Humanitarian Aid in International Law: Can States Legally Block Relief?

Introduction

International law does not give states an unrestricted right to block humanitarian aid. Governments retain authority over access to their territory, and humanitarian operations generally require consent. During armed conflict, however, that authority is limited by international humanitarian law, which prohibits arbitrary refusals of impartial relief and requires parties to allow and facilitate assistance for civilians in need. In occupied territory, the obligations are more demanding: an occupying power must agree to and facilitate relief schemes when the population is inadequately supplied.

The legality of a restriction depends on the circumstances. Authorities may inspect relief consignments, regulate their passage, and impose certain security arrangements. Those powers cannot be exercised in ways that defeat the obligation to facilitate qualifying humanitarian assistance. A state may formally authorize a relief operation yet impose conditions that prevent essential supplies from reaching their intended recipients.

The governing rules also differ according to the nature of the emergency. International armed conflicts, non-international armed conflicts, military occupation, and natural disasters engage distinct legal frameworks. Determining when humanitarian assistance may lawfully be refused requires examining those differences, the legal position of humanitarian organizations, and the responsibilities arising when relief is unlawfully obstructed.

1. What Is Humanitarian Aid in International Law?

Humanitarian aid refers to assistance intended to alleviate human suffering and meet urgent needs arising from armed conflict, natural disasters, displacement, disease, and other emergencies. It includes food, safe drinking water, medicines, shelter, sanitation, and services necessary to preserve life and health. Unlike longer-term development assistance, humanitarian relief primarily responds to immediate needs, although emergency operations may continue for prolonged periods when affected populations remain dependent on external support.

International law does not define humanitarian assistance through a single universal treaty. Its legal treatment depends on the circumstances in which assistance is provided. During armed conflict, international humanitarian law regulates relief operations through treaty provisions and customary rules governing civilian protection. Outside armed conflict, international human rights obligations, domestic legislation, specialized agreements, and international cooperation arrangements become particularly relevant.

Humanitarian operations are conducted by organizations with different legal mandates. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) has a distinctive position under the Geneva Conventions, while United Nations agencies operate according to mandates established by the competent UN organs. National Red Cross and Red Crescent societies and independent humanitarian organizations also provide assistance, frequently through arrangements negotiated with territorial authorities or parties controlling affected areas.

Humanity, impartiality, neutrality, and independence are central principles of humanitarian action. Humanity concerns the prevention and alleviation of suffering, while impartiality requires assistance to be distributed according to need without adverse discrimination. Neutrality concerns abstention from taking sides in hostilities or political, racial, religious, or ideological controversies. Independence requires humanitarian action to remain autonomous from objectives incompatible with its humanitarian purpose.

These principles have differing institutional and legal foundations. Their operational importance does not mean that every organization is subject to identical treaty obligations. The humanitarian and impartial character of relief is particularly significant under international humanitarian law because it helps determine which assistance qualifies for the protections governing humanitarian access.

2. Can States Legally Refuse Humanitarian Assistance?

A state's authority to refuse humanitarian assistance is neither absolute nor entirely displaced by the existence of an emergency. Territorial sovereignty ordinarily gives governments considerable control over foreign activities within their borders. Yet international law also imposes obligations concerning the treatment and protection of persons under state jurisdiction or control, including obligations that become particularly specific during armed conflict.

The distinction between refusing unnecessary assistance and obstructing relief essential to civilians is fundamental. Where the basic needs of an affected population are adequately met, authorities may have legitimate grounds to decline a particular external operation. When civilians lack indispensable supplies and impartial humanitarian assistance is offered, the applicable humanitarian rules substantially restrict the freedom to withhold consent.

Consent and humanitarian access are legally connected but distinct. Consent concerns authorization to undertake an operation. Once the relevant relief scheme has been agreed upon, additional obligations govern the passage of supplies, the protection of personnel, and the arrangements necessary for distribution. An authority may breach these obligations without formally withdrawing its original consent.

2.1 State Sovereignty and the Requirement of Consent

Territorial sovereignty recognizes a state's authority to regulate activities within its borders. Humanitarian organizations do not possess a general international entitlement to enter another country and conduct operations without permission. Consent ordinarily enables the receiving state to supervise external activities involving personnel, vehicles, equipment, and the distribution of goods.

