Policy Papers and Briefs – 7, 2017

DIGITAL DIPLOMACY AND THE ICRC:

SCOPE AND RELEVANCE FOR
HUMANITARIAN DIPLOMACY
Alice Maillot

Policy recommendations
1. The main competitive advantages of the International be further exploited by concrete actions and through
Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) lie in its multidisci- collaboration with relevant partners.
plinary approach and in its capability to combine policy
expertise, politics, operational expertise, and strong 4. Digital diplomacy is not only about Twitter, Facebook, and
power to disseminate humanitarian values and to influ- other social media, transient tools that will likely disap-
ence the way it is perceived by its stakeholders. pear within the next 10 years. A comprehensive digital
diplomacy strategy is not limited to the use of social
2. A comprehensive and well-defined digital diplomacy media but includes knowledge management, informa-
strategy can efficiently support the ICRC’s humanitarian tion management, public diplomacy, external resources,
diplomacy in a changing environment in which many of and virtual representation components.
the ICRC’s stakeholders are well versed in using digital
diplomacy. 5. Digital diplomacy can serve humanitarian diplomacy as
a tool that encourages the inclusion of non-state actors
3. Digital diplomacy at the ICRC is not yet clearly defined. in the humanitarian agenda, whether for prevention,
Some current practices take the form of digital diplo- policy shaping, or implementation purposes. It can be
macy, but are not labelled as such. These practices used as a vector of International Humanitarian Law
are mainly driven by the Communications department, (IHL) dissemination, a communication vehicle to foster
but there is scope for strengthening links with the acceptance, and a tool to gather information and mobi-
Humanitarian Diplomacy division. These links need to lise stakeholders in a timely manner.

The premise

In an increasingly fragmented world, there are more stake- strategic, and policy levels. The operational expertise of the
holders for the ICRC to interact with and to influence in the ICRC is not enough anymore to ensure its voice is heard
frame of its humanitarian diplomacy. The ICRC needs to and that humanitarian issues are addressed at a global
work in new ways to ensure its influence at operational, level. For this reason, more links need to be made between
the ICRC’s operations in the field and its policy-making pro- general, and digital disruption in particular, and to better
cesses. Therefore, the role of its humanitarian diplomacy understand the role and scope of digital diplomacy and the
becomes more important than ever. The ICRC’s humani- risks and opportunities it represents for the ICRC’s human-
tarian diplomacy consists of engaging with decision mak- itarian diplomacy.
ers, policymakers, and non-state influencers to promote
International Humanitarian Law (IHL), persuade them This paper will briefly retrace the evolution from traditional
to act in the interests of people affected by conflicts and to new diplomacy in general, and to digital diplomacy in
other situations of violence, increase their understanding particular. It will look at some diplomatic challenges raised
and acceptance of ICRC’s activities, facilitate access for its by this new environment and how the ICRC is responding
operations, and prevent misuse of humanitarian activities. to them, using digital technologies for humanitarian diplo-
macy purposes. Finally, it will share some ideas on cyber-
Does the traditional practice of humanitarian diplomacy by space approaches for humanitarian diplomacy purposes
the ICRC fit with this fast-changing environment or does it based on (1) the risks and opportunities brought by digital
need to adapt? In this context, can new digital technologies diplomacy, (2) what some of the ICRC’s stakeholders are
be a powerful tool to support and improve ICRC humanitar- doing in this respect, and (3) relevant partners the ICRC
ian diplomacy or are they rather a threat to its good conduct? could engage with to harness the possibilities offered by
digital diplomacy.
The key objective of this policy paper is to demonstrate that
the ICRC’s humanitarian diplomacy is facing disruption in

Arenas of diplomacy: from ‘club’ to ‘network’ diplomacy

Heine defines the ‘club’ model as the traditional way of less formal, temporary, and comprise players of mixed
practicing diplomacy, where members of the ‘club’, mainly nature (state, non-state, subnational, and regional powers).
state diplomats and some business people, only speak to
their peers in cabinets, conferences, and formal settings.1 Communications and information sharing between stake-
This exclusive model is highly hierarchical, implies a strong holders are lateral, more open, and transparent, while
respect for protocols, and a low level of transparency. happening in frames of still limited rules and standard-
ised procedures. This model imposes accountability and
In an environment where the dynamics of internal and consistency mainly, but not only, on decision makers, while
external states drastically evolve due to the proliferation increasing civic awareness, and allowing the democratisa-
of non-state actors2 as sources of influence and power and tion of speech.
to the huge increase in the number of interactions between
societies, traditional state structures are disrupted. And so The practice of network diplomacy is facilitated by new
is humanitarian diplomacy. States, as well as humanitarian digital technologies like social media or big data gathering
diplomacy practitioners, adapt, some faster than others, to and monitoring tools, in the sense that they allow a broader
what Heine defines as the ‘network’ model.3 and a faster connection to and between players, while
offering room for influence and mobilisation. These ‘new
Network diplomacy is an inclusive model where diplo- methods and modes of conducting diplomacy with the help
macy is no longer restricted to nation-states. Diplomacy of the Internet and ICTs, and their impact on contemporary
becomes ‘complexity management’, where coalitions are diplomatic practices’4 are called digital diplomacy.

Arenas of diplomacy: digital diplomacy to connect mobilise and influence

Whether it be the migration crises, the Syrian conflict, the voices, and to influence and have an impact, albeit it sup-
financial system, climate change, or the fight for preserv- portive or damaging.6
ing or retaining natural resources, most challenges that the
world faces today are of a global and an interlinked nature. In this expanding multistakeholder and digitally disrupted
environment, the ability to connect with and mobilise the
Discussions and negotiations on global matters are hap- full range of interlocutors in a timely manner in order to
pening at every level, from grassroots to state govern- pursue efficient persuasive actions based on evidence,
ments, in an environment disrupted by digital technologies is essential to ensure the success of humanitarian diplo-
where the Internet and access to social media give the pos- macy. Equally essential are data gathering, data moni-
sibility for everybody5 to have a voice, to hear each other’s toring, knowledge management, and information sharing

Policy Papers and Briefs – 7, 2017 2

within and without the organisation between humanitarian Assembly Declaration of commitment to end sexual vio-
diplomacy practitioners. lence in conflicts.

