The denial and weaponisation of humanitarian access is increasingly becoming a hallmark of complex, internationalised conflicts, with warring parties manipulating the provision of aid and denying civilians access to lifesaving assistance to advance political and military agendas, in breach of their obligations under international humanitarian law (IHL).
As conflicts intensify and aid actors face new and complex barriers to reaching those in need, there is growing motivation to find new ways to secure access. In recent years, access negotiations have increasingly involved non-humanitarians such as regional political bodies and third-party states at the highest level. This trend pulls humanitarian access negotiations into highly politicised spaces, the benefits and trade-offs of which are not yet well understood.
In this discussion, Amsel Saleem (Policy Analyst, IRC) and Anne-Marie Schryer (Regional Advocacy Coordinator East Africa, IRC) presented findings from a new report by the IRC analysing diplomatic efforts to improve humanitarian access in Sudan, Gaza, Ethiopia, Yemen and Syria. These crises show that high level humanitarian diplomacy can be a key tool to promote and protect humanitarian access, but that third party states can also have a negative impact on access when the proper tools for engagement are not used. In this light, a number of key recommendations for EU diplomatic actors were presented to mitigate risks and maximise the effectiveness of EU humanitarian diplomacy efforts.
