The IASC Guidelines are relatively new and supplement existing international guidance documents that support the inclusion of persons with disabilities as a crosscutting issue in all humanitarian response structures. Other important guidance documents include, for instance, the Humanitarian Inclusion Standards for Older People and People with Disabilities and the United Nations Disability Inclusion Strategy. The IASC Guidelines explicitly refer to the Humanitarian Inclusion Standards for Older People and People with Disabilities but differ in that they apply to all humanitarian actors involved in policymaking, coordination and programming, and are not limited to multilateral organizations, like the United Nations Disability Inclusion Strategy (IASC, 2019, p.3). Moreover, the process of development and scope of the IASC Guidelines are ground-breaking, involving a truly participatory process that has been co-led by persons with disabilities and their representative organizations.4 Importantly, the IASC officially endorsed the Guidelines on the Inclusion of Persons with Disabilities in Humanitarian Action in 2019, this giving them the authority to inform humanitarian practice in all sectors and humanitarian settings.
In the same year, alongside the launch of the Guidelines, the IASC published a collection of case studies on the inclusion of persons with disabilities in humanitarian action. The document includes 39 examples of field practices, and lessons learned from 20 countries (Christian Blind Mission [CBM], International Disability Alliance [IDA], and Handicap International – Humanity & Inclusion [HI], 2020). Moreover, the IASC Results Group 2 on Accountability and Inclusion issued a short case study on the COVID-19 Response in Humanitarian Settings, which includes examples of Good Practices for Including Persons with Disabilities by the United Nations system (IASC, 2020). Nevertheless, despite these exceptions, empirical studies, which explore whether and how humanitarian actors use these Guidelines and consider local or contextual factors before and during their implementation, are rare. These examples and case studies mainly reflect experiences of practitioners and are not based on a comprehensive research agenda. Thus, there are still important knowledge gaps with regard to the practical application of the four ‘must do’ actions of the IASC Guidelines in particular and disability inclusion in general. This study addresses these gaps and aims to support humanitarian actors in South Sudan, and in other, similar crises, to apply and implement the four ‘must do’ actions. Moreover, it helps us better understand the potential of the IASC Guidelines in making humanitarian action truly inclusive for persons with disabilities.