Humanitarian Space
The UN Office of the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), refers to humanitarian space as an
‘operating environment’ for relief organizations and recognizes that the “perception of adherence to the
key operating principles of neutrality and impartiality […] represents the critical means by which the
prime objective of ensuring that suffering must be met wherever it is found, can be achieved.”1 They
claim that “maintaining a clear distinction between the role and function of humanitarian actors and
that of the military is the determining factor in creating an operating environment in which
humanitarian organisations can discharge their responsibilities both effectively and safely.”2 But as a
state-based organization pursuing multiple objectives, the United Nations’ definition explicitly omits the
principle of independence as a condition for maintaining humanitarian space.
From these and other uses of the term, it is possible to identify three distinct variations. First,
humanitarian space can be understood as synonymous with respect for IHL.3 The notion of humanitarian
space is not explicitly specified in the Geneva Conventions. But states party to the Geneva Conventions,
when involved in conflict, are obligated to provide for the basic needs of civilian populations affected by
conflict or to allow and facilitate relief action that is ‘humanitarian and impartial in nature’.
A second variation focuses on the existence of a practical, even physical, space within which
humanitarian action – saving lives by providing relief to victims of armed conflicts – can be undertaken.
This can be conceived narrowly in opposition to ‘military’ or ‘political’ space with a focus on
humanitarian corridors, refugee camps, demilitarized zones and ‘safe areas.’ More commonly, however,
it is synonymous with acceptance of the role and activities of humanitarian actors by both the parties to
a conflict and by beneficiaries.
4
Third, there are times when humanitarian space seems synonymous with humanitarian action writ
large. In analyzing the situation in Somalia, for example, one humanitarian organization lists the
following phenomenon as limiting humanitarian space: “general insecurity, administrative delays,
restrictions or delays in movement of goods, targeting of humanitarian workers and assets including the
looting of aid and car-jackings, piracy, negative perception of humanitarian workers, targeting civil
United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, Glossary of humanitarian terms in
relation to the protection of civilians in armed conflict (New York: OCHA, 2004), 14.
2
Ibid, 14-15.
3
Johanna Grombach Wagner “An IHL/ICRC perspective on ‘humanitarian space.” Humanitarian
Exchange Magazine (2005), no 32.
4
Michael Khambatta “Humanitarian Space and Stability Operations”. On the Edges of Conflict Working
Paper (2009), 1.
1
society and media, localised disputes/competition over resources, lack of will and/or ability by
authorities to address security incidents within their control”.5
Assessments of the existence of humanitarian space differ substantially based on the perspective of
particular organizations and the specific criteria they chose to adopt. It is not at all clear therefore that
“humanitarian needs can be put in focus and practically addressed through a clearer understanding of
‘humanitarian space’.”6 It may in fact be the case that such needs can be put in focus and addressed
most effectively by avoiding the loose notion of humanitarian space and considering the constituent
elements of the concept independently.
CARE International, Aid Agencies warn of impending humanitarian catastrophe in Somalia as crisis
deteriorates further. Media release (October 30, 2007).
6
Erik Abild “Creating humanitarian space: a case study of Somalia”, New Issues in Refugee Research,
Research paper no. 184 (2009), 1.
5