Human rights and humanitarian action are closely interlinked, each aiming to alleviate the suffering and enhance the well-being of affected populations, albeit through distinct approaches. Unlike humanitarian action, which takes place only during humanitarian crises like armed conflicts and natural disasters, human rights are applicable at all times, both in times of peace and during crises. The case of Sudan, one of the most severe human rights and humanitarian crises in recent history, is neglected on many levels. This is reflected in the lack of international response to the severe violation of human rights and the dire humanitarian situation in the country. This leads us to recognise the need to redefine the relationship between human rights and humanitarian action in crisis.
Despite sharing a common goal of promoting human welfare, human rights organisations and humanitarian actors utilise different strategies respectively. Therefore, there has to be an emphasis on the universal application of human rights in crisis-affected contexts like Sudan through humanitarian action. The interdependent relationship between these two humanity-focused forces, where human rights dictate humanitarian action, can ultimately improve the lives of people in Sudan and those living through similar atrocities.
The 2023 Sudanese conflict has resulted in a severe human rights crisis. With the displacement of ten million people, serious violations of human rights are occurring due to the ethnic cleansing, ruined health system, internet and communication blackouts and food insecurity in the country. The dire humanitarian situation has led to 25 million Sudanese people needing humanitarian aid; over half of the country’s population is dependent on assistance for survival.
Human rights violations and the humanitarian crisis in Sudan feed into one another, creating a vicious cycle of suffering. On one hand, human rights violations in Sudan have hampered humanitarian efforts, since humanitarian workers are faced by life-threatening risks, and the buildings of humanitarian agencies are deliberately targeted. For instance, UN reports show that in the first four months of the conflict, 19 humanitarian workers were killed, and after one month from the conflict, the aid warehouses, UN and other agencies and humanitarian properties were exposed to attacks.
Conversely, the worsening humanitarian crisis has further eroded and negatively affected human rights due to their indivisibility and interconnectedness. For instance, the lack of access to food has led to the death of Sudanese people and pregnant women because of malnutrition and severe, crisis levels of hunger, highlighting how the humanitarian plight in Sudan can undermine people’s right to health and life.
But what is the difference between universalism and relativism? These approaches can be simply understood by distinguishing between the focus of universalism on the application of human rights to all people, regardless of cultural or contextual factors, and the emphasis of relativism on the importance of local customs and contexts in shaping the implementation of human rights. A more balanced approach might suggest universal human rights be implemented with cultural and contextual sensitivity.
However, the calculations shift in crisis situations. In the case of Sudan, the key question is, how should the universalism-relativism dilemma in human rights be addressed in this complex humanitarian context? Acknowledging the importance of cultural considerations, the actors involved in the Sudanese conflict have manipulated cultural norms and values to justify their actions that have resulted in human rights violations.
Thus, the complexity of the Sudanese context stems from the presence of armed groups in the country with varying political interests, the fragmentation of local populations and the involvement of foreign powers. Besides that, international organisations, humanitarian actors, as well as the international community have tended to overlook the human rights infringements, succumbing to a sense of “exceptionalism” surrounding the Sudanese situation. This aligns with the classical definition of humanitarian crises, where crises are treated as exceptions and humanitarian agencies are seen as the leading actors in responding to such crises.
Yet, the paralysed humanitarian system, evidenced by insufficient aid provision and humanitarian funding, has failed to complement human rights efforts in Sudan, as the efforts were not coordinated and systematic.
In Sudan, cultural relativism is weaponised by political actors and the fate of human rights is dictated by the political interests of armed groups. This has formed a political, self-interested relativism, which does not serve the rights of people. Therefore, universalism appears to be essential for the protection of human rights, but this requires close coordination with actors on the ground. However, due to the disintegration of the state, humanitarian agencies and organisations must replace the state in leading the application of universal human rights across the country.
If these actors execute these strategies effectively, the positionality of humanitarian action, equipped with the four fundamental principles of humanity, neutrality, impartiality and independence, can serve as a golden opportunity to guarantee the protection of fundamental human rights in Sudan, regardless of exogenous factors.
Thus, universalism and relativism are equally essential for ensuring that strategies aimed at promoting human rights are effective and contextually appropriate. This question remains important, even during crises like armed conflicts and natural disasters. It is essential to address the interplay between human rights and humanitarian action, especially in such emergencies, where the urgency to save lives and alleviate suffering is paramount.
In Sudan, for example, humanitarian action must become an integral part of the human rights framework, rather than functioning as an independent force. The Sudanese conflict highlights how political realities and powerful actors often shape the trajectory of human rights in these exceptional situations, thus undermining the relativist approach. As a result, the universalism of human rights should take precedence, particularly when cultural norms and values are used as strategic instruments by the local political actors to shape human rights.
With the state’s loss of power in the country, humanitarian actors must act as complementary forces to uphold these rights. Therefore, humanitarian efforts, including advocacy for equal rights, provision of basic aid (food, clean water, healthcare) and humanitarian diplomacy, are central to safeguarding human rights in the Sudanese crisis and in similar conflict-affected contexts.
(Manoug Antaby is a Research Assistant at the Centre for Conflict and Humanitarian Studies (CHS).)