International humanitarian law qualifies this authority without eliminating it. Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions recognizes that an impartial humanitarian body, such as the ICRC, may offer its services to parties to a non-international armed conflict. Article 70(1) of Additional Protocol I expressly provides that qualifying offers of humanitarian relief must not be regarded as interference in an armed conflict or as unfriendly acts (Additional Protocol I, 1977).

The ICRC describes this capacity to offer assistance as the humanitarian right of initiative. Its exercise does not depend on a government's willingness to acknowledge the existence of an armed conflict or the legal status of an opposing armed group. Offering impartial assistance also does not imply political recognition of a party receiving or facilitating that assistance.

The unlawfulness of withholding consent does not automatically establish a separate entitlement to cross an international border without authorization. That question requires consideration of the applicable humanitarian rules, territorial sovereignty, and any binding Security Council decision. The distinction is especially important where civilians live in territory controlled by a non-state armed group rather than the internationally recognized government.

2.2 When Refusing Aid Becomes Unlawful

The prohibition on arbitrary withholding of consent is an important limitation on parties to armed conflicts. The ICRC's interpretation of international humanitarian law recognizes that humanitarian operations generally require consent, but that consent cannot be refused arbitrarily. A party cannot rely on territorial authority alone to reject qualifying relief when civilians depend on external assistance for essential needs (ICRC, 2023).

The humanitarian needs of the population are central to this assessment. If an authority can adequately supply civilians, it may legitimately decline an external operation that is unnecessary. An offer made by an organization that does not satisfy the applicable requirements of humanitarian character and impartiality may also raise grounds for refusal. By contrast, political hostility toward an organization or the population it serves does not itself justify withholding essential relief.

Concerns about diversion or misuse require a different response. Where a proposed operation qualifies for humanitarian protection, risks concerning consignments ordinarily call for lawful inspection, supervision, or other control arrangements. They do not create an unrestricted authority to reject assistance altogether. Military necessity may justify particular temporary restrictions under the applicable rules, but it cannot serve as a general exception to the obligation to permit necessary impartial humanitarian activities.

The precise boundaries of arbitrariness are not set out in a single universal treaty test. Academic disagreement also persists over whether humanitarian law establishes an independently enforceable individual right to receive assistance from external organizations. The firmer legal position is that treaty and customary rules impose obligations concerning consent, passage, and the treatment of relief operations, while the existence and scope of a broader individual entitlement remain disputed (Kuijt, 2015; Spieker, 2015).

3. Humanitarian Access During Armed Conflict

International humanitarian law provides the most developed treaty framework governing humanitarian assistance. Its application depends on the factual existence and classification of armed conflict rather than the terminology used by governments. International armed conflicts generally involve armed force between states, while non-international armed conflicts require organized armed groups and violence reaching the necessary level of intensity.

The 1949 Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols establish obligations concerning civilian protection and humanitarian operations. Their application must be assessed provision by provision. Although participation in the four Geneva Conventions is universal, the Additional Protocols do not bind every state as treaty law. Customary rules may apply independently of ratification.

The ICRC's study of customary international humanitarian law identifies an obligation to allow and facilitate rapid and unimpeded passage of impartial humanitarian relief for civilians in need, subject to a right of control. Rule 55 applies this obligation in international and non-international armed conflicts. The International Court of Justice reaffirmed the customary duty and its limited control exception in its advisory opinion of October 22, 2025 (ICJ, 2025, para. 91).

3.1 International Armed Conflicts and the Geneva Conventions

Article 23 of the Fourth Geneva Convention establishes obligations concerning the free passage of specified relief consignments. It covers medical and hospital stores and objects necessary for religious worship intended solely for civilians of another contracting party. It also protects the passage of essential foodstuffs, clothing, and tonics intended for children under fifteen, expectant mothers, and maternity cases.

These obligations are subject to expressly defined conditions. A state may refuse passage where it has serious reasons to fear diversion, ineffective control, or a definite advantage accruing to the enemy's military efforts or economy through the substitution of relief supplies for resources that the enemy would otherwise provide. Article 23 consequently establishes a narrower and more conditional passage regime than later provisions concerning general humanitarian relief (Geneva Convention IV, 1949, art. 23).