In its capacity to connect, to mobilise, and to be a tool for States and humanitarian actors increasingly encourage
influence, digital diplomacy must be seen as a supporting the inclusion of non-state actors like communities as
tool for humanitarian diplomacy practice. supporters of the humanitarian agenda, whether for pre-
vention, policy shaping, or implementation purposes. The
The 2012 Prevention of Sexual Violence in Conflict use of new digital technologies in general, and of social
Initiative7 is a good example of successful digital diplomacy media in particular, is one way to facilitate such inclusion.
action in its ability to connect with and mobilise multiple An illustration is the UN Security Council resolution 2250,8
stakeholders to pursue an influential action for humani- unanimously adopted in 2015, on the inclusion of youth in
tarian purpose. Here, decision makers and policymakers decision-making processes at local, regional, and national
have been influenced by the inclusion of non-state actors levels, by giving them a voice and including them in the pre-
in the policy-making process. The initiative was launched vention against the violent extremism agenda, with social
by the UK government and fed through digital platforms media and the Internet as conducive tools. The UNDP’s
(UK government’s website, YouTube, Twitter, Flickr, Tumblr World We Want9 campaign created in 2015 to solicit input
blog). Inputs given by communities were gathered from from civil society in general and beneficiaries in particular,
these digital platforms in order to co-create the UK gov- on the successor to the millennium development goals and
ernment’s diplomatic agenda that resulted in 2013 in a the priorities for the 2030 development agenda, is another
G8 Declaration, in UN Security Council resolution 2106 example.
on conflict-related sexual violence, and in the UN General

Arenas of diplomacy: an opportunity for ICRC humanitarian diplomacy

In the digital world, sources of power and influence are interact, and crowdsource from all the stakeholders that
becoming more diffuse and decentralised. While increas- compose the fast-changing and fast-growing networked
ing the level of complexity for decision makers and poli- diplomatic environment – were identified a decade ago
cymakers, the growing number of stakeholders engaged by some countries that are today leaders in the domain.
in the diplomatic arena represents an opportunity for It is the case for the UK and the USA, but also for France
humanitarian actors in general, and for the ICRC in particu- and Russia, which are amongst the top-level digital diplo-
lar, to practice humanitarian diplomacy at different levels, macy practitioners, according to a ranking made in 2016
and thus enhance its persuasion power. A reinforcement by the Digital Diplomacy Review pursuant to an assess-
of the ICRC’s presence and engagement in cyberspace via ment of 1098 digital diplomacy assets used by 210 MFAs
the building of a strong digital diplomacy tactic that goes worldwide.10,11
beyond the use of social media is one way to strengthen its
humanitarian diplomacy strategy in an environment facing The ICRC has the capability to work on developing the
digital disruption. full scope of digital diplomacy, by implementing concrete
actions and collaborating with the right partners, so that its
The opportunities brought by digital diplomacy – such as humanitarian diplomacy benefits from the whole potential
expansion of influence, knowledge-sharing, the capacity of digital diplomacy.
to offer virtual proximity, and the possibility to connect,

Digital diplomacy: applications to ICRC humanitarian diplomacy

While no official definition has been given to digital diplo- virtual Embassy in Iran.14 It structures its digital diplomacy
macy, if we look at how pioneering countries in the domain in programmes or clusters that cover the broad scope of
structure their digital diplomacy effort, it is agreed that dig- digital diplomacy.
ital diplomacy scope is broader than the use of and pres-
ence on social media.12 If we adapt and apply this structure to the ICRC in the frame
of its humanitarian diplomacy action, we could come up
For instance, the USA13 has a dedicated digital diplo- with the following clusters to define the scope of ICRC’s
macy office of 40 full-time employees, over 150 full-time digital diplomacy:
employees working on broader digital-diplomacy-related • Knowledge management: How can the ICRC gather,
issues, a digital presence on over 600 platforms, and a retain, share institutional knowledge on humanitarian

Policy Papers and Briefs – 7, 2017 3

 diplomacy, and optimize optimise the use of internal • Virtual representation: In contexts where access to
data and experience collected at field and institutional beneficiaries is difficult, how can The ICRC still ensure
levels, for humanitarian diplomacy purposes? virtual proximity? How can it engage virtually with inter-
• Information management: How can the ICRC get access locutors that are not willing to discuss face-to-face such
to, filter, and sort out external openly available infor- as Non-State Armed Groups (NSAGs)?
mation and data so that it can support a fact- and evi-
dence-based humanitarian diplomacy approach and The Health Care in Danger campaign21 launched by the
so that the ICRC gets a sense of the decision-making ICRC in 2011, is a great illustration of humanitarian diplo-
processes, the interests, and the opinions of its inter- macy conducted at all levels (delegations, headquarters,
locutors. The ICRC Trends, Reputation, Analysis and stakeholders including weapon-bearers, UN, and public
Knowledge unit (TRAK)15 has recently conducted a twit- opinion), supported by a digital diplomacy effort. A public
ter analysis related to the World Humanitarian Summit awareness campaign was settled and consisted of a ded-
(WHS) that identified main influencers and topics of icated website, a digital newsletter that supporters could
interest to position itself accordingly and exercise influ- subscribe to, a communication toolkit supporters could
ence in a targeted manner. The survey also allowed the download from the website and use to promote the cause,
ICRC to measure its visibility during the WHS. and a worldwide broadcast of the campaign on the part-
• Public diplomacy: With billions of people connected ners’ websites and in their blogs. A ’community of concern’
online, how can the ICRC maintain contact with ICRC’s has been created around health experts, governments,
stakeholders? How can the ICRC target relevant groups weapon-bearers, civil society representatives, NGOs, and
and deliver tailor made messages? How can the ICRC international organisations, to propose recommendations
determine who a key influencer is?16,17 How can it iden- and practical measures to protect health-care services in
tify the main influencers on a given topic and persuade war zones. Most of the discussions, debates, consultations,
them? How can it communicate and mobilise in a timely and follow up have been made through a dedicated Internet
manner?18 How can it measure its own influence and platform restricted to the community. The community also
visibility on social media?19,20 Public diplomacy is a use- has the responsibility to support the implementation of
ful complement to the ICRC’s humanitarian diplomacy in these recommendations at national and local levels, and
the sense that it helps manage perceptions and improve must ensure that their respective governments enhance
the organisation’s image. Stakeholders that the ICRC domestic law in this regard. To support the community and
meets follow the digital presence of the organisation. the ICRC’s delegations in promoting this campaign, pub-
Good public diplomacy management shows the positive lications, brochures, reports on incidents, campaign and
impact of the ICRC’s activities and complements face-to- audio visual materials, as well as online training have been
face meetings by strengthening the ICRC’s credibility. made available online.22 This campaign resulted in the UN
• External resources: What mechanisms could be devel- Security Council resolution 2286 on Health Care in Danger,
oped to capture and exploit external expertise to serve adopted in May 2016.23
and improve the ICRC’s humanitarian diplomacy effort?

