Gaza and the Rise of the “Humanitarian Council”

Abstract The United Nations Security Council often compensates for failing to agree on political solutions to conflicts by engaging on their humanitarian consequences, as this essay shows with reference to Gaza, Syria, Myanmar and Ethiopia. The elected members of the Council in particular frequently focus on humanitarian topics in attempts to forge compromises with and among the permanent members. This humanitarian turn in Council diplomacy allows diplomats to paper over their differences, and insist the institution is still relevant but involves moral hazards. The Council risks becoming overly involved in the technicalities of aid operations, and members can use thematic and country-specific debates to relitigate aspects of International Humanitarian Law ( ihl ). The short-term benefits of agreement on humanitarian resolutions and Council statements must be weighed against these long-term risks, and Council members should pursue a policy of “do no harm” in their humanitarian diplomacy.