Article 70 of Additional Protocol I establishes a broader framework for civilian populations inadequately supplied with essential goods in territory other than occupied territory. Qualifying relief actions must be humanitarian and impartial and conducted without adverse distinction. Their undertaking remains subject to the agreement of the parties concerned. Once the applicable requirements are satisfied, parties and contracting states must allow and facilitate rapid and unimpeded passage of the relevant relief consignments, equipment, and personnel.

The relationship between these provisions illustrates the development of civilian protection under the Geneva Conventions. Article 23 protects defined categories of consignments and beneficiaries, whereas Article 70 addresses a wider range of civilian relief needs. The treaty provisions must nevertheless remain distinct, particularly where a party has not ratified Additional Protocol I.

Article 70 also recognizes limited rights of control. States may prescribe technical arrangements, including searches, and may require certain supervision of distribution. They may not divert relief consignments from their intended purpose or delay forwarding except in cases of urgent necessity in the interests of the civilian population concerned. The provision combines access obligations with narrowly regulated operational safeguards.

3.2 Relief in Non-International Armed Conflicts

Non-international armed conflicts present particular difficulties because governmental forces and organized armed groups may control different parts of a state's territory. Civilian populations may depend on supplies that must cross front lines or international borders. Common Article 3 recognizes the possibility of impartial humanitarian organizations offering their services to the parties, but it does not establish the detailed relief arrangements found in the provisions governing occupation.

Article 18(2) of Additional Protocol II addresses situations in which civilians suffer undue hardship because they lack supplies essential to their survival. It provides for relief actions of an exclusively humanitarian and impartial character, conducted without adverse distinction, subject to the consent of the High Contracting Party concerned. The express reference to that party is significant when interpreting the role of the territorial state (Additional Protocol II, 1977, art. 18).

The Protocol also has a restricted material scope. Under Article 1, it applies to qualifying armed conflicts between a state's armed forces and dissident armed forces or other organized armed groups operating under responsible command and exercising sufficient territorial control to conduct sustained and concerted military operations and implement the Protocol. Conflicts falling below that threshold may still be governed by common Article 3 and applicable customary international humanitarian law.

Organized armed groups that qualify as parties to an armed conflict are bound by relevant customary humanitarian rules. Their cooperation may be indispensable when they control territory, checkpoints, roads, or populations requiring assistance. Consent from authorities controlling particular areas can consequently have practical and legal significance even where the territorial government's position is disputed.

Cross-border relief without the territorial state's consent remains a contested legal question. Some interpretations emphasize that an arbitrary refusal cannot lawfully prevent indispensable assistance, particularly where the government lacks effective control over the affected territory. Others maintain that the unlawfulness of withholding consent does not itself authorize external organizations to enter the state without permission. The applicable treaty provisions, customary obligations, and any specific Security Council authorization must be assessed separately.

4. Occupation Law and the Duty to Facilitate Relief

The obligations concerning humanitarian aid become more explicit when territory is under belligerent occupation. Occupation arises from the factual exercise of authority by hostile forces over foreign territory; it does not transfer sovereignty to the occupying power. The duties imposed by occupation law reflect the responsibilities accompanying that control, particularly where the local population depends on the occupying authority for essential supplies.

Article 55 of the Fourth Geneva Convention requires an occupying power, to the fullest extent of the means available to it, to ensure food and medical supplies for the population. Where local resources are inadequate, the occupying power must bring in the necessary goods. Article 56 adds obligations concerning medical and hospital establishments, public health, and hygiene, requiring cooperation with national and local authorities.

These provisions establish positive responsibilities rather than merely prohibiting interference with external assistance. Article 59 imposes an additional obligation when the whole or part of the occupied population is inadequately supplied. The occupying power must agree to relief schemes on behalf of that population and facilitate them by all means at its disposal.

The International Court of Justice confirmed in its October 2025 advisory opinion that the Article 59 obligation is unconditional once the relevant inadequacy of supplies exists. An occupying power cannot treat its agreement to necessary qualifying relief as a matter of unrestricted discretion. The Court also recognized that control arrangements cannot undermine performance of that obligation (ICJ, 2025, paras. 93–101).

