.

125 See, for instance, Economic, Social and Cultural Rights Committee, General Comment No. 3, “The Nature of States Parties Obligations”, UN Doc. E/1991/23, 14 December 1990, para. 13.

126 DAs Report, above note 26, p. 57, para. 7.

127 IFRC, above note 12, p. 89: “For example, significant delays were reported after various storm events in Fiji and after the 1999 earthquake in Turkey before international assistance was requested.”

128 For an analysis, see Eduardo Valencia-Ospina, Fourth Report on the Protection of Persons in the Event of Disasters, UN Doc. A/CN.4/643, 11 May 2011, pp. 13–14.

129 DAs Report, above note 26, p. 57, para. 3.

130 International Court of Justice, Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Judgment, ICJ Reports 1986, para. 242.

131 DAs Report, above note 26, p. 57, para. 2.

132 Eduardo Valencia-Ospina, Fifth Report on the Protection of Persons in the Event of Disasters, UN Doc. A/CN.4/652, 9 April 2012, para. 81. For comments on this provision, see E. Valencia-Ospina, above note 76, paras 230–247.

133 See Decision No. 1313/2013, above note 112, Art. 15.4, according to which “[a]ny Member State to which a request for assistance is addressed through the Union Mechanism shall promptly determine whether it is in a position to render the assistance required and inform the requesting Member State of its decision”. See ASEAN Agreement, above note 71, Art. 11, involving a similar regional coordinating centre.

134 DAs Report, above note 26, pp. 58–59, para. 10.

135 OCHA, Oxford Guidance on the Law Relating to Humanitarian Relief Operations in Situations of Armed Conflict, 2016 (Oxford Guidance), available at: https://tinyurl.com/yc76p7nh. The Oxford Guidance reiterates that “[t]he consent of the concerned states is required before offers to conduct humanitarian relief operations may be implemented” (p. 16). However, under Article 59 of Geneva Convention IV of 1949, the Occupying Power shall agree to relief schemes on behalf of the population of occupied territories inadequately supplied. In this case, however, it seems that there is still a possibility of prescribing technical arrangements. In this regard it should be emphasized that Article 18(2) of the DAs attributes primacy to solutions provided by IHL.

136 Sivakumaran, Sandesh, “Arbitrary Withholding of Consent to Humanitarian Assistance in Situations of Disaster”, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 64, No. 3, 2015, pp. 504–509CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

137 Allan, Craig and O'Donnell, Therese, “An Offer You Cannot Refuse? Natural Disasters, the Politics of Aid Refusal and Potential Legal Implications”, Amsterdam Law Forum, Vol. 5, 2013, p. 40Google Scholar.

138 See “Press Conference on Chile by Deputy Emergency Relief Coordinator”, 2 March 2010, available at: www.un.org/press/en/2010/100302_Bragg.doc.htm.

139 See E. Valencia-Ospina, above note 76, paras 250–272.

140 According to Article 8 of the Resolution on Humanitarian Assistance, above note 52, “[a]ffected States are under the obligation not arbitrarily and unjustifiably to reject a bona fide offer exclusively intended to provide humanitarian assistance or to refuse access to the victims”. During the negotiations of the 1977 Additional Protocols, the requirement that consent must not be arbitrarily denied was discussed in-depth by the delegations. Indeed, even if both Article 70 of Additional Protocol I and Article 18 of Additional Protocol II affirm that relief activities are subject to the agreement of the parties/high contracting party concerned in such relief actions, the Commentary is clear in restating, on the basis of the official records of the diplomatic conference, that this clause “did not imply that the Parties concerned had absolute and unlimited freedom to refuse their agreement to relief actions. A Party refusing its agreement must do so for valid reasons, not for arbitrary or capricious ones.” See Sandoz, Yves, “Article 70”, in Sandoz, Yves, Swinarski, Christophe and Zimmermann, Bruno (eds), Commentary on the Additional Protocols, ICRC, Geneva, 1987, p. 816Google Scholar, para. 2085. For a similar approach, see Sivakumaran, Sandesh, “Article 3”, in ICRC, Commentary on the First Geneva Convention: Convention (I) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, 2nd ed., Geneva, 2016Google Scholar, paras 832–839. This element is reaffirmed in the Oxford Guidance, above note 135, pp. 21–25.

