The Case for a Prohibition on Arbitrary Denial of Humanitarian Relief in Non-International Armed Conflicts

Abstract A prohibition on the arbitrary denial of humanitarian relief would render the law governing international humanitarian relief in non-international armed conflicts ( niac s) more effective. It would secure humanitarian access for civilian populations in need and enhance the accountability of fighting parties. However, crystallizing such a prohibition under customary or treaty law would depend on a symmetrical legal right of all fighting parties to consent to humanitarian relief during both the initial offer and delivery phases. Yet, under Article 18(2) of Additional Protocol ii to the Geneva Conventions, non-state armed groups, unlike government forces, lack the legal right to strategic consent. This asymmetry prevents the symmetrical legal foundation upon which a prohibition on arbitrary denial could rest. States should engage in efforts to lift this exception and work toward amending Additional Protocol ii . While such reforms may remain politically unlikely in the near future, advancing a dialogue on this issue is imperative to address the legal vacuum and strengthen humanitarian relief protection in niac s.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of International Humanitarian Legal Studies
Published
2025-09-29
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1163/18781527-bja10123
Primary Topic
Human Rights and Development
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

The Case for a Prohibition on Arbitrary Denial of Humanitarian Relief in Non-International Armed Conflicts

Matthias Vanhullebusch
Journal of International Humanitarian Legal Studies
Human Rights and Development
article

The Case for a Prohibition on Arbitrary Denial of Humanitarian Relief in Non-International Armed Conflicts

Matthias Vanhullebusch
article en

Abstract

Abstract A prohibition on the arbitrary denial of humanitarian relief would render the law governing international humanitarian relief in non-international armed conflicts ( niac s) more effective. It would secure humanitarian access for civilian populations in need and enhance the accountability of fighting parties. However, crystallizing such a prohibition under customary or treaty law would depend on a symmetrical legal right of all fighting parties to consent to humanitarian relief during both the initial offer and delivery phases. Yet, under Article 18(2) of Additional Protocol ii to the Geneva Conventions, non-state armed groups, unlike government forces, lack the legal right to strategic consent. This asymmetry prevents the symmetrical legal foundation upon which a prohibition on arbitrary denial could rest. States should engage in efforts to lift this exception and work toward amending Additional Protocol ii . While such reforms may remain politically unlikely in the near future, advancing a dialogue on this issue is imperative to address the legal vacuum and strengthen humanitarian relief protection in niac s.

Journal of International Humanitarian Legal Studies
Shanghai International Studies University (CN), Shanghai Jiao Tong University (CN), Hasselt University (BE)
Openalex Percentile: Top 62%
Human Rights and Development
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

The Case for a Prohibition on Arbitrary Denial of Humanitarian Relief in Non-International Armed Conflicts — Matthias Vanhullebusch · Journal of International Humanitarian Legal Studies (2025) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS