Source · Select Committees · International Development Committee
Recommendation 1
1
Acknowledged
Rising aid worker deaths and IHL breaches increasingly traded off by belligerents with deadly consequences.
Conclusion
Numbers of aid worker deaths are rising year on year and the situations where access to aid is deliberately impeded are also increasing. This violates the purpose of IHL: to protect civilians in a time of war. We see growing examples of where IHL is ignored or used to justify the restrictions to aid delivery. This has to stop. Furthermore, we have concerns that there is a trend of breaches of IHL being ‘traded off’ by implicated parties who can be seen to justify breaking IHL as a result of the other party or parties doing the same. This apparent ‘race to the bottom’ is extremely worrying and demonstrably contrary to the spirit of IHL which sets high standards to ensure citizens and humanitarian workers are appropriately protected in conflict zones. The short-term impacts of IHL trade-offs by belligerents is having stark and deadly consequences. (Conclusion, Paragraph 7)
Government Response Summary
The government agrees with the committee's concerns regarding rising aid worker deaths, restrictions on humanitarian access, and IHL violations, affirming that IHL must be respected and all tools leveraged to address these issues.
Government Response
Acknowledged
HM Government
Acknowledged
5. IHL (also known as the law of armed conflict, or the laws of war) serves several important purposes. It seeks to balance military requirements and humanitarian considerations, serving as a critical tool in seeking to limit the effects of armed conflict to protect people who are not, or who are no longer participating in hostilities, and to limit the methods and means of warfare. 6. As such it sets a universal standard for the protection of people in conflict zones, offering a legal framework for the regulation of hostilities underpinned by the four basic principles governing hostilities: distinction, military necessity, humanity, and proportionality. 7. We agree that the increase in incidents which harm aid workers, and growing restrictions on humanitarian access where aid is needed most, are deeply concerning. IHL cannot be ignored and its rules on the delivery of humanitarian aid must be respected. We agree that all diplomatic, funding, and legal tools must be leveraged to stop this trend from becoming the new normal. 8. The UK is clear that all parties to armed conflict must respect IHL irrespective of the conduct of other parties. The UK calls on all parties to all conflicts, without distinction, to adhere to IHL. (Conclusion 2, paragraph 9) We agree with the view of the ICRC that IHL is clear and comprehensive. It represents both a body of law that is robust and universal in its coverage, and a spirit by which warring parties must place the protection of civilians at the heart of their operational planning. However, there are serious deficiencies in the enforcement mechanisms and the ability of the international community to hold states and non-state actors accountable for violations of that law and spirit. As noted above, there is also an apparent willingness from non-state armed groups and UN Member States to ‘trade off’ the IHL breaches of others to justify further military action. This presents a threat to their very existence. These attitudes need exposing and publicly condemning by world leaders to prevent established and tested legal frameworks from being irrevocably damaged.