Digital diplomacy: risks and challenges

Risks
Data protection and confidentiality: The digital environ- and who are likely to share their views. This restricts peo-
ment creates a new space to do harm. Mishandling of ple’s views and the reality we are facing. The example of
data resulting in inappropriate release of information or Brexit something nobody saw coming, is an illustration of
cyber-attacks can put beneficiaries at risk and expose this. In this context, the risk is that the ICRC’s persuasion
them to harmful repercussions from authoritarian regimes effort might not reach its targets.
or from their own community. The ICRC needs to make
guarantees to beneficiaries on these issues and ensure Clarity and consistency: The variety of platforms where
privacy, encryption, and anonymity of data. the ICRC is present and the rapidity with which messages
have to be delivered on such platforms, increase the risk of
Complexity: Monitoring and mediating the content con- not conveying clear and consistent messages. The credibil-
veyed by Internet and social media users is complex and ity of the institution is at stake.
risks of creating potentially negative perceptions of the
ICRC are increased. Loss of key information: The digital world offers cost- and
time-effective ways to discuss and collaborate, but risks
The ‘echo chamber’ effect: People connect on the Internet the loss of key information by not recording it.
and engage on social media with people similar to them

Policy Papers and Briefs – 7, 2017 4

 Figure 1. ICT4D. Data harm to aid recipients24

Challenges
Build and maintain trust: Even though the informal nature Substantial content: Social media is not interested in neu-
of digital diplomacy simplifies access and first discussions trality and dialogue on IHL. Social media users mostly look
with stakeholders by breaking the barriers of a physical for public statements, strong opinions, controversies, all of
meeting with heavy protocol, it is easier to build trust with which are against the ICRC’s fundamental principles.27 The
physical proximity. challenge is thus to find the right balance between expert
messages and attractive messages. One example of this
Complete control and monitoring of staff members’ dig- challenge being tackled is the work done by the ICRC on
ital behaviour is unrealistic. Any inappropriate content the format of its messages by creating short video clips28
released on the Internet or on social media can ruin years on IHL-related issues, or by the launch of a new Law and
of humanitarian diplomacy efforts in minutes by damaging Policy blog which hosts webinars.29
perception of the ICRC and putting its acceptance at stake
in the field. It is crucial for all employees, beyond human- The darknet30 is a part of cyberspace where the ICRC does
itarian diplomacy practitioners, to understand that their not drive any humanitarian diplomacy action. That said,
digital behaviour has an impact on the good conduct of the some non-state armed groups and groups like ISIS hold
institution’s humanitarian diplomacy. It is the responsibility huge digital territory in the darknet allowing them to dis-
of the institution to raise awareness and train employees seminate without control messages supporting attacks
on this matter. In other words: ‘Representation is beyond on civilians as a means of war, to recruit followers, and to
profession. It is complete personality, and does not stop at wage psychological warfare based on fear. According to
5.00 pm when leaving the office’.25 Jared Cohen, President of Jigsaw (formerly Google Ideas),
Adjunct Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations,
Information and data gathering: To gather and mine inter- and former advisor to the USA on digital diplomacy, the
nal and external data to identify trends and systemic issues ‘next prominent terrorist organisation will be more kely
in overwhelming flows is a challenge. Equally challenging to have extensive digital operations than control physical
is to combine these data with the ICRC’s legal expertise in ground’.31
order to support an evidence-based humanitarian diplo-
macy approach. The darknet is also used for private communication when
public communication represents a threat for Internet
In addition, relying on external information released on social users or when the Internet is shut down by a government. It
media can be misleading, if people do not have the room to can be used by political dissidents or unengaged members
express their opinion freely because of tight control of the of society to maintain contact with the rest of the world.32
Internet by a government. The example of the Philippines
during Typhoon Hayian,26 where communities feared to How the ICRC will tackle this issue in its humanitarian
express their real concerns, illustrates this challenge. diplomacy strategy remains an open question.

