AI for humanitarian action: human rights and ethics
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI)-supported systems have transformative applications in the humanitarian sector but they also pose unique risks for human rights, even when used with the best intentions. Drawing from research and expert consultations conducted across the globe in recent years, this paper identifies key points of consensus on how humanitarian practitioners can ensure that AI augments – rather than undermines – human interests while being rights-respecting. Specifically, these consultations emphasized the necessity of an anchoring framework based on international human rights law as an essential baseline for ensuring that human interests are embedded in AI systems. Ethics, in addition, can play a complementary role in filling gaps and elevating standards above the minimum requirements of international human rights law. This paper summarizes the advantages of this framework, while also identifying specific tools and best practices that either already exist and can be adapted to the AI context, or that need to be created, in order to operationalize this human rights framework. As the COVID crisis has laid bare, AI will increasingly shape the global response to the world's toughest problems, especially in the development and humanitarian sector. To ensure that AI tools enable human progress and contribute to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals, humanitarian actors need to be proactive and inclusive in developing tools, policies and accountability mechanisms that protect human rights.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Algorithmic engagement incentives can amplify outrage and moral panic, complicating deliberation about war and peace.
“Related work on weaponized digital environments further suggests that algorithmic engagement incentives can amplify outrage and moral panic, complicating deliberation about war and peace (Pizzi et al., 2021).”
From Toward a humanized technology: a reinterpretation of Erich Fromm’ s humanistic peace psychology (2026) · cites this paper as Pizzi et al., 2021
Cites
INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW AS A FRAMEWORK FOR ALGORITHMIC ACCOUNTABILITY
McGregor, L., Murray, D., & Ng, V. (2019) · International and Comparative Law Quarterly · doi:10.1017/s0020589319000046 · Cited by 207 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Samarawickrama, M. (2024) · 2024 IEEE Conference on Engineering Informatics (ICEI) · doi:10.1109/icei64305.2024.10912272 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
Toward a humanized technology: a reinterpretation of Erich Fromm’ s humanistic peace psychology
Wang, Y., Li, P., & Liu, W. (2026) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1646601 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
- Authors
- Pizzi, M., Romanoff, M., & Engelhardt, T.
- Venue
- International Review of the Red Cross
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2020-04
- Volume
- 102
- Issue
- 913
- Pages
- 145-180
- ISSN
- 0020-8604 (ISSN-L)
- 1816-3831
- 1607-5889
- OpenAlex
- W3134066130
- Cited by
- 145
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 22 · 2025: 26 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 57 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 4
- FWCI
- 23.50
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- International Review of the Red Cross (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Social Sciences › Law › Digitalization, Law, and Regulation
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › International Law and Human Rights
- Keywords
- artificial intelligence, humanitarian action, human rights, AI ethics, international human rights law, humanitarian workers, accountability mechanisms, COVID-19 pandemic response, Sustainable Development Goals, AI governance
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review