The humanitarian space
- Page updated on18 de April de 2025
The humanitarian space is essential for actors to provide assistance and protection to people in need in humanitarian contexts, always acting under the framework of the humanitarian principles of humanity, neutrality, impartiality and independence.
The humanitarian space is legally protected by International Humanitarian Law (IHL) but is always subject to continuous threats that limit it, such as political or military interference, anti-terrorist measures, international sanctions, attacks on humanitarian personnel, legal obstacles, or administrative and bureaucratic barriers. It must therefore be protected, with humanitarian advocacy and diplomacy, based on a commitment to humanitarian principles and within a framework of collaboration and coordination between humanitarian actors.
Table of contents:
What is the humanitarian space and why is it important to protect it?
In the humanitarian space it is possible to offer assistance and neutral protection in emergencies
The humanitarian space is the physical and symbolic environment where humanitarian actors can carry out their operations safely and without obstacles to provide assistance and protection to those in need. In this space, they act guided by the humanitarian principles of humanity, neutrality, impartiality, and independence, and within the legal framework of international humanitarian law. In the humanitarian space, humanitarian organizations can negotiate and secure access to people affected by emergencies, free from military blockades or political interference.
This space, however, is fragile. It depends on agreements with all parties involved in the humanitarian crisis, including governments and armed groups, and is constantly under threat. When these threats ultimately restrict the humanitarian space, humanitarian access becomes extremely difficult. Not only does this hinder humanitarian actors from working closely and building trust with affected populations, but it also denies crisis-affected individuals and communities the ability to access the services and resources they need for survival and well-being in a safe and dignified manner.
There is a perception among many experts that the pressure on the humanitarian space is progressively increasing, in parallel with the increase in conflicts. However, there are also those who argue that this pressure has always been there and that what has changed is the way in which it is exerted.
The protection of humanitarian space is upheld by International Humanitarian Law (IHL)
While International Humanitarian Law does not explicitly address the concept of humanitarian space, it does establish rules and principles to protect humanitarian actors (who must operate neutrally, without taking sides in the conflict) and ensure they can work without interference.
For example, it states that humanitarian personnel must be respected and protected in all circumstances and that attacks on their facilities must be avoided. It also stipulates that political and military actors must not interfere in humanitarian activities, thus allowing their actors to preserve their neutrality and independence and to access the population in need of assistance. Moreover, parties involved in a conflict cannot deny access to impartial humanitarian organizations if there are serious humanitarian needs, such as risk of famine.
International Humanitarian Law, however, is continuously violated by armed groups that do not respect it and, more indirectly, by countries that do not promote or demand compliance with it in their relations with these groups.
The causes of the reduction of the humanitarian space
Attacks against humanitarian personnel
Attacks against humanitarian actors pose a significant risk to organizations, their personnel, and the populations affected by complex crises. These deliberate attacks—ranging from bombings, shootings, and explosives to assaults, kidnappings, and sexual violence—are perpetrated by various armed groups, including gangs, terrorist organizations, and state armies. This violence not only jeopardizes the feasibility of humanitarian interventions but also frequently prevents access to the most vulnerable populations in need of assistance. Additionally, violence can be directed toward displaced and migrant populations seeking humanitarian aid, often fueled by populist political movements that promote hostility against these groups.
Traditionally, most attacks have been directed at international NGOs. However, attacks on national NGOs, often partners of international ones and generally with fewer resources and capacity for protection, seem to be on the rise in recent years. In any case, and for both types of organizations, more than 90% of the victims are national workers.
The risk of such attacks has grown in recent years, driven by the increasing geographic scope of conflicts, the rising frequency and intensity of incidents, and improved reporting on these events. In response to this heightened risk, humanitarian organizations implement various security strategies to safeguard their operations and personnel.