Policy Papers and Briefs – 7, 2017 5

Digital diplomacy: relevance for ICRC stakeholders and possibilities for
impactful influence

Figure 2 illustrates the multi-layered nature of the ICRC’s lobbyists leading to influencing parliaments, or influencing
scope of influence. private sector companies leading to influencing states, and
which are due to the influence that stakeholders exert on
There are various layers and complexities to this scope of each other.
influence, including knock-on effects, such as influencing

Figure 2. The multi-layered nature of the ICRC’s scope of influence (author’s own illustration)

Policy Papers and Briefs – 7, 2017 6

Digital diplomacy: take-aways for the ICRC

Even though not yet entirely framed, developed, and imple- rather than a formal status compliant with institutional
mented, digital diplomacy is not new for the ICRC. Some processes. Internal buy-in at all levels of the institution
practices are already being implemented, mainly by the to encourage staff to practice digital diplomacy is key for
Communications department, but links between digital success. Equally crucial is training for practitioners, reg-
diplomacy and humanitarian diplomacy need to be further ular information sharing, and recording of successes and
explored. failures, as well as strong technical service provided by ICT,
close data monitoring from TRAK, and support from other
One of the main consequences of digital diplomacy for relevant internal units like Communications, Information
humanitarian diplomacy may be the change of thinking Management, and Innovation.
to move towards the ‘de-institutionalisation’ of diplomacy.
The role of humanitarian diplomacy practitioners will be Building up a digital diplomacy strategy to serve human-
more about digital behaviour, knowledge, and information itarian diplomacy interests will take time. The ICRC will
management; the capacity to capture external expertise; have to overcome its culture of non-acceptance of failure. It
and the capability to connect with the humanitarian diplo- will have to accept that experimenting goes hand-in-hand
matic community and its stakeholders on digital platforms, with failure, and that it is okay to fail.

Implementation: current practices outside the ICRC

United Kingdom (UK)

In 2008, the UK’s Foreign and Commonwealth Office Commonwealth Office that can take full advantage of the
(FCO) started to recruit digital diplomats33 and build in networked world’.35
its digital strategy,34 including social media guidelines, ‘to
see digital embedded in every element of foreign policy Since then, the UK has become and has remained one of
work, leading to a more effective, more open Foreign and the top three most powerful countries in terms of digital
diplomacy.

United States of America (USA)

An example from the USA has already been mentioned, but social media, digital/technology capabilities, and grass-
it is interesting to note that the US public communication roots efforts.
and public affairs firm Rasky Baerlein conducted a sur-
vey in 2015 and 2016 alongside 202 Washington insiders The survey also indicates a more significant growth in
to gauge the trends in current and anticipated Washington spending on digital tools and public/media relations than
public affairs spending. traditional government relations in 2017. According to the
Rasky Baerlein survey, ‘40% of Washington insiders will
The results show that the three main anticipated trends divert their public affairs spending away from traditional
over the next five years are about an increased use of non-digital activities to fund digital advocacy areas.’36

Internal Council of Voluntary Agencies (ICVA)

Amongst ICVA members, the scope of digital diplomacy is Although very much recognising the growing importance
very much narrowed down to a presence on social media, of digital diplomacy and wanting to be more proactive in
mainly for humanitarian activism purposes rather than for its development in the short term, the main questions for
diplomacy per se. the ICVA centre on its capacity to measure the impact of
digital diplomacy. What does it mean to follow someone on
The ICVA has a website and a Twitter account, mainly used Twitter? What are people looking for when they follow the
to broadcast information. It does not blog and does not ICVA on Twitter? What is the effectiveness of digital diplo-
have a Facebook account, but it does use digital tools to macy for humanitarian diplomacy and advocacy purposes?
connect with online communities of experts, as well as for These are pending questions that need to be tackled prior
advocacy purposes. to any framing of a digital diplomacy strategy.

Policy Papers and Briefs – 7, 2017 7

International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC)
Digital diplomacy is one of the components of the IFRC’s The scope of the IFRC’s digital presence is broad: a blog,
social media strategy, particularly its public diplomacy. It is hosted on its website, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram,
also part of its policy and knowledge sharing efforts with YouTube, Medium, Flickr. These platforms represent key
National Societies (NS). Its internal online platform, FedNet, spaces for the IFRC to engage its audiences around issues
ensures IFRC-wide messages and positions are shared in which they can play a role and make a difference, as
among all members, so that they can speak with one voice well as to change people’s minds on and perspectives of
when advocating with and on behalf of vulnerable people. humanitarian issues (e.g. changing the public narrative on
migration). In this regard, policy and advocacy messages
The main objectives of the IFRC’s digital diplomacy is to are adapted to specific audiences and platforms (e.g. in
leverage social media and digital platforms to (1) raise terms of tone of voice, language, use of rich audio visual
awareness of the Fundamental Principles, role, and man- materials). Depending on the topic and the objective (e.g.
date of the IFRC among external stakeholders in order to awareness raising, policy change, public positioning), the
build trust, as well as to ensure support and access to the IFRC may target different and multiple audiences, varying
vulnerable people; (2) influence policymakers and other from states and governments, to media, the general public,
stakeholders and persuade them to act at all times in the Red Cross and Red Crescent staff and volunteers, etc.
best interests of vulnerable people; (3) disseminate key
messages, guidelines, and tools among IFRC members, to According to Giovanni Zambello, Senior Social Media
ensure they speak with one voice across their global net- Officer at the IFRC, digital technologies represent a power-
work, and (4) to empower NS to advocate with their respec- ful tool to strengthen public diplomacy efforts as they allow
tive stakeholders at national level. In this regard, the IFRC a direct access to any stakeholder present on social media
supports NS that are active on social media by sharing or anyone who is following conversations on social media.
sample social media content related to specific advocacy Also, social media’s speed and spread allow messages to
issues via Newswire, a weekly ad hoc email communica- be disseminated much faster and reach much further than
tion update sent to NS. The NS can use this content on their was ever possible before with traditional diplomacy.
respective social media platforms.

