-
CENTRES
Progammes & Centres
Location
When aid becomes a bargaining chip, as seen in Gaza, it sets a grave precedent for civilian protection and the rules of war
Image Source: Getty Images
The 20-point Gaza peace plan and the fragile ceasefire deal brokered by the United States (US) seek to put an end to two years of conflict. In the aftermath of the 7 October 2023 attack by Hamas, the military offensive had incited a distressing humanitarian crisis in Gaza, with allegations of the blockage of aid in the region. According to the United Nations (UN), its agencies — especially the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) — were barred from bringing in medical supplies and at its worst, the population of over two million was reported to be food insecure, with chances of it turning into mass starvation. Restricting emergency humanitarian aid as a ‘pressure building’ tactic, despite the UN’s characteristic neutrality, risks setting a dangerous precedent for norms of conflict and the international order.
Restricting emergency humanitarian aid as a ‘pressure building’ tactic, despite the UN’s characteristic neutrality, risks setting a dangerous precedent for norms of conflict and the international order.
According to UN reports, several laws of war might have been violated in Gaza. For instance, the attack on civilians defied the principles of distinction and proportionality. While military capabilities and realpolitik often serve as the determining variables between warring parties, yet, protection of civilians and providing humanitarian assistance is an embedded norm globally. Building on the jus in bello tradition, International Humanitarian Law (IHL) or the law of armed conflict codifies the conduct of warfare through the Geneva Conventions. The obligation of states to allow and facilitate humanitarian relief is reflected in Articles 23 and 54 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, Article 70 of the First Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions, and Article 18 (2) of the Second Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions.
While the provisions may not impose a binding obligation upon the parties to provide humanitarian relief to civilians, international aid does fall under customary international law. The provisions are usually upheld in a two-state conflict; however, their applicability blurs further in non-international conflicts where non-state armed groups or the state itself restricts access to aid within its territory. The weaponisation as well as politicisation of humanitarian aid has been a recurring feature in conflict-laden zones – Afghanistan, Syria, Sudan, Yemen, and, more recently, Gaza. Recognising the diversification of parties involved in asymmetrical conflicts, the Additional Protocols (1977) expand the discourse through provisions intended to differentiate between civilians and combatants and assess the proportionality of civilian casualties vis-à-vis military gain.
The weaponisation as well as politicisation of humanitarian aid has been a recurring feature in conflict-laden zones – Afghanistan, Syria, Sudan, Yemen, and, more recently, Gaza.
In 2018, the UN Security Council (UNSC) unanimously adopted the landmark Resolution 2417, addressing conflict-induced food insecurity – states condemned the use of starvation of civilians as a method of warfare and established denial of humanitarian access to the civilian population as an unlawful act. While parties are called to comply with the obligations under IHL, in recent cases, access to humanitarian assistance has been compromised to achieve military or political goals.
One of the major arguments for restricting aid lies in its potential misuse by non-state actors or militants. Critics argued that over-packed refugee camps and internationally sanctioned movement in conflict zones provided cover for fighters to launch attacks, in addition to providing material support in the form of food and medical supplies. States aspired to deny those resources to their adversaries; however, no guarantee that restricting aid would lead to a reduction in violence or force a peace deal.
Blocking humanitarian assistance as a tool to gain leverage in ongoing conflicts is the Achilles heel in the discourse.
It is also pertinent to distinguish between restricting humanitarian aid as a deliberate pressure tactic and rising food insecurity due to operational constraints in conflict zones. For instance, in Yemen, as Houthis fight the government, damage to critical infrastructure and the arbitrary detention of UN staff members have severely hampered the aid operations. In such conflicts, especially involving non–state armed actors, it becomes nearly impossible for the international community to deliver aid unless safe passage is secured. However, blocking humanitarian assistance as a tool to gain leverage in ongoing conflicts is the Achilles heel in the discourse. In the case of the shutdown of the Rafah Crossing – a crucial entry point for aid workers – blockage led to additional bureaucratic hurdles, delays, and severe humanitarian costs.
Despite being a fundamental principle of international conflict, providing timely international aid to civilians has been a matter of grave concern. At the institutional level, with the recent funding cuts to the UN, humanitarian assistance programmes have been severely impacted. Up until June 2025, of the US$46 billion needed to meet global humanitarian needs, only 17 percent has been received. However, the budget cuts add to the already existing political and tactical constraints in the discourse.
First, the UNSC has showcased a disproportionate approach. Prioritising geopolitical dynamics over a normative foundation often determines the sanction of international humanitarian aid in conflict areas. While Russia and China vetoed UNSC resolutions on renewal of provisions for cross–border humanitarian aid in Syria in the past, the mandate to provide aid to civilians was renewed in 2023, even as former President Bashar al-Assad refused to give his assent. In the case of Gaza, the US vetoed multiple UNSC resolutions calling for an immediate ceasefire and resumption of aid.
Prioritising geopolitical dynamics over a normative foundation often determines the sanction of international humanitarian aid in conflict areas.
Second, the desperate need for aid and mounting international pressure on the state to control the territory often result in the emergence of private armed contractors or unrecognised entities as de facto aid providers. For instance, Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) – an NGO – was set up by Israeli forces with US support in February 2025 for distributing aid in Gaza. UN experts fear that the involvement of former security forces in the distribution of aid runs the risk of humanitarian relief being exploited for covert military or geopolitical agendas and breaching international law. As a confidence-building measure between parties, the UN needs to re-strategise and strengthen operational measures to demonstrate its impartial character more effectively. The demilitarisation of relief camps is indeed a requirement for the secure flow of international aid into conflict areas. Yet, any long-term conflict resolution would require states to provide access to food, medicine, and critical services to unarmed civilians as a basic human right and respect the tenets of international law.
Heena Makhija is an Associate Fellow with the Observer Research Foundation.
The views expressed above belong to the author(s). ORF research and analyses now available on Telegram! Click here to access our curated content — blogs, longforms and interviews.
Dr. Makhija is an Associate Fellow at ORF and specializes in the study of Multilateralism, International Organizations, Global Norms, India at UN, Multilateral Negotiations, and ...
Read More +
PREV
