“When the world shook,” The Economist, 30 June 1990, p. 45, quoted in Rohan J. Hardcastle, Adrian T. L. Chua, “Humanitarian assistance: towards a right of access to victims of natural disasters,” International Review of the Red Cross No. 325, December 1998, p.589. The response to natural disasters has traditionally been seen as a compassionate response to those in need. While compassion remains at the centre of humanitarian action, humanitarian organizations are increasingly aware that aid is rarely neutral and that aid can have long-term consequences, as evidenced by the 2004 Asian tsunamis, Hurricane Katrina in 2005 and the earthquake in Haiti this year. In this presentation, I would like to examine some of the links between sudden natural disasters, conflicts and human rights. In particular, I say that integrating a human rights perspective into the response to natural disasters is important not only because it strengthens the rights and dignity of vulnerable people, but also because they can prevent post-disaster conflict. In every English-speaking world, an act of God is a natural danger outside of human control, such as an earthquake or tsunami for which no one can be held responsible. An act of God may be an exception to liability in contracts (as under the rules of The Hague-Visby) or may be an “insured danger” in an insurance policy.
 In other contracts, such as compensation, an act of God cannot be an excuse and, in fact, the central risk that the bill takes . B for example, flood insurance or crop insurance – the only variables are the timing and extent of the damage. In many cases, failure to ignore the obvious risks associated with “natural phenomena” will not be enough to excuse compliance, even if events are relatively rare: for example. B, the problem of the year 2000 for computers. According to the Single Code of Commerce 2-615, the non-delivery of the goods sold may be excused by an “act of God” if the absence of such an act was a “basic presumption” of the contract and if the act rendered the delivery “commercially unenforceable”. It seems intuitive to conclude that conflict exacerbates the effects of natural disasters by weakening the capacity of the state, the community and the individual to respond. Institutions, it threatens political stability and creates a power vacuum and the possibility for warlords and criminal gangs to seize power… A natural disaster tends to transform society, and thus its ability to manage risks, dysfunctions and political changes.  It tests this hypothesis with the use of data from the EM-DAT International Disaster database on sudden and slow disasters of 1991-1999, as well as various conflict databases and current affairs reports to assess whether natural disasters increase the risk of conflict. Bhavnani concludes that natural disasters “contribute to conflict because they create competition for resource scarcity, they exacerbate inequalities through the unequal distribution of aid, change the balance of power between the individuals, groups and organizations that serve them, and can create a power vacuum and opportunities for warlords to seize power.”  There are cases of natural disasters in places where conflicts have already disrupted the lives of people, such as the Philippines, Iraq, Somalia, Kenya, Colombia and Haiti. Because the definition of a natural disaster is linked to society`s ability to respond, state and social structures weakened by conflict are less likely to respond to the effects of a natural hazard, increasing the likelihood that a natural disaster will result.