Médecins Sans Frontière (MSF)

MSF is composed of five autonomous operational centres. system. Information is gathered, analysed, and recorded
Although each centre has developed its own knowledge according to the mission and the related needs at a spe-
management project, mainly conducted through digi- cific time. MSF does not practice humanitarian diplomacy
tal collaborative platforms, there is very little knowledge per se, and it focuses more on public advocacy and tes-
sharing between them. There is a thorough recognition of timonies. Communications teams are in charge of these
the necessity to capitalise on experience from practition- files. MSF’s operations are using more and more digital
ers. This is why MSF is a strategic partner of the Centre of communication in fragile contexts in order to gain accept-
Competence on Humanitarian Negotiation. ance, but it is too soon to talk about a digital diplomacy
strategy.
Due to the short cycles of the projects/missions, it is very
challenging to work on a consistent information-gathering

Suggestions for digital diplomacy that is supportive of humanitarian

diplomacy and partnerships

Darknet
When framing its digital diplomacy strategy, the ICRC might principles on the darknet, for perception and acceptance
want to look at how to promote IHL on the darknet. How purposes, is also to be taken into consideration.
to disseminate the Red Cross Movement’s humanitarian

Support to National Societies

While framing its digital diplomacy strategy, the ICRC might In the same way the ICRC supports and cooperates closely
want to look at the options to support the NS in their digital with the NS on Restoring Family Links activities, it may want
diplomacy development beyond a presence on social media. to play a supporting role in digital diplomacy matters.

Policy Papers and Briefs – 7, 2017 8

Training on digital diplomacy
The ICRC could consider integrating a module on human- developing training through the Learning and Development
itarian diplomacy and digital diplomacy rules and best Unit (LnD). LnD training should be opened to all IFRC and
practices in the Staff Integration Programme agenda, and National Societies staff.

Additional institutional top risk

It is important to determine appropriate indicators to eval- effort. The ICRC should understand and agree on its risk
uate the ICRC’s risk exposure in the digital environment, tolerance and risk mitigation when it comes to digital.
and the consequences for its humanitarian diplomacy

Building and leading of humanitarian diplomats’ community

Creation of an ICRC Humanitarian Diplomacy digital plat- gather and retain internal and external data and informa-
form for internal and external practitioners and stakehold- tion; and do all of this in a flexible and timely manner.
ers is recommended. The portal would serve as a com-
munications vehicle, a branding tool, and an instrument The proposed platform would enhance internal and exter-
to support the ICRC’s humanitarian diplomacy effort. It nal positioning of humanitarian diplomacy. It would contain
should be a two-way communication platform that could three sections allowing the ‘network to do the work’.37 . One
transform the nature of the ICRC’s multilateral engage- section would be dedicated to internal ICRC humanitar-
ment through its potential to engage the broad human- ian diplomacy practitioners, another would be dedicated
itarian diplomacy community to create and maintain a to external practitioners and stakeholders, and the third
network, mobilise stakeholders and raise their awareness would be an IHL Virtual Academy that would serves both
with accurate communications materials, influence ICRS’s the internal and the external public. The three sections are
stakeholders, train humanitarian diplomacy practitioners, now looked at in more detail.

Figure 3. Why we should let the network do the work38

Section 1: Internal networks

There is no humanitarian diplomat function as such at the and security at check points, to the ICRC President engaging
ICRC. Humanitarian diplomacy is practiced at all levels, with states and speaking to the UN tribune. Internal experi-
from staff in the field negotiating access to beneficiaries ence and data collected at all levels need to be harnessed

Policy Papers and Briefs – 7, 2017 9

to support a humanitarian diplomacy effort based on facts, that rules, best practices, and failures can be discussed in
evidence, and experiences. Section 1 would be a proper a dedicated forum, for instance. It would promote a trans-
knowledge management tool where such experience and versal approach to the policy-shaping and decision-making
data are recorded and centralised for use by ICRC human- processes when it comes to humanitarian-diplomacy-re-
itarian diplomacy practitioners. It would be an instrument lated issues. Experience and knowledge, including from
that supports the integration of humanitarian diplomacy practitioners leaving the ICRC, could be transmitted and be
effort in the delegations. Section 1 would also aim at creat- accessible to all current practitioners. This section would
ing and maintaining a network between staff at headquar- also offer training on humanitarian diplomacy and on how
ters and in the delegations. It would be a means to interact to engage in digital networks (rules and best practices) for
between ICRC humanitarian diplomacy practitioners so current practitioners and humanitarian-diplomats-to-be.

Section 2: External networks

The external practitioners and stakeholders’ section would of communities’ input in policy shaping. Virtual representa-
aims at acilitating collaboration and online discussions tion of the ICRC would be made possible through this sec-
on a given topic of interest for the ICRC’s humanitarian tion to ensure digital proximity where physical proximity
diplomacy conduct. This section would enhance the ICRC’s is prevented. For instance, when access to beneficiaries
capability to interact with its stakeholders and is inspired is difficult or when engaging with actors the ICRC cannot
by what the Digital Diplomacy Coalition (DDC)39 and the meet in face-to-face meetings.
Humanitarian Practice Network40 do in terms of inclusion

Section 3: IHL Virtual Academy

The IHL Virtual Academy would be kept separate from In a time where the application of norms established by
Sections 1 and 2 to preserve the branding of the ICRC and IHL are being less recognised and becoming less rele-
its pertinence in regards to the promotion of humanitar- vant to states, combatants, and civilians,41 it becomes
ian law. At the same time, it would allow a two-way com- more important than ever to use every resource available,
munication between both sections in order to reinforce a including digital diplomacy and its proven impact on public
much-needed collaboration between the ICRC’s IHL law- opinion, to promote IHL.
yers and humanitarian diplomacy practitioners. It would
be a platform that draws on and exploits external exper- Videos (and space for questions and answers) like the one
tise on IHL through discussions between experts, lawyers, released on Facebook made by Dr Helen Durham42 on why
and military planners. It would be a dissemination vector people should care about the Geneva Conventions, virtual
to promote IHL. It would propose virtual training to ICRC reality and video games related to IHL like serious gaming
stakeholders, including non-state armed groups (NSAGs). tools, would have their space in this section.

