The Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their Additional Protocols aim to protect those people who are not “participating in the hostilities” of war, such as “civilians, health workers and aid workers” and are the pillar of humanitarian law (International Committee of the Red Cross, 2010). The humanitarian principles including humanity, neutrality, independence and impartiality, are based on the international humanitarian law and committed to by all member states of the European Union (European Commission, 2019). Although these principles exist to guide the humanitarian organizations in their assistance and allocation of humanitarian aid, they are sometimes overlooked in terms of, for instance, self-interest, strategic motives and media attention. This results in ethical dilemmas for humanitarian organizations.

The aim of this thesis is to examine how Swedish aid donors, both a governmental and Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), reason ethically in relation to the allocation of humanitarian aid towards conflict-affected areas. Semi-structured interviews have been conducted with four Non-Governmental Organizations and one governmental organization in order to examine and compare their ethical reasoning. The theories of consequentialism, utilitarianism, deontological ethics, socialization and rational choice have been applied to investigate the research questions further.

The results broadly indicate that all participating organizations reason similar in terms of ethics in contrast to the findings in the previous research. For instance, they all follow the humanitarian principles and use additional ethical frameworks in the allocation of humanitarian aid. Many similarities were found among the NGOs and the governmental organization as well as a few differences.