141 Mary Murray, “Katrina Aid From Cuba? No Thanks, Says US”, NBC News, 14 September 2005, available at: https://tinyurl.com/yc8yy6hk.

142 DAs Report, above note 26, p. 62, para. 10.

143 DAs Report, above note 26, p. 63, para. 12.

144 Barber, Rebecca, “Legal Preparedness for the Facilitation of International Humanitarian Assistance in the Aftermath of Vanuatu's Cyclone Pam”, Asian Journal of International Law, Vol. 8, No. 1, 2016, p. 10Google Scholar.

145 See ICISS, above note 123, p. 33, para. 4.20.

146 Barber, Rebecca, “The Responsibility to Protect the Survivors of Natural Disaster: Cyclone Nargis, a Case Study”, Journal of Conflict and Security Law, Vol. 14, No. 1, 2009CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Wong, Jarrod, “Reconstructing the Responsibility to Protect in the Wake of Cyclones and Separatism”, Tulane Law Review, Vol. 84, No. 2, 2009Google Scholar. Doubts are expressed by Milena Costas Trascas, “Access to the Territory of Disaster-Affected State”, in A. de Guttry, M. Gestri and G. Venturini (eds), above note 2; A. Peters, above note 92, pp. 246–250.

147 E. Valencia-Ospina, above note 43, para. 55.

148 UN General Assembly, Implementing the Responsibility to Protect: Report of the Secretary-General, UN Doc. A/63/677, 12 January 2009, para. 10(b). At the 2005 World Summit, States limited the possibility of applying the responsibility to protect doctrine to cases involving genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity.

149 Mansour, Affef Ben, “Consent”, in Crawford, James, Pellet, Alain and Olleson, Simon (eds), The Law of International Responsibility, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2010Google Scholar.

150 See UN Security Council Resolutions 2139 (22 February 2014), 2165 (14 July 2014) and 2393 (19 December 2017) providing authorization for cross-border and cross-conflict-line humanitarian access to Syria. On this issue, see Wynn-Pope, Phoebe, “Humanitarian Access in International Humanitarian Law: The Case of Syria and Security Council Resolution 2139 (2014)”, in Petrovic, Jadranka (ed.), Accountability for Violations of International Humanitarian Law, Routledge, London, 2016Google Scholar.

151 Oxford Guidance, above note 135, pp. 51–55. More extensively, see Gillard, Emanuela-Chiara, “The Law Regulating Cross-Border Relief Operations”, International Review of the Red Cross, Vol. 95, No. 890, 2014CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

152 DAs Report, above note 26, p. 64, para. 3.

153 For recent examples see R. Barber, above note 144, pp. 11–16.

154 See ASEAN Agreement, above note 71, Art, 12: “The relief goods and materials provided by the Assisting Entity should meet the quality and validity requirements of the Parties concerned for consumption and utilization.” Similarly, Article 3(b) of the Framework Convention on Civil Defence Assistance, above note 93, refers to “ways and customs” of the affected State.

155 On this initiative, see information available at: www.who.int/hac/techguidance/preparedness/emergency_medical_teams/en/. The 2017 joint IFRC/WHO study on this topic is available at: www.ifrc.org/PageFiles/115542/EMT%20Report%20HR.PDF.

156 IFRC, above note 12, pp. 89–157.

157 Bartolini, Giulio, “Attribution of Conduct and Liability Issues Arising from International Disaster Relief Missions: Theoretical and Pragmatic Approaches to Guaranteeing Accountability”, Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, Vol. 48, No. 4, 2015Google Scholar.

158 See the dozens of reports available at: www.ifrc.org/what-we-do/disaster-law/research-tools-and-publications/disaster-law-publications. For example, see IFRC, International Disaster Response Law (IDRL) in Samoa, Geneva, 2016.

159 IFRC, Model Act on Disaster Relief, available at: www.ifrc.org/en/what-we-do/disaster-law/about-disaster-law/international-disaster-response-laws-rules-and-principles/model-act-on-idrl/.

160 See IFRC, above note 22.

161 DAs Report, above note 26, p. 69, para. 9. The text of the Non-Binding Guidelines is available at: https://tinyurl.com/y8f774vp.