The Fourth Geneva Convention regulates the responsibilities that continue after relief has been authorized. Article 60 prevents external relief from replacing the occupying power's underlying duties. It restricts the diversion of consignments to exceptional circumstances involving urgent necessity in the interests of the occupied population and the required consent of the Protecting Power. Article 61 governs distribution arrangements and requires the occupying power to facilitate rapid distribution.

The extent of an occupying power's obligations must also be considered in relation to the authority it actually exercises. In its advisory opinion of July 19, 2024, the ICJ concluded that Israel's withdrawal of its military presence from Gaza in 2005 had not entirely released it from occupation-law obligations. Those obligations remained commensurate with its degree of effective control, which the Court found had increased significantly after October 7, 2023 (ICJ, 2024c, paras. 93–94).

This relationship between effective control and responsibility does not make essential civilian protection optional. The obligations that arise from occupation must be fulfilled within the limits and requirements established by the applicable law. Security considerations cannot operate as an independent justification for disregarding them. The ICJ's 2025 opinion expressly rejected the invocation of security reasons as a basis for suspending all humanitarian activities in occupied territory.

5. When Are Restrictions on Humanitarian Aid Lawful?

Humanitarian access does not require parties to armed conflict to abandon every form of security supervision. International humanitarian law recognizes that relief consignments may need inspection, transport routes may require coordination, and military operations may create genuine risks to humanitarian personnel. These control powers serve legitimate purposes but remain constrained by the applicable obligations concerning civilian relief.

The legal basis for restrictions differs between treaty regimes. Article 23 of the Fourth Geneva Convention specifies grounds affecting the free passage of particular consignments. Article 70 of Additional Protocol I permits defined technical arrangements while prohibiting diversion and unjustified delay. Article 59 of the Fourth Geneva Convention establishes an especially demanding duty to agree to and facilitate relief in inadequately supplied occupied territory.

Formal consent does not establish that every subsequent restriction is lawful. Authorities may approve an operation but prevent its implementation through repeated administrative delays, inaccessible routes, or conditions that make distribution impracticable. Whether such conduct violates international law depends on the governing provision, its permitted exceptions, and the actual effect of the restrictions.

5.1 Inspections, Border Controls, and Delays

Inspections may be lawful when used to verify the contents of humanitarian consignments or prevent their diversion for incompatible purposes. Article 70(3) of Additional Protocol I expressly permits technical arrangements, including searches, and allows certain conditions concerning supervision of distribution. These controls must remain consistent with the duty to facilitate relief rather than operate as a means of preventing its delivery.

Article 23 of the Fourth Geneva Convention contains more specific conditions. It permits a contracting party to withhold free passage where serious reasons exist to fear diversion, ineffective control, or the military or economic advantage identified in that provision. Its restrictions must be assessed according to those express conditions rather than generalized into an unrestricted security exception applicable to all humanitarian operations.

Article 59 provides a different regime for occupied territory. A power granting free passage to consignments bound for territory occupied by an adverse party may search them, prescribe times and routes, and seek reasonable assurance through the Protecting Power that they will be used for the intended civilian population. The occupying power's own responsibilities remain governed by the applicable occupation-law provisions, including the duty to facilitate qualifying relief.

In its October 2025 advisory opinion, the ICJ emphasized that these controls cannot undermine the obligation to facilitate relief schemes. The Court treated the permissible diversion of assistance as exceptional, temporary, and confined to the narrowly defined purposes recognized by the Fourth Geneva Convention. Inspection powers cannot be transformed into a general authority to suspend humanitarian operations (ICJ, 2025, paras. 95–101).

The duration and consequences of restrictions are relevant to assessing their legality. A temporary inspection justified by genuine operational circumstances differs from procedures that repeatedly prevent essential supplies from reaching civilians. An authorization to deliver aid does not satisfy the governing obligations if the accompanying conditions make implementation impossible.

