Marking 60 Years of the Fundamental Principles of the Red Cross and Red Crescent

In 1965, against the backdrop of Cold War divisions and the haunting memory of two world wars, the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement codified seven Fundamental Principles to guide humanitarian action: Humanity, Impartiality, Neutrality, Independence, Voluntary Service, Unity, and Universality.

These principles were bold and visionary for their time. They enabled humanitarian actors to cross battle lines, uphold dignity in the face of disaster, and earn the trust of conflicting parties. Over six decades, they have helped us to respond to some of the most complex and heartbreaking situations humanity has faced.

But the world of 2025 is not the world of 1965. Today’s crises are longer, deeper, and more interconnected. Conflicts no longer end — they metastasise. Climate breakdown is redrawing the map of vulnerability. Pandemics, rising authoritarianism, and growing inequality expose how fragile our systems can be.

And amidst all of this, the very notion of humanitarianism is being tested by political co-option, by public scepticism, and by the limits of principles that, while still vital, may no longer be sufficient on their own.

So, what is missing? My answer is a new principle — the principle of solidarity.

A Principle Rooted in Our Past and Ready for Our Future

Solidarity is not a new idea. It is embedded in our history, whether in the civilians of Solferino who helped the wounded without discrimination, or in National Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies supporting one another across borders during times of war, disaster, and disease. We have always acted in solidarity. We just never called it a principle.

Solidarity invites us to move beyond providing relief for people and toward walking with them – listening, learning, and acting together. It reframes those we serve not as victims, but as partners. It challenges the binaries of donor and beneficiary, helper and helped, Global North and Global South. It allows us to recognize that suffering anywhere is linked to decisions, policies, and indifference elsewhere.

Many leading thinkers have called for solidarity as a central ethical principle in this century. Hannah Arendt saw solidarity as the antidote to moral detachment. Pope Francis has framed solidarity not as charity, but as “a social attitude born of personal conversion,” rooted in the common good. Judith Butler speaks of solidarity as the recognition of our shared precarity, while political theorists like Iris Marion Young argue that global justice is impossible without a commitment to shared responsibility.

In the humanitarian world, scholars like Hugo Slim have warned that neutrality, while once indispensable, can now risk moral anaesthesia in the face of injustice. David Rieff has gone further, criticizing the aid system’s discomfort with political reality and its retreat into technocratic neutrality.

Solidarity, in this context, is not an abandonment of our principles – it is their evolution. It helps ensure that humanity is not reduced to pity, that neutrality does not become indifference, and that independence does not justify silence.

From Concept to Commitment

We see solidarity in action every day. In the volunteers who continue to serve in Gaza, Ukraine, Sudan, and Myanmar – often after losing everything themselves.

In National Societies that step up to assist their neighbours even as they face their own crises.

In young people demanding climate justice across borders.

In diaspora communities organizing relief faster than formal systems ever could.

But solidarity is more than action. It is a mindset. An ethic. A principle.

To embrace solidarity as a principle would mean:

• Acknowledging that humanitarian needs are often symptoms of deeper injustices.
• Being bolder in our public voice when humanity is under assault.
• Letting go of the illusion of neutrality when it serves only to shield us from uncomfortable truths.
• Shifting power within the humanitarian sector so that decision-making, resources, and visibility are shared more equitably.

It also means rejecting the idea that standing with people is somehow less neutral than standing beside them in silence.

Every principle we hold dear emerged from rupture. The Geneva Conventions were born from the horrors of 19th-century war. The Fundamental Principles arose from the wreckage of global conflict and the rise of ideological divisions.

We are now in another rupture – one that challenges the very moral and operational foundations of our humanitarian work.

Sixty years after the Fundamental Principles were adopted, let us not only honour them, but expand them.

Solidarity has always been present in our actions. Maybe it is time we made it a principle.