Humanitarian Advocacy: Public Communications Strategies of International Humanitarian Agencies for the Protection of Civilians

International humanitarian agencies work to save lives in crisis situations, primarily through the provision of food, medical services, shelter, and other forms of material assistance. However, in armed conflict and complex emergencies, saving lives requires more than material assistance, and so humanitarian agencies have increasingly incorporated the ‘protection of civilians’ into their missions. With respect to protection, the aims of humanitarian and human rights actors overlap, but humanitarian efforts have mostly focused on supporting the victims, while human rights efforts target the perpetrators of human rights abuses with public criticism. Many international humanitarian agencies are now also engaging in some kind of public criticism—referred to as humanitarian advocacy—and reflecting on whether and how they should do so. While there exists a burgeoning literature in IR on the conditions under which “naming and shaming” tactics of human rights organizations are effective, there exists no systematic analysis of the characteristics and consequences of humanitarian advocacy. This paper represents a first step in developing such analysis. Unlike Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, the bread and butter work of humanitarian agencies (providing lifesaving assistance) requires them to be physically present. This raises a dilemma because public criticism of authorities may have repercussions that threaten access to the victims they seek to support. Furthermore, their primary expertise is providing services, not researching human rights abuses, and their authority for advocacy is unclear. Based on interviews and analysis of policy documents, this paper analyses the advocacy strategies of two major international humanitarian agencies—Oxfam and MSF—asking: How do they decide whether to make public statements? What issues do they feel qualified to advocate on? Do they simply report atrocities, or also advocate for particular responses from national and international actors? How do they assess the (positive and negative) consequences of their advocacy?