Select committee: International Development Committee

Recommendation 19

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 ↗

Recommendation (the committee's words)

We recommend that the UK works with the other UN Member States represented on the ministerial group for the safety of humanitarian aid workers to call for a Special Session of the UNSC to discuss the problem of disregard of IHL in the delivery of aid. This session should focus on hearing from aid workers themselves, and from local organisations in particular, culminating in a declaration. In addition, the UK should push for the issue of humanitarian access to be included regularly in the annual UN Protection of Civilians Report. Finally, there should be an expectation that the UN Humanitarian Coordinator includes details of obstructions to the safe delivery of aid, including attacks on aid workers, as part of his regular reporting to the Security Council. However, we emphasise that this reporting should not be at the expense of energy and time being devoted to the ending of conflicts. (Recommendation, Paragraph 44)

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