Partnering for implementation and impact measurement

The Humanitarian Diplomacy digital platform would sup- How to leverage these collaborations to have an impact,
port the creation, development, and maintenance of inter- and how to measure and monitor the impact at strategic,
nal and external networks while developing a collaborative operational, and policy levels, are crucial questions that
state of mind when it comes to humanitarian diplomacy. need to be further considered. The GIP would also be able
It could also be used as a soft power tool43 to strengthen to guide the ICRC in this regard. It could advise on digital
the ICRC’s global leadership on humanitarian diplomacy risk management and impact measurement, foster an
matters and to promote the capacity of the institution to effective digital policy within the ICRC, as well as deliver
innovate, even in such a complex, subtle, and risky domain. digital diplomacy training to ICRC staff.

Implementation could be facilitated by partnering with the Discussions and workshops could also be organised with
Geneva Internet Platform (GIP).44 The GIP is a capacity build- experts in the domain like the above mentioned Jared
ing platform that mainly helps decision makers and policy- Cohen, or Scott Nolan Smith, Roos Kouwenhoven, Jed
makers to understand the intersection between diplomacy Shein, and Floris Winters, founders of the DDC.45 The DDC
and digital technologies, both as a topic for negotiations and/ is an international community of more than 4000 members
or as a tool for their activities. In this sense, they are advis- that brings together the diplomatic, international affairs,
ing policymakers, international organisations, and other academic, innovation, general public, and tech communi-
influential actors who want to better connect through digital ties to leverage digital technologies for diplomacy. Inviting
means with those they impact. In this regard, the GIP would Dr Patrick Meier,46 expert and consultant on humanitarian
have the capacity to support the ICRC in the development of technology and innovation and author of the book Digital
a humanitarian diplomacy practitioners’ online community. Humanitarians, would also add to discussions.

Policy Papers and Briefs – 7, 2017 10

 Figure 4. Mapping of a proposed ICRC Humanitarian Diplomacy Platform (author’s own illustration)

Conclusion

Despite the remaining relevance of traditional club diplo- about to disappear. Digital diplomacy has very little impact
macy, network diplomacy is a complementary model in on bilateral diplomacy which aims to work on relationships
which practices are partly supported by new information one at a time in order to build trust, persuade decision
and communication technologies. Even though different in makers to include humanitarian perspectives in their deci-
many ways, the two models meet in common objectives: sions, shape policies, and keep the door open to all parties
mobilisation and persuasion. to a conflict. While digital diplomacy continues to be devel-
oped to serve humanitarian purposes in many parts of the
Digital diplomacy, mainly but not only conducted through world, the role of traditional humanitarian diplomacy will
social media, will not become more important than traditional become more important than ever in dealing with crises
diplomacy, which seeks quiet ways of persuasion. Digital in places where insecurity and underdevelopment prevent
diplomacy, however, has a huge impact on public advocacy, ICRC stakeholders accessing digital tools, and thus limiting
multilateral engagement, and acceptance of the ICRC’s role the option for digital diplomacy.
and mandate by its stakeholders. It has proven a useful sup-
port to humanitarian diplomacy as it brings the ICRC and its Practicing digital diplomacy is not without risk, and in a
stakeholders closer to the situation on the ground, while pro- context of cyber warfare, confidentiality of data remains
viding an immediate real-time sense of a situation by getting of upmost importance. In June 2016, NATO recognised
access to open sources of information provided by states and cyberspace a warfare domain47 and stated that cyber-at-
people living and facing conflict or disaster. It is an inclusion tacks on one of its allies would be considered an act of
tool that allows people to have a voice, including those not war. How will the ICRC engage with states and other stake-
invited around the traditional negotiation table. It can be used holders on these issues? How can the ICRC respond in the
as a vector of IHL dissemination, a communication vehicle to case of cyber-attacks? Is IHL relevant when dealing with
foster acceptance, and a tool to gather information and mobi- cyber-warfare-related threats, and if yes, is IHL as it cur-
lise stakeholders in a timely manner. rently stands, adapted to address these issues? A digital
environment opens new arenas for engagement for the
However, the traditional quiet way to persuade remains ICRC, and its humanitarian diplomacy strategy will have to
the heart of the ICRC’s humanitarian diplomacy, and is not adapt to address these challenges.

