Written Evidence Submission to the International Development Committee

Inquiry: Humanitarian Access and Adherence to International Humanitarian Law

Submitted by: Insecurity Insight

Date: 22 January 2024

Introduction

Insecurity Insight is a non-governmental organization which has been documenting and analysing data on attacks on humanitarian operations, including aid operations, health care, education, attacks on protection settings and food insecurity for the past decade. Insecurity Insight issues reports highlighting security risk concerns for aid operations, including the annual Safeguarding Health in Conflict Coalition report. Insecurity Insight is an associate member of the Global Interagency Security Forum (GISF) and collaborates with the project ‘Researching the Impact of Attacks on Healthcare’ at the Humanitarian and Conflict Response Institute at the University of Manchester.

In this submission, Insecurity Insight responds to the questions posed by the Committee, focusing on current trends and patterns which the organization has identified during the past years in their work.

Insecurity Insight believes that this inquiry has come at a critical time, when in almost all conflict settings we have observed increasing risks to humanitarian operations and violations to international humanitarian law. These risks have repeatedly put the lives of aid and health workers in danger, with 2024 becoming the deadliest year on record for aid workers.[1] These risks also made the delivery of critical, life-saving humanitarian supplies increasingly difficult and in some contexts have rendered certain areas inaccessible to aid organizations.

Q1. What are the current trends in adherence to international humanitarian law in conflicts, particularly regarding the safe delivery of humanitarian assistance?

International Humanitarian Law (IHL) protects aid operations and health care in conflict by requiring conflict parties to adhere to the principles of distinction, proportionality and precaution to protect objects indispensable to the survival of civilian populations. Moreover, International Humanitarian Law sets out clear legal obligations for warring parties to facilitate the delivery of aid. Insecurity Insight’s monitoring of violent events affecting aid operations suggests that these principles are not sufficiently respected to ensure the safe delivery of humanitarian assistance.

Distinction, Proportionality and Precaution

Insecurity Insight has observed an increase in the use of explosive weapons in populated areas (EWIPA). The wide area effects of explosive weapons make the application of the principle of distinction - that requires conflict parties to distinguish between combatants and civilians and to direct their operations only against military objectives - and precaution - that requires conflict parties to minimise civilian harm - difficult to adhere to. The wide area effects of these weapon systems also mean that conflict parties fail to protect objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population.

Since 2022, we have observed that the use of explosive weapons affecting humanitarian operations, has steadily been on the increase. In 2024, the use of explosive weapons impacting humanitarian operations more than doubled compared to the previous year.[2] Additionally, a recently published report by Insecurity Insight has also noted a rapid and escalating increase in the use of armed drones which are also having a severe impact on aid and health care operations.[3]

Health and aid operations have been directly affected by explosive weapons: aid and health care workers have been killed or severely injured by their use, health facilities, aid offices and warehouses, and IDP and refugee camps - areas which are meant to provide refuge for communities fleeing conflict - have all come under repeated attacks by these weapons. Additionally, explosive weapons also cause severe destruction to civilian infrastructure, including roads, electricity, communication water, fuel and sewage systems, which when damaged or destroyed adversely affect the ability of humanitarian organizations to carry out their work.

The indiscriminate nature of explosive weapons not only caused destruction and devastation to objects indispensable for the survival of the civilian populations, it also has also made the delivery of humanitarian assistance extremely challenging. Because negotiated access and practical security risk measures cannot protect against indiscriminate wide area effects from explosive weapons, aid agencies are forced to suspend operations in areas under bombardment to fulfill their duty of care obligations towards aid staff, which as a consequence, severely affects humanitarian access.

Humanitarian Access

All parties to a conflict, be it international or non-international in nature, have the obligation to allow and facilitate rapid and unimpeded passage of humanitarian relief for civilians in need. The assistance must be impartial in character and provided on the basis of need alone. In all situations, humanitarian assistance must not be refused on arbitrary or unlawful grounds.

Insecurity Insight’s monitoring of violence affecting aid operations has observed several aspects directly impeding humanitarian access.

Attacks on humanitarian operations

In the past few years, particularly since 2023 - coinciding with an increase in conflict in Sudan, Ukraine, Myanmar and the Occupied Palestinian territory (oPt), we have seen a significant increase in attacks on humanitarian operations, their staff, infrastructure and operations. Last year’s SHCC report documented a 25% increase in incidents of violence against or obstruction of health care in conflict and this has continued in the past year as violence against health care has continued unabated in most conflict situations. We have noted that an escalation of violence and conflict, across various countries and territories, has almost immediately seen health care come under attack. In 2024, attacks on health care in the occupied Palestinian territory, Myanmar, Ukraine and Sudan have continued at an unrelenting pace.

Political threats against aid workers have also increased. In 2024, at least 175 aid workers, 91% of whom were national staff, were arrested - the vast majority whilst attempting to carry out their work. Aid workers were arrested whilst traveling and distributing aid supplies, when stopped at checkpoints, inside health buildings and aid offices and during distribution sites or whilst working in IDP or refugee camps.

Furthermore, conflict parties have attacked humanitarian distribution sites, looted critical supplies such as medicines and food, and aid and health facilities have been raided, their property seized, and their premises occupied.

These attacks all contribute towards making the delivery of humanitarian assistance even more difficult and, as a result of this increased insecurity, aid organisations have been given no choice but to evacuate or temporarily suspend their operations in order to protect their staff and beneficiaries.