5.2 Protection of Aid Workers and Relief Operations

Humanitarian personnel are protected under international humanitarian law, including the general rules protecting civilians from attack. Article 71 of Additional Protocol I specifically requires personnel participating in qualifying relief operations to be respected and protected. Their participation is subject to approval by the party in whose territory they will perform their duties.

The provision also addresses the conduct and movement of approved personnel. Parties receiving relief consignments must assist humanitarian personnel to the fullest extent practicable. Only imperative military necessity may justify limiting their activities or temporarily restricting their movements. Personnel must remain within the terms of their missions and take account of applicable security requirements (Additional Protocol I, 1977, art. 71).

Customary international humanitarian law provides related protections in both international and non-international armed conflicts. Rules 31 and 32 of the ICRC's customary-law study concern the protection of humanitarian relief personnel and objects. Rule 56 requires parties to ensure the freedom of movement essential to authorized humanitarian personnel performing their functions, subject to temporary restrictions justified by imperative military necessity (Henckaerts and Doswald-Beck, 2005).

Relief consignments and objects used for humanitarian operations are also protected against conduct prohibited by the applicable rules. Interference may occur through unlawful attacks, destruction, seizure, or obstruction of distribution. These forms of conduct do not necessarily engage identical legal provisions, and their classification depends on the relevant circumstances.

The protection of humanitarian operations does not authorize personnel to exceed their approved mandates. Article 71 recognizes that a mission may be terminated where personnel fail to respect the conditions governing their activities. The legal framework protects genuine humanitarian work while preserving narrowly defined safeguards necessary for its lawful performance.

6. UN Humanitarian Aid and Cross-Border Operations

The United Nations is a major coordinator and provider of humanitarian assistance, but its institutional involvement does not automatically displace territorial sovereignty. The Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs coordinates international humanitarian responses, while UN agencies and programs undertake operational activities within their respective mandates. Their institutional position differs from that of the ICRC, whose humanitarian functions are specifically recognized in the Geneva Conventions.

United Nations General Assembly Resolution 46/182 established an important framework for international humanitarian coordination in 1991. It affirms the principles of humanity, neutrality, and impartiality while recognizing the sovereignty of affected states and their primary responsibility for humanitarian assistance within their territory. The resolution provides an institutional framework rather than a general authorization for United Nations agencies to enter foreign territory without consent.

The Security Council may establish particular legal arrangements through binding decisions adopted within its Charter powers. Resolution 2165 (2014) authorized United Nations humanitarian agencies and implementing partners to use specified border crossings and routes into Syria under an authorization mechanism involving notification to Syrian authorities. The arrangement was exceptional and subject to subsequent Security Council decisions.

The Council's authorization for the Bab al-Hawa crossing expired on July 10, 2023, after members failed to agree on a further extension. That expiration did not mean all United Nations cross-border relief stopped. On July 13, 2023, the Syrian government granted permission for continued UN use of Bab al-Hawa for six months, subject to conditions that prompted further negotiations. In August, the United Nations and Syria reached an understanding concerning the continued operation of the crossing, with the UN emphasizing the need to preserve its operational independence and humanitarian principles.

This sequence illustrates why humanitarian access arrangements must be assessed according to the authority applicable at the relevant time. Security Council authorization and territorial-state consent are legally distinct bases for relief operations. The expiration of one mechanism does not necessarily prevent continued assistance under another lawful arrangement.

Sanctions may create additional difficulties for humanitarian organizations, particularly where financial restrictions affect payments, transport, or essential services. Security Council Resolution 2664 (2022) established a standing humanitarian exception to specified United Nations asset-freeze measures for eligible activities and actors. Resolution 2761 (2024) continued that exception for the ISIL and Al-Qaida sanctions regime without the original two-year limitation.

These measures concern the implementation of sanctions rather than territorial entry. They do not remove every financial restriction or establish an unrestricted right to conduct humanitarian operations in another state. Their significance lies in reducing specified sanctions-related obstacles while preserving the separate legal requirements governing humanitarian access.

7. Humanitarian Assistance Outside Armed Conflict

Not every humanitarian emergency engages international humanitarian law. Natural disasters, public health crises, and other emergencies may occur without armed conflict, leaving the regulation of external assistance primarily to international human rights law, specialized treaties, domestic legislation, and arrangements for international cooperation. The affected state generally retains primary responsibility for protecting persons within its jurisdiction and coordinating external relief.

