Over the past five years, various developments in the international aid policy sphere have resurfaced a decades-old discussion about the link between humanitarian action, development and peace efforts – the so-called “triple nexus”. This discussion focuses on protracted conflicts and fragile settings, as these are environments where humanitarian funding and response are overstretched and where development and peace struggle to take hold.Three important reference points in this policy environment are the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs),1 the Agenda for Humanity2 and the twin United Nations (UN) resolutions on sustaining peace.3 These various commitments have been driving development actors to seek ways to engage earlier and remain present in conflict-affected areas.4 They have mobilized many donors and organizations around a vision in which humanitarian action works to reduce needs, risks and vulnerability, in addition to responding to needs,5 and they have spurred the UN system into organizational reforms to ensure a system-wide coherent effort towards the SDGs, including in places affected by conflict.6 They have also been accompanied by renewed calls for, and efforts towards, greater transparency, efficiency, accountability, collaboration and results across the international aid system.Efforts to achieve the right synergy between humanitarian action, development and peace efforts have again regained momentum globally. But they have also raised concerns within the humanitarian community about a shrinking space for neutral, impartial and independent humanitarian action during armed conflict.In this Q&A, Policy Adviser Filipa Schmitz Guinote discusses the International Committee of the Red Cross's (ICRC) policy reflections on the interface between humanitarian action, development and peace, and the so-called “triple nexus” discussion. She unpacks some of the conceptual and practical tensions around humanitarian principles and humanitarian identity in the interaction between humanitarian, development and peace actors. She also outlines the rationale behind the ICRC's work with affected people in protracted conflicts, against the backdrop of an ICRC Institutional Strategy which commits the organization to building sustainable humanitarian impact with affected people and working with others.

中文翻译：

---

红十字国际委员会与“人道主义-发展-和平关系”的讨论

在过去五年中，国际援助政策领域的各种发展重新出现了几十年来关于人道主义行动、发展与和平努力之间联系的讨论——即所谓的“三重关系”。本次讨论的重点是旷日持久的冲突和脆弱的环境，因为在这些环境中，人道主义资金和响应过度紧张，发展与和平难以站稳脚跟。这一政策环境中的三个重要参考点是可持续发展目标 (SDG)，1人类议程2以及关于维持和平的两项联合国 (UN) 决议。3这些不同的承诺一直在推动发展参与者寻求更早参与并留在受冲突影响地区的方法。4他们围绕这样一个愿景动员了许多捐助者和组织，即人道主义行动除了响应需求外，还致力于减少需求、风险和脆弱性，5它们促使联合国系统进行组织改革，以确保全系统一致努力实现可持续发展目标，包括在受冲突影响的地方。6与此同时，人们再次呼吁并努力提高整个国际援助系统的透明度、效率、问责制、协作和成果。在人道主义行动、发展与和平努力之间实现正确协同的努力再次在全球恢复势头。但他们也引起了人道界对武装冲突期间中立、公正和独立人道行动空间缩小的担忧。人道主义行动、发展与和平之间的联系，以及所谓的“三重关系”讨论。她揭示了人道主义、发展与和平行动者之间互动中围绕人道主义原则和人道主义身份的一些概念和实践紧张关系。她还概述了在红十字国际委员会机构战略的背景下，红十字国际委员会与受长期冲突影响的人们开展工作的基本原理，该战略承诺该组织对受影响的人们产生可持续的人道影响并与他人合作。