Policy Papers and Briefs – 7, 2017 11

Endnotes

1
Heine J (2006) On the Manner of Practicing the New www.actfl.org/news/government-activities/secre-
Diplomacy. The Center for International Governance tary-state-condoleezza-rices-vision-transformation-
Innovation. Working Paper 11. Available at http://grad- al-diplomacy [accessed 2 August 2017]. US Department
uateinstitute.ch/files/live/sites/iheid/files/shared/ of State (2009) 21st Century Statecraft [video]. Available
executive_education/summer_international-af- at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6PFPCTEr3c
fairs_faculty-IA_professors/new%20diplomacy%20 [accessed 2 August 2017].
13
Heine%20paper%20CIGI%255B1%255D.pdf [accessed Rice C (2006) Transformational Diplomacy. Available at
2 August 2017]. https://2001-2009.state.gov/secretary/rm/2006/59306.
2
NGOs, International Organisations (OI), private compa- htm [accessed 2 August 2017].
14
nies, communities (local or not), Non-state armed groups US virtual embassy in Iran (no date). Available at https://
(NSAGs), lobbyists, opinion leaders, citizens ir.usembassy.gov [accessed 2 August 2017].
3 15
Heine J (2006) On the Manner of Practicing the New The TRAK unit helps the ICRC to optimize its understand-
Diplomacy. The Center for International Governance ing of its working environment. It monitors and analyses
Innovation. Working Paper 11. Available at http://grad- public information sources, thus contributing to develop-
uateinstitute.ch/files/live/sites/iheid/files/shared/ ing the ICRC’s strategy and facilitating decision-making.
16
executive_education/summer_international-af- Twiplomacy (2016) Twiplomacy study 2016. Available at
fairs_faculty-IA_professors/new%20diplomacy%20 http://twiplomacy.com/blog/twiplomacy-study-2016/
Heine%20paper%20CIGI%255B1%255D.pdf [accessed [accessed 2 August 2017].
17
2 August 2017]. The Klout tool that allows one to develop and measure
4
DiploFoundation (2017) Digital Diplomacy | E-diplomacy one’s online influence is available at https://klout.com/
| Cyber diplomacy. Available at https://www.diplomacy. corp/score [accessed 2 August 2017].
18
edu/e-diplomacy [accessed 2 August 2017]. Anon. (2013) Incorporating Social Media into Your Human
5
Ryan L (2016) This Little Girl Is Tweeting About Her Life Rights Campaigning. New Tactics in Human Rights.
in War-torn Syria. The Cut. Available at https://www. Available at https://www.newtactics.org/conversation/
thecut.com/2016/10/a-little-girl-is-tweeting-about- incorporating-social-media-your-human-rights-cam-
her-life-in-war-torn-syria.html [accessed 2 August paigning [accessed 2 August 2017].
19
2017]. Lüfkens M (2015) How do international organizations
6
On ISIS’ use of social media to recruit and promote vio- tweet in 2015? Twiplomacy blog, 12 March. Available at
lence against civilians as a means to conduct war: Bonzlo http://twiplomacy.com/blog/how-do-international-or-
A (2014) ISIS’ Use of Social Media Is Not Surprising; ganisations-tweet-2015/ [accessed 2 August 2017].
20
Its Sophisticated Digital Strategy Is. Huffington Post. Purvis K and Young H (2016) On the 10 best humani-
Available at http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/alessan- tarian to follow on social media. The Guardian, 18 April.
dro-bonzio/isis-use-of-social-media-_b_5818720.html Available at https://www.theguardian.com/global-de-
[accessed 2 August 2017]. velopment-professionals-network/2016/apr/18/10-
7
Pamment J (2016) British public diplomacy and soft of-the-best-humanitarians-to-follow-on-social-media
power. Diplomatic influence and the digital revolution. [accessed 2 August 2017].
21
Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, p. 207. HCID (no date) HCID Project. Available at http://healthca-
8
UNOY (2015) Security Council Resolution 2250. Annotated reindanger.org/hcid-project/ [accessed 2 August 2017].
22
and Explained. Available at http://unoy.org/wp-content/ Le Soins de Sante Endanger (no date) Resources [in
uploads/2250-annotated-and-explained.pdf [accessed French]. Available at http://healthcareindanger.org/fr/
2 August 2017]. resource-centre-4/ [accessed 2 August 2017].
9 23
United Nations (no date) The World We Want. Available UN (2016] Security Council Adopts Resolution 2286
at https://www.worldwewant2030.org [accessed 2 (2016), Strongly Condemning Attacks against Medical
August 2017]. Facilities, Personnel in Conflict Situations. Meetings
10
Digital Diplomacy Review (2016) Digital Diplomacy Coverage and Press Releases. Available at http://www.
Ranking 2016. Available at http://digital.diplomacy.live/ un.org/press/en/2016/sc12347.doc.htm [accessed 2
[accessed 2 August 2017]. August 2017].
11 24
Manning A (2016) The countries leading the way in GPPI (2015) Digital security in aid and develop-
digital diplomacy. Available at http://www.vocativ. ment. Available at http://www.gppi.net/publications/
com/338889/how-the-best-country-at-digital-diplo- data-technology-politics/article/digital-securi-
macy-failed-irl/ [accessed 2 August 2017]. ty-in-aid-and-development/ [accessed 2 August 2017].
12 25
DiploFoundation (2017) Digital Diplomacy | E-diplomacy Kurbalija J (interview with author 13 December 2016).
26
| Cyber diplomacy. Available at https://www.diplomacy. Humanitarian Technologies Project (no date) Project
edu/e-diplomacy [accessed 2 August 2017]. ACTFL Overview. Available at http://humanitariantechnologies.
(2006) Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice’s vision net [accessed 2 August 2017].
for ‘transformational diplomacy’. Available at https://

Policy Papers and Briefs – 7, 2017 12

27 37
ICRC (2016) The Fundamental Principles of the Red Cross Hinchcliffe D (2014) Let the network do the work. On
and Red Crescent. Available at https://www.icrc.org/ Digital Strategy blog, 4 August. Available at https://dion-
eng/assets/files/other/icrc_002_0513.pdf [accessed 2 hinchcliffe.com/2014/08/04/let-the-network-do-the-
August 2017]. work/ [accessed 2 August 2017].
28 38
ICRC (2014) Rules of war (in a nutshell). Available at Hinchcliffe D (2014) Let the network do the work. On
https://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/ Digital Strategy blog, 4 August. Available at https://dion-
audiovisuals/video/2014/rules-of-war.htm [accessed 2 hinchcliffe.com/2014/08/04/let-the-network-do-the-
August 2017]. work/ [accessed 2 August 2017].
29 39
ICRC (no date) Humanitarian Law & Policy. Available DDC (no date) Digital Diplomacy Coalition. Available
at http://blogs.icrc.org/law-and-policy/ [accessed 2 at http://www.digidiplomats.org [accessed 2 August
August 2017]. 2017].
30 40
The darknet can be described as ‘a computer network HPN (no date) Humanitarian Practice Network. About us.
with restricted access that is used chiefly for illegal peer- Available at http://odihpn.org/about-hpn/ [accessed 2
to-peer file sharing.’ Oxford Living Dictionaries (2017) August 2017].
41
darknet. Available at https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/ ICRC (1990) The People on War Report. Available at https://
definition/darknet [accessed 2 August 2017]. www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/icrc_002_0758.
31
Cohen J (2015) How to Marginalize the Islamic State pdf [accessed 2 August 2017].
42
Online. Foreign Affairs, November/December Issue. Helen Durham (born in 1968), an international human-
Available at https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/ itarian lawyer, is the Director of International Law and
middle-east/digital-counterinsurgency [accessed 2 Policy at the International Committee of the Red Cross
August 2017]. (ICRC). She served as director of international law, strat-
32
Daily Mail Reporter (2011) How the Internet refused egy, planning and research at the Australian Red Cross,
to abandon Egypt. Daily Mail, 30 January. Available at and has worked as the ICRC head of office in Sydney. She
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1351904/ has a PhD in international humanitarian law and interna-
Egypt-protests-Internet-shut-hackers-message-out. tional criminal law, and is a senior fellow at Melbourne
html [accessed 2 August 2017]. Law School.
33 43
Hale S (2008) Becoming a Digital Diplomat. FCO Global Cooper AF et al. (2015) The Oxford Handbook of Modern
Conversations blog, 17 November. Available at http:// Diplomacy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 456.
44
webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110108023357/ GIP (no date) Geneva Internet Platform. Available at
blogs.fco.gov.uk/roller/hale/entry/becoming_a_digi- giplatform.org [accessed 2 August 2017].
45
tal_diplomat [accessed 2 August 2017]. DDC (no date) Digital Diplomacy Coalition. Available
34
FCO (2012) The FCO Digital Strategy. Available at https:// at http://www.digidiplomats.org [accessed 2 August
www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-fco-digi- 2017].
46
tal-strategy [accessed 2 August 2017]. iRevolutions (2017) Patrick Meier, PhD. Bio. Available at
35
FCO (2012) The FCO Digital Strategy. Available at https:// https://irevolutions.org/bio/ [accessed 2 August 2017].
47
www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-fco-digi- Barnes JE (2016) NATO recognizes cyberspace as
tal-strategy [accessed 2 August 2017]. new frontier in defense. The Wall Street Journal, 14
36
Rasky Baerlein (2016) Washington Insiders June. Available at http://www.wsj.com/articles/nato-
Survey. Available at http://www.rasky.com/app/ to-recognize-cyberspace-as-new-frontier-in-de-
uploads/2016/11/RBSC-Insiders-Survey_Final.pdf fense-1465908566 [accessed 2 August 2017].
[accessed 2 August 2017].

