Continuing the discussion about how the contemporary ICRC interprets its core mandate, or how it exercises its right of initiative, this chapter starts with the subject of low-level urban violence. The author understands how the organization gets drawn into situations such as Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, and Port au Prince, Haiti, but is doubtful the organization can have much impact in very large and dysfunctional urban centers such as Karachi or Lagos. Major humanitarian needs certainly exist in violent urban areas, but whether the ICRC is the right agency for addressing them merits review. Likewise, on dealing with irregular migrants, the author understands the focus on detention issues but doubts some of the other existing activities should be systematically or consistently addressed by the ICRC. There are many other actors active on irregular migration. The ICRC does indeed run the risk of losing its special niche and becoming a very broad, all purpose, do-gooder agency, as some critics fear. A dilemma is how to be a good team player within the RC Movement but not fall victim to mission creep.

This chapter begins to examine one of the important arguments by some critics, namely that ICRC activities have become so broad and sprawling that it has lost its status as an expert actor on the laws of war (both legal development and implementation), along with protection of political prisoners. The chapter first reminds the reader that there is no binding authority above the ICRC; hence, the ICRC governing board decides how to interpret its mandate or basic role – which essentially dates from 1930. In deciding what humanitarian subjects should be addressed by the ICRC, one of the most important is taking humanitarian assistance beyond immediate relief to include a type of development or early recovery. The author finds the direction of this policy commendable but without clear limits. The dividing line between humanitarian recovery and political development remains uncertain. That line seems to lie more in the realm of subjective labelling than objective and definable facts. The distinction is often controversial as in contemporary Afghanistan and Syria, among other places.