The world is failing humanitarian workers and the people they support

As we mark 75 years since that cornerstone of International Humanitarian Law, the Geneva Conventions of 1949, serious injuries and fatalities among aid workers continue to grow at an alarming rate.

Last year, 280 people were reported to have lost their lives in the service of people in some of the world's most vulnerable communities, more than double the number of humanitarians reportedly killed in 2022.

These record numbers - which may not take into account fatalities that have not been accounted for in any official statistics - will be broken again this year. We have yet to reach September and, already, the most recent numbers show that 192 humanitarian workers have been killed in 2024. According to EU Observer, 119 of these were aid workers in their own countries.

As we mark World Humanitarian Day on August 19th, civilians - including those aid workers - in their thousands are paying the ultimate price for the callous indifference shown by a number of parties to conflict to their suffering, and their blatant disregard of International Humanitarian Law (IHL).

In May, 14 of the 15 members of the UN Security Council strongly condemned the rising number of attacks on humanitarian workers and UN personnel, urging all parties to conflict to ensure their safety and access.

The Council - with only Russia abstaining - denounced disinformation, information manipulation and incitement to violence against humanitarian workers and UN personnel.

Resolution 2730 (2024) also called on all parties to armed conflict to end 'immediately and definitively' the indiscriminate use of explosive devices in violation of international humanitarian law.

All very well, except we see every day how these directives and resolutions are being ignored by countries engaged in conflict. 

Let's look at the four core principles of humanitarian law. These are:

• The principle of humanity (the “elementary considerations of humanity being reflected and expressed in the Martens clause")
• The principle of distinction between civilians and combatants, and between civilian objects and military objectives
• The principle of proportionality
• The principle of military necessity (from which flows the prohibition of superfluous injury and unnecessary suffering)

These principles mean less and less the longer the world's most powerful nations continue to allow the indiscriminate slaughter of civilians and humanitarian workers.

These occur in a number of contexts, whether in Gaza, Sudan, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Ukraine, or any other number of countries dealing with conflict.

"I think that there has never been a time when adherence to the principles is more necessary," says Dominic Crowley, Concern's Emergency Director.

"If you look at the way conflicts are being prosecuted, it is evident that International Humanitarian Law is routinely being violated."

Crowley believes that anyone entering the humanitarian fray must do so with their eyes open.

"If we wanted to be safe, we would not work where we are working. Insecurity is a consequence of the contexts within which we work," he adds. 

"Our security risk management procedures are about trying to manage that risk. [Also], there has been an argument in the past that the presence of international organisations provide some degree of security for at risk populations, but I am not sure that that still exists."

For some, however, the calling to help people in vulnerable situations is too great to ignore.

Abdul Ghaffar is the Programme Director for Concern in Yemen, where we launched our official programme this year to support people dealing with the consequences of a decade of conflict.  

"When you see people suffering from poverty, hunger, and violence; as a true human being, you find a way to help them," he says. 

"This is my key reason for joining the humanitarian sector. My father was an inspiration for me; I saw him giving to charity and helping the poor, sick, and vulnerable people in my community."

Ghaffar knows that the power to ensure safe access to humanitarian workers rests with those engaged in conflict, and continued violence against civilian populations - not to mention constant bureaucratic hurdles - means lives are lost. 

"Safe access is important to conduct real-time assessments to identify priority needs, deliver humanitarian supplies safely, and provide life-saving assistance to vulnerable people," he insists.

"If all parties to the conflict ensure the free movement of humanitarian workers and supplies, it will save lives, and alleviate the suffering of those who are not part of the conflict but are impacted by lack of access to humanitarian assistance."

As long as International Humanitarian Law continues to be violated and the five permanent members of the UN Security Council - China, Russia, France, the United States and the United Kingdom - continue to either directly or indirectly ignores the rules of war set out by the Geneva Conventions, we're left with far more questions than answers when it comes to the safety of humanitarian workers.

"It is easy to say that the Taliban ignored IHL [in Afghanistan in 2021], and the same is true of Hamas, but at what point do you argue that Israel started violating IHL in its response to the October 7th attacks?" asks Crowley.

"Is there a sliding scale of acceptability in which some responses [are] acceptable but others [are] not?"

Sadly, as long as power keeps shielding power, that may just be the case.