Bureaucratic and administrative barriers

Insecurity Insight has also documented bureaucratic and administrative barriers obstructing the delivery of humanitarian assistance to affected communities. Humanitarian organizations and UN agencies have repeatedly faced obstructions and denials of requests to deliver essential aid, including medical and food supplies. Aid and health vehicles are frequently stopped, searched, and delayed at checkpoints set up by conflict-parties, leading to significant disruptions and delays in operations. Whilst disruptions to telecommunications and internet services, severely hamper the coordination of relief efforts. 

Starvation as a weapon of war

The use of starvation of the civilian population as a method of warfare is strictly prohibited. Insecurity Insight’s monitoring of conflict impacts on aid operations suggests that the combined impact of systematic destruction of objects indispensable to the survival of civilian populations and impeded humanitarian access and targeted attacks against aid workers may constitute the application of starvation as a weapon of war in some contexts. Therefore, the trends in failure to adhere to key IHL principles in relation to the safe delivery of humanitarian assistance are part of broader concerning trends in the conduct of conflict that go beyond individual technicalities around the safe delivery of humanitarian assistance.

Q2. What impact does lack of adherence have to both the physical access to humanitarian supplies and the safe operation of aid workers?

Humanitarian operations are facing mounting challenges due to the escalating violence mentioned above. In addition to direct attacks on aid workers and their operations - all of which affect organisations’ ability to effectively and safely carry out their work.

Through its conflict and hunger project, Insecurity Insight has documented how food aid and food-related infrastructure has frequently been directly affected by violence during conflicts in contexts including Gaza, Mali, Niger and Sudan. Attacks on food convoys combined with the destruction of granaries, bakeries and food production factories as well as the pillaging of food aid supplies from aid agencies and communities alike have undermined food availability and have prevented aid agencies from effectively addressing food security needs.

Additionally, repeated and sustained attacks on the healthcare system in numerous conflict-affected countries have had a profound effect on the ability of health care workers to carry out their work and for communities to access health care. In Gaza, we documented over 2,000 incidents of violence against the health care system since 07 October 2023, which have decimated the health care system. Whilst in Myanmar and Ukraine, health facilities were forced to relocate to basements or hidden locations due to sustained attacks and threats of explosive weapons[4]. The disruption and obstruction of the delivery of medical supplies - and other critical supplies needed for a healthcare system to function - also impact the functioning of the healthcare system. Without these supplies health care professionals are unable to provide the standard of care their patients require.

These incidents have all collectively created an increasingly hostile and restrictive environment for humanitarian aid workers and their operations, undermining efforts to provide life-saving assistance to those in need.

Undermining of humanitarian principles on the social media space

Insecurity Insight’s monitoring of social media in humanitarian settings also identifies threats to the humanitarian space on social media platforms. This work shows how mis-and dis-information on social media platforms undermines humanitarian principles and puts aid operations at risk. In posts and comments humanitarian organisations are accused of corruption, financing terrorism and aiding opposing conflict parties; they strive to pursue their humanitarian mission to provide aid on the basis of need rather than political affiliation.  The use of disinformation and hate speech targeting aid and health workers has increased operational risks in conflict zones. False narratives, often rooted in long-standing distrust of foreign entities and fueled by political and social tensions, frequently level accusations against aid agencies that severely undermine humanitarian access and effectiveness of operations.

Q8. What more could the Government do, with or without partners, to hold perpetrators of attacks and abuse against aid workers to account and encourage adherence to IHL.

Insecurity Insight supports the recommendations outlined in the Safeguarding Health in Conflict Coalition report (SHCC)[5] which emphasizes the need to protect healthcare services, prevent attacks on health workers and ensure accountability for these violations.

In the absence of effective and transparent IHL focused accountability measures, the International Criminal Court (ICC) should be urged to bring cases for crimes based on attacks on health care and humanitarians and for blocking humanitarian access.

Insecurity Insight firmly believes in the importance of documenting and reporting violations of international humanitarian law. Such efforts are essential to shed light on violations, encourage accountability and protect the dignity of affected communities. To achieve this, it is vital to promote initiatives that enhance documentation efforts, increase funding to sustain these initiatives, and provide training for local aid workers and health workers to document these attacks. Insecurity Insight remains committed to supporting such endeavours and partnering with relevant stakeholders to advance these objectives.

Insecurity Insight believes that the humanitarian space on social media platforms is a common good that holds potential to bridge communication gaps, counter misinformation, and foster trust in the principles of the humanitarian idea. To achieve this, there is a need to pursue aid sector wide social media monitoring to protect the humanitarian space and principles across social media platforms. This requires donor engagement to ensure that the key principles of the humanitarian approach are translated into meaningful engagements as the global communication architecture impacts conflicts and societies in profound ways.

Additionally, Insecurity Insight urges the UK government to call for the need for secure and unimpeded humanitarian access to aid organizations in order to allow them to carry out their work. This includes addressing bureaucratic, logistical, financial and security challenges that hinder operations and calling for conflict parties to respect humanitarian corridors and ensure safe passage for humanitarian workers and supplies.

Accountability mechanisms should continue to be reinforced and perpetrators of IHL violations to be held to account. Insecurity Insight urges the UK government to uphold the principles of IHL and those outlined in the EWIPA declaration and to take an active role in encouraging all conflict parties to abide by these principles and to exert diplomatic and other pressures on state security forces and non-state armed groups to cease attacks on humanitarian workers and their operations. By doing so, the UK can demonstrate global leadership and reaffirm its commitment to safeguarding IHL and mitigating civilian harm in conflict zones.