Select committee: International Development Committee

Conclusion 4

5th Report - Protection not permission: The UK’s role in upholding international humanitarian law and supporting the safe delivery of humanitarian aid Published 12 Jun 2025 Addressed to Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office

International Development Committee Humanitarian access and adherence to international humanitarian law All items in this report Report on parliament.uk ↗ Inquiry on parliament.uk ↗

Conclusion (the committee's words)

There is encouraging collaboration by a select few UN Member States that are promoting adherence to IHL and, in particular, the protection of aid workers. Yet there is a lack of comprehensive leadership across all aspects of IHL by a single Member State and a willingness to expose and publicly condemn flagrant abuses of IHL. This is challenging when traditional allies or leading world powers may be involved, but inconsistent application of IHL will be to its long-term detriment if IHL-conscious nations don’t make the appropriate interventions. The UK is well positioned to lead this endeavour to uphold IHL and the particular obligations in relation to humanitarian access and the protection of aid workers. This is a significant opportunity for the UK in a 0.3% foreign aid budget world, given that sharing expertise costs very little. In fact, it is one of the few areas where aid budget cuts need not have an impact and the UK could maintain and enhance its position as a world leader. (Conclusion, Paragraph 13)

From: International Development Committee, 5th Report - Protection not permission: The UK’s role in upholding international humanitarian law and supporting the safe delivery of humanitarian aid (HC 526), 12 June 2025

Government response

The government responded to the whole report on 5 September 2025 (deadline 12 August 2025).

Summary written by Accountability Index from the government's response. It is not the government's own words.

The government states that it "remains steadfast in its commitment to upholding international humanitarian law", agrees with many recommendations, partially agrees with others, and disagrees with the proposals on universal jurisdiction and binding due diligence for arms exporters.

On military training, the government agrees that mil-mil training on IHL "is an effective approach to promoting compliance", and describes existing training for foreign forces.
On sanctions, it is "committed to introducing a tailored humanitarian exemption" across UK autonomous sanctions "when parliamentary time allows".
It disagrees with amending the International Criminal Court Act 2001 to provide for universal jurisdiction, stating: "We do not believe that legislative change is required at this time."
It disagrees with new legislation placing additional requirements on arms exporters, citing a "robust assessment process" under the Strategic Export Licensing Criteria.

Read the government's response ↗ Report an error