162 DAs Report, above note 26, p. 71, para. 7.

163 See comments included in UN General Assembly, Protection of Persons in the Event of Disasters: Report of the Secretary-General, UN Doc. A/73/229, 24 July 2018 (Secretary-General's Report); and statements delivered on 1 November 2018 at the UN General Assembly Sixth Committee, available at: https://papersmart.unmeetings.org/en/ga/sixth/73rd-session/agenda/.

164 See remarks by El Salvador on behalf of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States, available at: https://papersmart.unmeetings.org/media2/20305329/el-salvador-e-celac-.pdf.

165 See remarks by Argentina, available at: https://papersmart.unmeetings.org/media2/20305351/argentina-s-90-.pdf.

166 See remarks by Brazil, available at: https://papersmart.unmeetings.org/media2/20305365/brazil-90-.pdf.

167 See remarks by Colombia, available at: https://papersmart.unmeetings.org/media2/20305355/colombia-s-90-.pdf.

168 See remarks by El Salvador, Secretary-General's Report, above note 163, p. 2.

169 See remarks by Honduras, available at: https://papersmart.unmeetings.org/media2/20305333/honduras-s-90-.pdf.

170 See remarks by Peru, available at: https://papersmart.unmeetings.org/media2/20305359/peru-s-90-.pdf.

171 See remarks by Iceland on behalf of the five Nordic Countries, available at: https://papersmart.unmeetings.org/media2/20305379/iceland-90-.pdf.

172 See remarks by Italy, available at: https://papersmart.unmeetings.org/media2/20305334/italy-90-.pdf.

173 See remarks by the Philippines, available at: https://papersmart.unmeetings.org/media2/20305368/philippines-90-.pdf.

174 See remarks by Portugal, available at: https://papersmart.unmeetings.org/media2/20305348/portugal-90-.pdf.

175 See remarks by Qatar, Secretary-General's Report, above note 163, p. 3.

176 See remarks by Togo, available at: https://papersmart.unmeetings.org/media2/20305353/togo-f-90.pdf.

177 See remarks by Sri Lanka, available at: https://papersmart.unmeetings.org/media2/20305345/sri-lanka-90-.pdf.

178 See remarks by Japan, available at: https://papersmart.unmeetings.org/media2/20305502/japan-90-.pdf. See remarks by Singapore, available at: https://papersmart.unmeetings.org/media2/20305349/singapore-90-.pdf.

179 See remarks by Austria, Secretary-General's Report, above note 163, p. 2; remarks by Bangadlesh, available at: https://papersmart.unmeetings.org/media2/20305370/bangladesh-90-.pdf.

180 See remarks by Iran, available at: https://papersmart.unmeetings.org/media2/20305396/iran-islamic-republic-of-90-.pdf.

181 See remarks by the Czech Republic, Secretary-General's Report, above note 163, p. 2.

182 See remarks by Russia, available at: https://papersmart.unmeetings.org/media2/20305363/russian-federation-r-90-.pdf.

183 See remarks by the United States of America, available at: https://papersmart.unmeetings.org/media2/20305354/united-states-of-america-90-.pdf.

184 See remarks by Israel, available at: https://papersmart.unmeetings.org/media2/20305507/israel-90-.pdf; remarks by the United Kingdom, Secretary-General's Report, above note 163, p. 4.

185 See remarks by Malaysia, available at: https://papersmart.unmeetings.org/media2/20305357/malaysia-90-.pdf.

186 See remarks by Switzerland, available at: https://papersmart.unmeetings.org/media2/20305341/switzerland-f-e-90-.pdf.

187 UN General Assembly, Protection of Persons in the Event of Disasters, UN Doc. A/Res/73/209, 20 December 2018.

188 ILC, above note 29, p. 210, para. 24. The “Proposed Outline”, ibid., p. 213, included several areas of interest for potential rules dealing with the provision of disaster relief and access to the affected State.

189 See above note 155.

190 Bongard, Pascal and Somer, Jonathan, “Monitoring Armed Non-State Actor Compliance with Humanitarian Norms: A Look at International Mechanisms and the Geneva Call Deed of Commitment”, International Review of the Red Cross, Vol. 93, No. 883, 2011CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

191 D. Fisher, above note 5, p. 114.