This article identifies two countervailing sets of norms – one promoting humanitarian engagement with non-state armed groups (NSAGs) in armed conflict in order to protect populations in need, and the other prohibiting such engagement with listed ‘terrorist’ groups in order to protect security – and discusses how this conflict of norms might affect the capacity of humanitarian organizations to deliver life-saving assistance in areas under the control of one of these groups. Rooted in international humanitarian law (IHL), the first set of norms provides a basis for humanitarian engagement with NSAGs in non-international armed conflict for the purpose of assisting populations under their control and promoting compliance with the rules of IHL. The second set of rules attempts to curtail financial and other forms of material support, including technical training and co-ordination, to listed ‘terrorist’ organizations, some of which may qualify as NSAGs under IHL. The article highlights counter-terrorism regulations developed by the United States and the United Nations Security Council, though other states and multilateral bodies have similar regulations. The article concludes by sketching ways in which humanitarian organizations might respond to the identified tensions.

No abstract

No abstract

SUPPORTING PRINCIPLED HUMANITARIAN ACTION IN COUNTERTERRORISM CONTEXTS Meanwhile, many states continue to fund and otherwise throw their support behind life-saving humanitarian relief for civilians in armed conflicts around the world-including conflicts involving terrorists. Yet, in recent years, members of the humanitarian community have been increasingly aware of the real, perceived, and potential impacts of counterterrorism laws on humanitarian action. Part of their interest stems from the fact that certain counterterrorism laws may, intentionally or unintentionally, adversely affect principled humanitarian action, especially in regions where terrorist groups control territory (and thus access to civilians, too). The effects of these laws may be widespread-ranging from heightened due diligence requirements on humanitarian organizations to restrictions on travel, from greater government scrutiny of national and regional staff of humanitarian organizations to decreased access to financial services and funding. Counterterrorism measures may also in principle give rise to a "chilling effect" on humanitarian action. That is, humanitarian actors may choose not to undertake life-saving relief schemes that they otherwise would due to fears of violating counterterrorism laws and policies. Given the awareness of the risks of counterterrorism laws and regulations to humanitarian action by the time Resolution 2178 was passed, one might have expected the Security Council and states to incorporate explicit and specific protections for humanitarian action, or to reaffirm expressly their commitment to humanitarian action in areas controlled by listed entities. This did not occur in Resolution 2178. One reason might be that those involved in crafting the resolution and those on the counterterrorism portfolios were not involved in the same discussions as those from the humanitarian or aid divisions. The Security Council did, however, expressly require that U.N. member states prevent and suppress the recruiting, organizing, transporting, or equipping of FTFs consistent with international humanitarian law (IHL). In doing so, the Council implicitly required states to discharge their FTF obligations in a manner that respects the various forms of humanitarian action protected by IHL. The Security Council did not, however, expressly require that states discharge each of the other key FTF obligations entailed in the resolution consistent with IHL. Supporting Principled Humanitarian Action in Counterterrorism Contexts Meanwhile, many states continue to fund and otherwise throw their support behind lifesaving humanitarian relief for civilians in armed conflicts around the world-including conflicts involving terrorists. Yet, in recent years, members of the humanitarian community have been increasingly aware of the real, perceived, and potential impacts of counterterrorism laws on humanitarian action. Part of their interest stems from the fact that certain counterterrorism laws may, intentionally or unintentionally, adversely affect princ...

No abstract