The desire to alleviate human suffering in conflict situations often leads to calls to establish arrangements – such as humanitarian corridors, pauses, evacuations or safe havens – to provide some security for civilians caught up in hostilities and to facilitate humanitarian response efforts. Such arrangements are not new. But there needs to be better understanding of what they are, what their implementation entails operationally, and how they interplay with the law.
Civilians bear the brunt of armed conflicts. As hostilities are increasingly waged in urban areas, civilians have been caught up in fighting in Iraq, Syria, Gaza, Yemen, Ukraine and Sudan, where aerial bombing and artillery shelling, and military operations in cities, have caused civilian deaths and injury, along with the destruction of homes and basic infrastructure. Essential services such as electricity, water and sanitation are disrupted, and medical services are stretched to breaking point.
Active fighting can prevent people from fleeing or from receiving humanitarian assistance. In certain contexts, such as in Syria, Ethiopia and Nagorny Karabakh, belligerents have imposed sieges on cities or cut off entire regions, trapping civilians and preventing humanitarian actors from reaching them. The staff of humanitarian organizations trying to respond risk being caught up in the fighting, and at times have been victims of direct attacks. All too frequently, their operations are severely impeded.
A desire to alleviate the suffering in these and many other similar situations has led to calls to establish arrangements – in the form of humanitarian corridors, pauses, evacuations or safe havens, for instance – to provide some security to civilians in the midst of hostilities and to facilitate the humanitarian response.
None of the humanitarian arrangements mentioned is new. However, there is confusion as to precisely what they are, what they entail operationally, and how they interplay with the law. Significantly, while the demands for such arrangements are frequent, the instances when they have actually been established are very few, and even then, they have not proved as protective as was intended.
Furthermore, there is a tendency for some – usually political actors or the general public – to routinely call for the adoption of certain arrangements as a matter of course, even if these might not be necessary in practice and could lead to a narrower margin of manoeuvre for humanitarian response than that afforded by international humanitarian law (IHL). Humanitarian organizations, in contrast, consider the arrangements such as humanitarian corridors, pauses and evacuations a measure of last resort.
In December 2023, for example, in response to the challenges of providing humanitarian assistance during the hostilities in Gaza, the United Arab Emirates proposed a Security Council resolution requiring the UN Secretary-General to establish a monitoring mechanism in the Gaza Strip ‘to exclusively monitor all humanitarian relief consignments to Gaza provided through land, sea and air routes of those States that are not parties to the conflict’.
At that time, however, humanitarian response was no longer being delayed by restrictions on bringing relief into Gaza. Instead, the challenge was the ongoing hostilities themselves, which were severely limiting the capacity of humanitarian organizations to move within Gaza. Humanitarian organizations were opposed to the proposed monitoring mechanism, on the grounds that this would introduce an additional procedure and further delay response efforts.
If humanitarian arrangements are properly established and properly implemented, they may indeed enhance the security of civilians caught in hostilities and facilitate humanitarian assistance. But for this to happen, there needs to be a better understanding by states, armed groups, the military, humanitarian organizations and others – including the general public – of what the arrangements can do, and what they cannot, and what is necessary in order for them to operate. If political figures call for humanitarian corridors, for example, as a means of protecting civilians in an armed conflict, it is important that they understand what is required to implement them and what the challenges are.
There should also be an understanding of what IHL already requires of belligerents, and the protection it affords to civilians. For the most part, the humanitarian arrangements discussed in this paper do not affect existing obligations and protections under IHL. They are a way of giving effect to them.
In order to contribute to a better understanding of these modalities, this research paper discusses six types of humanitarian arrangements that have been established or called for in relation to recent armed conflicts: humanitarian notification arrangements; evacuations; humanitarian corridors; humanitarian pauses, truces, suspensions of hostilities and ceasefires; protected zones; and no-fly zones. For each of these, relevant international law is outlined, certain recurring operational challenges are identified, and recommendations are made for
good practice.
Although the paper analyses the different arrangements individually, some are interconnected and in practice need to be established in conjunction with one another. For an evacuation to take place safely, for example, there also needs to be a safe route for people to travel, along with a suspension of hostilities.
In addition to the recommendations for good practice made for each type of humanitarian arrangements discussed, the concluding chapter makes some overarching points and recommendations that apply to all of the arrangements.
The paper is intended to assist the actors who have a role to play in implementation: parties to armed conflict, humanitarian organizations, third states involved in promoting compliance with IHL or as donors to humanitarian action, policymakers and the media. It also aims to contribute to a better-informed public debate by providing clarification on the different types of humanitarian arrangements and also, importantly, what is required for these to provide security.
This paper has been compiled on the basis of a desk study and interviews with humanitarian, legal and military practitioners involved in the implementation of humanitarian arrangements. Initial findings were discussed at a meeting of experts at Chatham House in October 2023.