The politicization, instrumentalization, and militarization of humanitarian aid
Humanitarian aid is often politicized and manipulated. This occurs when donor countries use humanitarian action as a tool to advance their own political and security agendas—for instance, pressuring recipient countries to implement policy changes in exchange for assistance. Additionally, aid is frequently instrumentalized by local political and military powers, who use it to garner political support, legitimize their actions, or block humanitarian access to areas controlled by opposing groups. In some cases, authorities may extort humanitarian organizations by allowing access for needs assessments or project implementation only in exchange for compliance with their demands, effectively holding the vulnerable population hostage to further their own objectives.
This issue is particularly sensitive in cross-line or cross-border operations, in which humanitarian organizations must repeatedly cross the front line or international borders into areas controlled by different armed groups in order to reach populations in need of assistance and protection. Often, national governments do not consent to such operations, for no other reason than political ones. The UN Security Council has had to intervene on several occasions to authorize humanitarian access to these areas after tough internal negotiations (sometimes to get vetoes withdrawn from member countries).
The militarization of humanitarian aid also reduces humanitarian space. One example occurs when authorities force organizations to use armed escorts. This measure, under the pretext of protecting humanitarian personnel, puts them at great risk. It compromises their neutrality, visibly associates them with an armed group, makes them targets of other armed groups and erodes the trust of the local population towards them.
International sanctions and anti-terrorism measures
Sanctions are coercive measures imposed by a government or international body on another state. They are used as leverage to enforce compliance with international norms or to change behaviors that threaten international stability or security. Sanctions can take various forms, including trade restrictions, freezing of financial assets, limitations on diplomatic relations, arms embargoes, and more.
On the other hand, donors also apply counterterrorism measures to prevent humanitarian funds from falling into the hands of terrorist groups or benefiting them in other ways. These measures include, among others, thorough partner and beneficiary verification requirements, restrictions on transactions to certain destinations, increased reporting obligations to clearly demonstrate how resources are used, prohibitions on contacting or interacting with designated armed groups, mandatory risk management procedures, limitations on the types of activities that can be implemented, and training all staff on counterterrorism laws.
All of these measures, while having a logical purpose, significantly restrict humanitarian operational capacity. This is because humanitarian organizations (which adhere to fundamental principles) are limited in their legitimate right to negotiate humanitarian access with all parties involved in a conflict, and their intervention areas and target populations are restricted. Organizations may also be forced to carefully prioritize complex procedures to avoid breaching counterterrorism laws, even at the expense of humanitarian response based on actual needs, which should take precedence.
Legal, bureaucratic, operational and administrative constraints
There are many barriers used to compromise humanitarian space and reduce access. Among them are the blocking and arbitrary complicating of registration and permit processes to establish and operate in the country or access areas affected by the emergency, as well as the arbitrary revocation of previously granted authorizations. In addition, other obstacles are often added, such as prohibitions on importing or introducing essential equipment and supplies into affected areas, or restrictions on the ability to make and receive bank transfers, for example. It is also common for authorities wishing to restrict humanitarian space to limit the granting of entry visas for humanitarian personnel or to shorten their duration.
Sometimes humanitarian organizations are also prevented from directly distributing aid. Instead, they are required to operate through government agencies or local organizations selected by them, which take full control over what is done, or what is distributed, to whom, and how. Another restriction can be the requirement to submit data that identifies the assisted individuals or the humanitarian staff themselves in order to operate. These kinds of measures are not only abusive but also directly conflict with humanitarian principles, placing organizations in complex ethical dilemmas.
Sometimes, in addition, organizations face additional political and legal restrictions. An example may be the case of laws that prohibit or criminalize humanitarian assistance to certain groups, such as refugees, asylum seekers, displaced persons, or those in need of maritime rescue. In these cases, governments try to hinder humanitarian operations, which are replaced by surveillance and policing interventions.
Strategies for the protection of the humanitarian space
Compliance with the humanitarian principles of neutrality and independence
An often essential prerequisite for securing and claiming humanitarian space is compliance with the humanitarian principles of neutrality and independence. Acting without taking sides in conflicts or political disputes and without being influenced or linked to political, military and economic powers can be key to maintaining the legitimacy and credibility necessary to negotiate humanitarian access with all parties involved in the conflict and to work in highly polarized environments.
