This article examines the meaning of ‘humanitarian space’ and the evidence for the claim that this space is shrinking due to decreasing respect for humanitarian law, increasing attacks on humanitarian workers and declining access to populations at risk. It finds that the notion of humanitarian space embodies a series of assumptions that together imply an inexorable decline in the ability to provide material assistance to populations affected by armed conflict. Disaggregating the concept demonstrates that although most of these assumptions contain an element of truth, they are highly context-specific.
The term ‘humanitarian space’ is used in three main ways, to mean: respect for International Humanitarian Law; acceptance of the role and activities of humanitarian actors by both the parties to a conflict and by beneficiaries (e.g. the relative safety of humanitarian workers); or humanitarian action writ large (e.g. the degree of access to populations at risk). It may be most useful to avoid the loose notion of humanitarian space and instead to consider the elements of the concept independently. The article draws the following conclusions:
- There is no conclusive evidence that humanitarian space is declining over time. Access to vulnerable populations, with some notable exceptions, is better now than in previous periods. Violations of International Humanitarian Law are widespread but macro-trends suggest that there are probably fewer violations today than in the past. The recent increase in attacks on humanitarian workers is confined to a few high-risk conflicts; only one-quarter of attacks can be attributed to ‘political targeting’.
- When donors are occupiers and combatants, security and access will be compromised. Evidence for the shrinking of humanitarian space is easily found in cases like Iraq and Afghanistan. In both situations the major humanitarian donors were also occupying forces engaged in high-intensity combat operations and psychological warfare. Counter-insurgency operations do militarise and politicise humanitarian operations, and security and access will be reduced. Whether this is part of a longer-term trend however will depend on the likelihood of future US/NATO combat interventions.
- Only specific non-state armed groups threaten security and access. Non-state armed groups are not new, nor are they proliferating. Motivations of armed groups are important – those that seek to acquire statehood may be more willing to place constraints on their behaviour. Organisational coherence and discipline are also important – fragmentation of non-state armed groups makes it difficult to negotiate access and to distinguish the targeting of aid workers from banditry.
- Sometimes less ‘humanitarian space’ is more. The provision of humanitarian assistance must not be the overarching or even primary objective. It is better, the authors argue, to have integrated UN missions with strong political mandates, even accepting that this may in some instances compromise the purity of humanitarian action, than to revert to a situation where humanitarian action is a substitute for political solutions.
- Adherence to traditional humanitarian principles will not guarantee space. There is some scope for aligning field practices with humanitarian principles – particularly responding to human need without discrimination. Neutrality and independence are more difficult: the former can be compromised by taking the side of populations at risk, the latter by dependence on a small number of donors and the unavoidable association that multi-mandate organisations have with host governments.
- Humanitarian organisations have scope to expand space and retain access. Further refinements are possible to the integrated UN mission model. Field protection strategies could be further elaborated, and strategies for remote delivery could be formalised.
- Focus on civilian populations at risk rather than humanitarian space. The consolidation of a broad range of disparate challenges under the banner of ‘humanitarian space’ reinforces the already existing tendency of outsiders to view crises from their own perspective. Emphasis on the perspectives and priorities of beneficiaries can help to correct this imbalance.
- Abandon the term humanitarian space. By conflating a range of largely disconnected phenomena under this single heading, humanitarian organisations have generated an unnecessarily gloomy outlook on the prospects for effective humanitarian operations. The alternative is to focus on constituent elements, carefully examine the context-specific nature of the challenges, and then seek to address them issue-by-issue.
