Tag: IHRL

Author: Thelma Chinyamurindi

Access to humanitarian assistance remains one of the most urgent challenges in armed conflicts across Africa. From Ethiopia and Sudan to the Sahel region, civilians continue to face severe restrictions on life-saving aid. While international humanitarian law (IHL), reflected in the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols, provides the primary legal framework regulating armed conflict, it does not always guarantee effective humanitarian access as humanitarian relief operations are often dependent on state consent.^[1]

Recent warnings from the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) in its Humanitarian Outlook 2026 highlight the severity of restricted humanitarian access in conflicts zones such as El Fasher, Sudan. The report further notes increasing attacks on aid and healthcare workers and the growing militarisation of humanitarian assistance.

Against this background, International Human Rights Law (IHRL) may provide an important complementary framework to IHL. By imposing continuous obligations on states to protect life, dignity, and essential socio-economic rights, IHRL can reinforce humanitarian protections where the implementation and enforcement of IHL alone proves insufficient, particularly when state consent is used to restrict access.

The Limits of IHL: Consent and Humanitarian Access

IHL is designed to regulate conduct during armed conflict. It operates on the principle that even in war, there are legal limits. Importantly, IHL applies equally to all parties to a conflict, regardless of whether their use of force is lawful under the United Nations Charter system.  However, when it comes to humanitarian assistance, the legal position under IHL becomes more complex. In non-international armed conflicts (NIACs), which are common across Africa, the delivery of humanitarian aid is generally subject to state consent. This creates a significant limitation. States may delay, restrict, or deny access to humanitarian organisations, often citing sovereignty or security concerns. Although consent should not be withheld arbitrarily, limited effectiveness of existing enforcement mechanisms means that restrictions on humanitarian assistance frequently persist. This is therefore not only a moral concern, but also a legal problem linked to accountability under international law.

At the same time, modern conflicts are becoming longer and more fragmented, and increasingly fought in populatedcivilian areas. Around 204 million people now live in territories under the full or contested control of armed groups, often beyond the reach of state institutions and humanitarian protection. In many conflicts, civilians remain trapped by insecurity, shifting front lines, and blocked humanitarian corridors. The ICRC further warns that dehumanising narratives, misinformation, and “might makes right” approaches are undermining respect for international law and restricting neutral humanitarian assistance. This raises the question: if IHL aims to protect civilians, why does it still allow states to restrict access to life-saving aid?

IHRL as a Complementary Framework

IHRL offers an important pathway to strengthen humanitarian protection. Unlike IHL, IHRL places ongoing obligationson states to protect individuals under their jurisdiction. Several human rights are directly connected to humanitarian assistance, including the right to life and the rights to food, water, and health. The UN Human Rights Committee in General Comment 36 has clarified that the right to life requires states to take positive measures to ensure access to basic necessities. Similarly, the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in General Comment 14 has emphasised that the right to health includes access to conditions  for a dignified life, including water, sanitation, housing and medical care. Importantly, these obligations do not disappear during armed conflict.  In such situations international jurisprudencehas confirmed that IHRL continues to apply alongside IHL.

This overlap is important because it means humanitarian access cannot be treated purely as a political or discretionary matter relying on state consent under IHL, but is increasingly tied to legally protected human rights obligations.

Reinforcing Humanitarian Access through IHRL

IHRL can strengthen humanitarian access in at least three important ways. First, it limits the discretion of states, as IHRL constrains state authority through the protection of individual rights. While IHL allows states to decide whether to grant consent for humanitarian relief, IHRL requires that state decisions do not result in violations of fundamental rights. Refusing access to food, water, or medical supplies in a manner that leads to starvation or preventable deaths could therefore violate the right to life.

Second, IHRL introduces standards of proportionality and necessity into state decision-making. Even where security concerns exist, restrictions on humanitarian assistance must be justified and cannot be excessive. This creates a higher threshold for denying aid. States cannot rely on vague claims of sovereignty or security to impose blanket restrictions on aid delivery. This creates a higher legal threshold for denying aid and strengthens protection for civilians affected by armed conflict.

Third, IHRL offers additional accountability mechanisms beyond those traditionally available under IHL. Regional institutions such as the African Commission and the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights have addressed issues connected to access to essential services during crises. In SERAC v Nigeria, the Commission held that failures relating to food and health protections violated human rights obligations. More recently, the case of  Democratic Republic of Congo v Rwanda, demonstrates that the Court can serve as a regional judicial mechanism for addressing alleged human rights violations arising from armed conflict.

IHRL therefore operates not only as a legal framework, but also as a moral safeguard capable of reinforcing civilian protection where IHL alone proves inadequate.

Challenges in the African Context

Despite its potential, relying on IHRL is not without challenges. Across many African communities, weak institutions, poverty, limited awareness of rights, insecurity, and political instability continue to hinder the effective implementation of human rights protections, while governments often prioritise state security over humanitarian concerns.  Enforcement also remains weak. While regional and international institutions can issue recommendations and findings, they often lack the authority to compel compliance.

Humanitarian needs continue to rise while humanitarian action remains underfunded: global military spending reached 2.7 trillion US dollars in 2024 compared to only 50 billion dollars requested for humanitarian appeals. This imbalance is particularly significant for Africa, where humanitarian organisations already struggle with insecurity, underfunding, and blocked access routes. Yet these challenges do not reduce the importance of IHRL. Instead, they demonstrate the need for stronger integration between IHL and IHRL in legal practice, humanitarian policy, and international accountability mechanisms.

Conclusion

IHL regulates armed conflict but does not always guarantee effective humanitarian access, particularly in NIACs where state consent can restrict relief operations. Recent findings  show increasing restrictions on aid delivery, attacks on humanitarian personnel, and the growing politicisation of humanitarian assistance. IHRL helps strengthen this gap by reinforcing states’ obligations to protect life, health, and dignity, offering a stronger framework for civilian protection during armed conflict.

---

^[1] Consent is expressly required under Additional Protocol II, Article 18(2), which refers to the consent of the High Contracting Party, and under Additional Protocol I, Article 70(1), which requires the consent of the parties to the conflict, understood in the context of an international armed conflict to mean States. The ICRC’s study on customary international humanitarian law likewise recognises the requirement of State consent as a rule of customary IHL.