Written evidence provided to the International Development Committee by the UK and Ireland Regional Delegation of the International Committee of the Red Cross

Humanitarian access and adherence to international humanitarian law

The International Committee of the Red Cross

1. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) is an impartial, neutral, and independent organisation whose exclusively humanitarian mission is to protect the lives and dignity of victims of armed conflict and other situations of violence and to provide them with assistance, at the same time as promoting respect for IHL and its implementation in domestic law.
2. Founded in 1863, today active with 17,500 staff in 100 countries and an overall budget of just over £ 1.9 billion (2025), the ICRC is part of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, the biggest locally-rooted humanitarian network worldwide with more than 16 million volunteers.[1] ICRC works together with host National Societies to ensure the effective and impactful coordination of the Movement’s responses to armed conflicts and other situations of violence.
3. It was on the ICRC’s initiative that states adopted the original Geneva Convention of 1864. Since then, with the support of the entire Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement and an explicit mandate enshrined in the Geneva Conventions, ICRC urges governments and non-state armed groups to adapt IHL to changing circumstances, particularly modern developments in the means and methods of warfare, to provide more effective protection and assistance for the victims of conflict. 

Challenges to International Humanitarian Law

“What the ICRC witnesses today is emboldened warring parties disregarding their legal obligations and, at times, using overly permissive interpretations of International Humanitarian Law to justify violations, destruction, and impediments to humanitarian action. Violations happen with full knowledge of the international community – but with little corrective action. The collective inertia and acceptance of this reality is setting a new threshold for placing humanity on a scale, disregarding the fact that all human lives have equal value.”[2]

ICRC President Mirjana Spoljaric, at the UN Security Council, 25 September 2024

4. As we witness IHL disregarded and undermined, it is understandable that some may call for the law to be fixed or overhauled. This is not the answer. IHL remains a robust and detailed set of rules for conflict parties. The ICRC asserts the existing legal framework on the respect for and protection of humanitarian personnel and objects, is clear and comprehensive, whether in situations of international armed conflict, non-international armed conflict, or situations of occupation. [3] 
    
5. IHL is a body of law that not only contains the most basic obligations that all States have agreed to, but it also provides practical guidance on how, even in the extreme circumstances of conflict, the life, physical integrity, and dignity of those not or no longer fighting can be preserved. It is not the IHL framework but compliance and adherence to IHL which is where gaps lie.

Current trends in IHL adherence in relation to safe delivery of assistance
 

6. We are witnessing growing limitations on humanitarian space and access, a lack of compliance by parties with their obligations under IHL, and increasingly unsafe and complex environments. Just as the civilian population is paying an unbearable price in today's conflicts, so too are humanitarian personnel, who face daily risks from verbal threats and intimidation, to disappearance, serious injury, and death.

7. For the ICRC, incidents involving humanitarians have increased threefold in the past decade (from around 100 in 2015 to over 300 in 2023).[4] Overall, 2023 was the deadliest year on record for humanitarians. Compared to 2022, incidents affected more aid workers (+ 13 %), were concentrated in fewer contexts (down from 34 to 25) and caused more victims per incident (+ 29%).[5] In 2023 alone, 51 members of the Red Cross Red Crescent Movement were killed when carrying out vital humanitarian work.[6] Figures for January to August 2024 list occupied Palestinian Territory as the most dangerous context for humanitarians, followed by South Sudan, Sudan, Nigeria, and Yemen.[7]

8. When we look at major security incidents reported - those involving staff being killed, kidnapped, or injured – we see that not only has the number of these serious incidents increased since last year, but the number of victims per incident has also risen. This suggests that the incidents we're dealing with are becoming more violent in nature.

9. Today, we must highlight the following worrisome trends that limit humanitarian access of local, national, and international humanitarians:

1. Security-related concerns, especially when hostilities are ongoing or when humanitarian operations are deliberately targeted. This can lead humanitarian organisations to either stop or scale down their operations in specific contexts.

2. Physical attack: the harms to which humanitarian personnel are exposed go beyond death and injury. They include arbitrary detention, disappearance, targeting in the digital sphere through misinformation, disinformation and hate speech[8]. All harms also have mental health impacts.

3. Explicit or implicit denial of consent for humanitarian action or constraints imposed as part of a political or military strategy aimed at depriving the adversary and/or the civilian population of essential supplies and, ultimately, humanitarian protection. 

4. Perceptions of politicisation of aid where parties of conflict, or those supporting them, combine political, military, and humanitarian objectives limiting access by impartial humanitarian organisations to people affected by conflict, as part of their strategy or negotiations. [9]

5. Sanctions impact humanitarian organisations in various ways, often leading to operational delays or limitations on impartial humanitarian activities. While States and International Organisations legitimately employ such measures, they must include safeguards to minimise any adverse impacts on the ability of impartial humanitarian organisations to respond to the needs of persons affected by armed conflict and other situations of violence.

Role of humanitarians in securing access

10. Humanitarians are not without agency when it comes to the protection of humanitarian space and, ultimately, access to people affected by conflict. Access is the result of practical arrangements between belligerents and humanitarians who must develop frontline negotiations skills.

11. ICRC pursues access primarily through its presence in conflict settings and its confidential, bilateral dialogue with parties to armed conflict based on their IHL obligations. In our experience, sustained dialogue, underpinned by a long-term operational presence to affected populations, based on humanitarian principles, is the best way to build trust and acceptance with all sides in a polarised environment.