The obligation to comply with these principles, however, limits the scope of humanitarian response. While the causes and solutions to complex humanitarian crises are political, they are often outside of what these organizations can attempt to address.
Although humanitarian organizations engage in advocacy to assert humanitarian space, defend access to aid, protect human rights, and demand compliance with International Humanitarian Law, sometimes they are unable to go further. In order to provide assistance and protection in these complex environments, they are forced to avoid initiatives aimed at peacebuilding or promoting systemic changes in inequalities and governance. The reasons for this are twofold. On one hand, these initiatives fall outside the scope of their mandate, mission, and capacities. On the other hand, engaging in such actions would require close collaboration with authorities, which could compromise their neutrality and independence. To prioritize access to the population in need, humanitarian organizations often have to be very cautious in managing the tensions that exist with the approach of the Humanitarian-Development-Peace Nexus.
Humanitarian diplomacy and advocacy for International Humanitarian Law
These actions focus on influencing the parties involved in an armed conflict to ensure safe and unrestricted access to populations in need. This strategy includes negotiating with governments and armed groups to establish agreements that allow for the delivery of aid, ceasefires, create safe humanitarian corridors, and protect civilian populations and organizations aligned with humanitarian principles.
These actions are also essential to mobilize political and social support in favor of humanitarian principles and their compliance by organizations, thus protecting the humanitarian space.
Partnerships and collaboration among humanitarian actors
Coordination among actors for the defense and protection of humanitarian space is crucial in complex humanitarian crises. Thanks to their collaboration, organizations can speak with one voice, which is more powerful than many independent voices when it comes to advocating for humanitarian space and negotiating access.
Collaboration among actors in NGO forums, country humanitarian teams, and other spaces also allows for the confidential sharing of information regarding all these operational challenges and obstacles, as well as the most effective ways to navigate and overcome existing administrative hurdles and legal restrictions, or to mitigate the risks arising from sanctions and counterterrorism measures. This coordination is also a key component of security strategies in response to the attacks and threats that continuously hinder and endanger humanitarian action in the most complex contexts.
Core concepts
External links
- Humanitarian Outcomes. Aid Worker Security Database.
- NRC, 2024. Toolkit for principled humanitarian action. Managing sanctions and counterterrorism risks.
- ICVA, 2024. Hidden Hurdles: Unravelling the Complex, Cumulative Effects of Bureaucratic & Administrative Impediments on Crisis-Affected Populations and Humanitarian Response.
- OCHA, 2024. OCHA on Message. Humanitarian Diplomacy.
- Humanitarian Outcomes, 2023. Aid Worker Security Report 2023.
- IASC, 2022. Understanding and Addressing Bureaucratic and Administrative Impediments to Humanitarian Action: Framework for a System-wide approach.
- IASC, 2021. Impact of sanctions and counterterrorism measures on humanitarian operations.
- Mardini, 2021. Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict: Preserving Humanitarian Space.
- Inter-Action, 2021. Detrimental impacts: how counter-terror measures impede humanitarian action.
- Roepstorff, 2019. Migration and the shrinking humanitarian space in Europe.
- OCHA, 2016. Oxford Guidance on the Law Relating to Humanitarian Relief Operations in Situations of Armed Conflict.
- OCHA, 2016. Cross-border relief operations: a legal perspective.
- Akande, 2014. Arbitratry witholding of consent to humanitarian relief operations in armed conflict.
- Humanitarian Practice Network, 2014. Counter-terrorism laws and regulations: what aid agencies need to know.
- MSF, 2013. The practical guide to humanitarian law.
- Collinson, 2012. Humanitarian space: a review of trends and issues.
- Hilhorst, 2010. Humanitarian Space as Arena. A Perspective on the Everyday Politics of Aid.
English 
Español