International human rights obligations may require authorities to take positive measures to protect people facing life-threatening deprivation. Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights protects the right to life. The Human Rights Committee has interpreted this provision as requiring appropriate measures against reasonably foreseeable threats to life, including certain threats arising from environmental conditions and disasters (Human Rights Committee, 2018).

The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights provides further obligations. Article 11 recognizes the right to an adequate standard of living, including adequate food, while Article 12 recognizes the right to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health. The scope of these obligations must be interpreted in light of the Covenant's requirements concerning progressive realization, available resources, and international cooperation.

These rights do not create an unrestricted entitlement for foreign humanitarian organizations to operate without consent. They can, however, constrain the conduct of authorities whose decisions endanger protected rights or prevent necessary measures from being taken. The legal assessment depends on the state's treaty obligations, its circumstances, the needs of affected persons, and the measures reasonably available to it.

The International Law Commission's 2016 draft articles on the protection of persons in the event of disasters address consent more directly. Draft Article 13 provides that external assistance requires the affected state's consent and that consent must not be withheld arbitrarily. It also calls for a timely decision on offers of assistance whenever possible. These provisions represent a significant codification effort, but the draft articles have not themselves become a binding global convention (International Law Commission, 2016).

The United Nations General Assembly decided in Resolution 80/169 of December 15, 2025, to convene a diplomatic conference to elaborate and conclude a legally binding instrument on the protection of persons in the event of disasters. Following General Assembly Decision 80/551 of September 4, 2026, the conference was scheduled to meet in Bangkok from January 25 to February 12, 2027.

The distinction between armed conflict and disaster relief remains legally important. A rule derived from Article 59 of the Fourth Geneva Convention cannot simply be transferred to an earthquake or epidemic. Nor does the absence of armed conflict leave affected populations outside international legal protection. States remain bound by the human rights, treaty, and other obligations applicable to the particular emergency, even where the legal framework governing external assistance is less developed.

8. Gaza Humanitarian Aid and the International Court of Justice

Humanitarian access in Gaza has been examined in significant proceedings before the International Court of Justice. These proceedings address different legal questions and must not be treated as interchangeable. The provisional measures ordered in South Africa v. Israel concern rights protected under the Genocide Convention, while the advisory opinion of October 22, 2025, addresses Israel's obligations toward the United Nations, other international organizations, and third states in and in relation to the Occupied Palestinian Territory.

On March 28, 2024, the ICJ ordered Israel to take necessary and effective measures, in full cooperation with the United Nations, to ensure the unhindered provision at scale of urgently needed basic services and humanitarian assistance to Palestinians throughout Gaza. The measures included increasing the capacity and number of land crossings and maintaining them open for as long as necessary. The Court also directed Israel to ensure that its military did not commit acts violating protected rights under the Genocide Convention, including by preventing humanitarian deliveries (ICJ, 2024a, para. 51).

On May 24, 2024, the Court reaffirmed its earlier provisional measures and ordered Israel to maintain the Rafah crossing open for the unhindered provision at scale of urgently needed basic services and humanitarian assistance. The order addressed the deteriorating humanitarian circumstances associated with military operations in Rafah. It also required Israel to halt its military offensive and any other action in the Rafah Governorate that might inflict conditions of life on Palestinians in Gaza capable of bringing about their physical destruction, in whole or in part (ICJ, 2024b, para. 57).

These provisional measures were binding, but they did not constitute final findings that Israel had committed genocide or violated every obligation alleged by South Africa. The proceedings concern claims advanced by South Africa and disputed by Israel. The broader questions of genocidal intent, state responsibility under the Convention, and the merits of those allegations belong to South Africa's Genocide Convention case against Israel, rather than to the general law of humanitarian access.

The ICJ's advisory opinion of October 22, 2025, examined humanitarian obligations more directly. The Court reaffirmed that the Fourth Geneva Convention applies in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and considered the duties arising under Articles 55, 56, and 59. It concluded that the population of Gaza had been inadequately supplied within the meaning of Article 59 and that Israel was obliged to agree to and facilitate relief schemes on behalf of the population (ICJ, 2025, paras. 91–109).