12. Within the Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, the ICRC takes the lead, including through its comprehensive, well-tested Safer Access Framework[10], co-developed with Movement partners, to provide guidance to thousands of members of National Red Cross and Crescent Societies to improve their acceptance, security and, ultimately, access to communities affected by crisis.

What the UK can do

13. As stated above, the ICRC asserts that the existing legal framework on the respect for and protection of humanitarian personnel and objects is clear and comprehensive[11]. The onus is on states and also non-state armed groups, to invest in its implementation, compliance and, as appropriate, accountability. The UK government, in its current foreign policy reviews “to enhance the UK’s global impact, support growth and maximise the diplomatic and development expertise in international development” has now the chance to declare, publicly, IHL compliance as a domestic and an international priority.[12]

14. Recognising that ICRC has the explicit mandate to work for the faithful application, understanding and dissemination of IHL, ICRC has recently launched the Global Initiative on IHL precisely to draw political attention for the need to make IHL a priority.[13] The initiative is an opportunity for the UK to engage substantively with reaffirming their commitment to the laws of war to provide effective and meaningful protection of affected people in armed conflict.

15. We commend the UK’s role in the formation of a Ministerial Group for the Protection of Humanitarian Personnel during UNGA[14], and for signing the pledge for Enhancing the Protection of Humanitarian Personnel at the 34th International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement [15]. Political commitments, such as these, are vital for signalling the importance of IHL related matters, however they must also be backed by consistent efforts to strongly call out violations of IHL, including attacks on humanitarian workers, as and when they occur.

16. The following paragraphs outline key recommendations for the UK government:

1. In line with the UK adopted resolution “Building a universal culture of compliance with international humanitarian law”[16] at the 34th International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent, the UK should invest political capital into reaffirming existing international norms that allow humanitarian access, especially the obligation of all states to respect and ensure respect for IHL, including using their influence to ensure respect by others. Concretely, it is imperative that the UK is even-handed in its calls for IHL compliance with its partners or other parties to conflict to allay any perceptions of partial implementation of IHL as a normative framework.[17]

2. The UK leadership in its calls for minimum standards of humanitarian access must consistently build its messaging - publicly as well as bilaterally with partners and allies – by calling out the overly permissive interpretation of IHL. The message is a simple one: compliance with IHL is at the heart of humanitarian access.

3. Commit to actively de-politicise humanitarian action. This means not letting the language and spirt of IHL– agreed universally and enshrined in treaty – to be eroded by the political exigencies of the day, whether by foes or friends or allies.

4. Noting the disproportionately unacceptable high risks facing local actors in most conflicts today, ensure that all efforts for the protection of humanitarian personnel include and address local humanitarian actors. This includes taking action to increase access for local humanitarian stakeholders (including National Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies).

5. Bolster understanding of the humanitarian principles of neutrality, independence, and impartiality across all government departments, as well as with all of the UK’s partners and allies, to ensure that policies and practices enable humanitarian actors’ capacity to work in accordance with those principles.

6. Ensure that the exclusively humanitarian activities of humanitarian personnel foreseen in IHL are not criminalised or impeded by laws or practices relating to sanctions or counter-terrorism measures whether in the contexts where they work or in their home countries, notably through the adoption of a well-framed and standing exemption.
    
7. Take meaningful action (including individual criminal accountability as appropriate) to investigate and address alleged incidents resulting in harm to humanitarian personnel and / or their premises and assets. This should include action designed to prevent recurrence.
    
8. Take all feasible measures to ensure that humanitarian operations are not disrupted or undermined through direct or indirect targeting of humanitarian objects, personnel, or infrastructure. As humanitarian organisations are increasingly dependent on digital resources and infrastructure this should include the use of cyber or information operations. This is in line with the resolution “Protecting civilians and other protected persons and objects against the potential human cost of Information Communication Technology activities during armed conflict”, adopted by the UK at the 34th International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent in October 2024.[18]

9. Take all feasible measures to monitor and, ultimately, to counter mis / disinformation, hate speech and other harmful narratives that have a detrimental effect on the protection of humanitarian personnel or impartial humanitarian action.

10. Consider supporting the MPHSS hub of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement[19] as an effective way to support humanitarian practitioners who, as research has shown, often experience high rates depression, anxiety, and trauma. 

3. Summary

17. This submission has one central message: compliance with IHL is key to humanitarian access.

18. “When the law is broken, it doesn’t need to be fixed, it needs to be enforced”, to quote ICRC President Mirjana Spoljaric at the eve of the 75th commemoration of the Geneva Conventions.[20] Whilst compliance to IHL is disregarded in truly catastrophic dimensions, the Geneva Conventions, the most universally adopted international treaty, possesses something extremely valuable: an international consensus on which to build on.
     
19. The landmark resolution adopted in consensus at the 34th International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent aims at building a culture of compliance with IHL.[21] The UK, which adopted this resolution, should invest its political capital to turn this resolution into reality.

20. Today, rather than addressing the ever-increasing, widespread disregard and non-compliance with IHL head on, discussions are increasingly tending towards a reinterpretation of humanitarian access, putting the burden on humanitarians instead of parties to conflicts.
     
21. There is an urgent need to refocus on the basic principle that humanitarian organisations are not, and should never be, a target. Humanitarian personnel, by the nature of their functions, are prepared to take a reasonable amount of risk in an insecure environment, but the onus is on the parties to the conflict.
     
22. The unacceptably high price paid by humanitarian personnel must stop. The vigorous application in practice of IHL is essential to making a difference on the ground.

International Committee of the Red Cross, London, February 2025