Policy Papers and Briefs – 7, 2017 13

Appendix I: Research methodology

Primary and secondary sources have been used to write this Based on these elements, a questionnaire was elaborated to
paper. Data and information were gathered from academ- collect primary data through the conduct of qualitative inter-
ics and practitioners, which informed an appreciation of the views. After designing a mapping of relevant stakeholders
topic on theoretical and practical levels. within and without the ICRC, humanitarian diplomacy and
digital diplomacy practitioners were interviewed to deter-
Secondary data was gathered from the Internet, the WWW mine the stakes related to the matter.
Virtual Library on International Affairs resources, newspa-
pers, and publications. They enabled a broad understand-
ing of the topic and helped with identifying the key issues.

Appendix II: Interviewees

The author would like to thank the interviewees wholeheartedly for their time and support.

From the ICRC External to the ICRC

• ALDERSON Helen – Director Financial Resources and • BUZARD Nan – Executive Director – International
Logistics – Former member of the World Economic Council of Voluntary Agencies (ICVA)
Forum’s Global Agenda Council on the future of human- • GODEFROY Béatrice – International Coordinator
itarian action Operations Advocacy and Representation at Médecins
• BRUDERLEIN Claude – Strategic Advisor to the President Sans Frontière (MSF)
and Head of the project Humanitarian Negotiation • Dr KURBALIJA Jovan – Head of the Geneva Internet
Exchange Platform & Director of DiploFoundation
• DACCORD Yves – Director General • RONZI Flavio – President of Italian Red Cross
• DALTON Clare – Head of Humanitarian Diplomacy and • ZAMBELLO Giovanni – Senior Officer Social Media at
Deputy Head of Policy and Humanitarian Diplomacy the International Federation of the Red Cross and Red
Division Crescent Societies (IFRC)
• DURHAM Helen – Director of Law and Policy
• EL HAGE Ralph – Regional Spokesperson/Public
Relations for the Near & Middle East
• FOURNIER Frédéric – Head of Delegation Jordan –
Former Deputy Head of Humanitarian Diplomacy Unit
(2005–2007)
• LINDSEY-CURTET Charlotte – Director of Communication
and Information Management
• MARTIN Christophe – Former Head of Multilateral
Affairs Unit (2015–2016)
• SLIM Hugo – Head of Policy and Humanitarian Diplomacy
Division

Policy Papers and Briefs – 7, 2017 14

Policy Papers and Briefs – 7, 2017 15
Alice Maillot

Alice Maillot is a humanitarian practitioner and team leader at the ICRC Geneva headquarters, working
on government relations to mobilise resources and reinforce policy dialogue with the ICRC’s major
donors and partners. Her professional life has included time as a parliamentary attaché in Paris, a
special project with the Gulf and NAME region at the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and time at the UN
offices in New York and Geneva. With an academic background in international relations (IRIS, Harvard
Kennedy School) and business (ESCE Paris), she has worked both in and with the private sector, as well
as in different departments of the ICRC, including governance. Maillot is also a member of the ICRC
Ombuds office, working on conflict prevention and resolution. She is passionate about humanitarian
diplomacy and the ICRC, taking advantage of the digital tools of the modern era, including cutting edge
communications and innovative online methods of setting and achieving diplomatic objectives. In her
free time, Maillot serves on her local government board as County Commissioner while valuing the
preservation of a healthy work-life balance, and enjoying time with her two children. More information:
https://www.linkedin.com/in/alice-maillot-0a8ba320/

We look forward to your comments – please e-mail them to amaillot@icrc.org

Diplo’s policy papers and briefs can be downloaded from

www.diplomacy.edu/policybriefs

If you are interested in publishing a policy paper or brief with us, please get in touch with Katharina
Höne, at katharinah@diplomacy.edu

Please cite as: Maillot A (2017) Digital diplomacy and the ICRC. Scope and relevance for humanitarian
diplomacy. DiploFoundation Policy Papers and Briefs, No. 7.
Available at https://www.diplomacy.edu/sites/default/files/Policy_papers_briefs_07_AM.pdf

Disclaimer: The content of the policy papers and briefs represents the personal opinion of the author and should not be
attributed to any organisation with which the author is affiliated.