The Court's analysis also depended on Israel's continuing responsibilities under occupation law. Its July 2024 advisory opinion had found that the 2005 withdrawal had not entirely ended Israel's occupation-law obligations in Gaza. Those obligations remained commensurate with the degree of effective control. In October 2025, the Court reaffirmed that position and found that Israel's effective control had increased significantly since October 7, 2023 (ICJ, 2025, paras. 85–87).

The Court rejected the proposition that security concerns constitute an independent exception to international humanitarian law. Any limitation based on security must be grounded in an applicable legal rule and exercised in good faith. Within the Article 59 framework, permissible inspection and control arrangements cannot undermine the occupying power's obligation to facilitate qualifying relief (ICJ, 2025, paras. 88–101).

The advisory opinion also examined the legal position of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA). Israel argued that UNRWA did not satisfy the impartiality requirement applicable under Article 59. The Court distinguished allegations concerning individual personnel from the legal assessment of UNRWA as an organization. It found no evidence before it establishing that UNRWA had discriminated in its distribution of humanitarian assistance and considered the available information insufficient to establish an organizational lack of neutrality affecting its impartiality (ICJ, 2025, paras. 110–124).

The Court recognized that an occupying power is not invariably obliged to rely on a particular humanitarian organization. It must nevertheless ensure that the population receives adequate assistance. In the circumstances before it, the Court concluded that UNRWA could not be replaced on short notice without an adequate transition arrangement and that Israel had not otherwise ensured sufficient supplies for Gaza's population. It consequently identified an obligation to agree to and facilitate relief schemes involving the United Nations and its entities, including UNRWA.

The Court's operative conclusion concerning the duty to agree to and facilitate such relief schemes was adopted by ten votes to one. The majority's findings must be distinguished from the separate and dissenting opinions accompanying the advisory opinion. Those judicial disagreements do not alter the conclusion adopted by the Court concerning Article 59 and the humanitarian arrangements addressed in the proceedings.

The opinion further examined Israel's obligations to cooperate with the United Nations and respect its privileges and immunities. It distinguished Israel's sovereign authority within its own territory from its powers as an occupying authority, which do not confer sovereignty over occupied territory. The Court identified obligations concerning UN personnel, premises, property, assets, and activities under the applicable Charter and treaty provisions (ICJ, 2025, paras. 170–216).

The procedural scope of the opinion remains essential to its interpretation. Advisory opinions are not binding judgments between parties in contentious proceedings, although they provide authoritative judicial interpretations of international law. The Court identified the obligations applicable in the circumstances presented to it, but expressly did not determine whether Israel had breached those obligations or the legal consequences of any such breach.

9. Legal Responsibility for Unlawfully Blocking Relief

Unlawful obstruction of humanitarian assistance may engage the international responsibility of a state. Under the general law of state responsibility, an internationally wrongful act requires conduct attributable to the state that breaches an international obligation binding upon it. Article 2 of the International Law Commission's Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts sets out these elements, reflecting established principles of international law (International Law Commission, 2001).

The relevant breach may consist of an unjustified refusal of assistance, interference with authorized operations, or failure to discharge a specific duty toward civilians under state control. Establishing responsibility requires identification of the precise legal obligation and the conduct alleged to violate it. The existence of severe humanitarian consequences is relevant, but it cannot substitute for the required legal analysis.

Where a breach is established, the general consequences may include cessation, assurances and guarantees of non-repetition where appropriate, and reparation for legally attributable injury. These consequences are reflected in Articles 30 and 31 of the International Law Commission's 2001 Articles. Their application depends on the circumstances and the relevant rules governing responsibility rather than on a separate international treaty created by the Articles themselves.

Responsibility can be difficult to assess when several actors control different stages of a humanitarian operation. A territorial state may regulate border entry, an armed group may control access roads, and another state may exercise authority over transit routes. Their obligations may arise from different legal sources. The unlawful conduct of one actor cannot automatically be attributed to another merely because both influence the delivery of assistance.

Non-state armed groups are also bound by applicable international humanitarian law, although the legal consequences and enforcement mechanisms differ from those governing state responsibility. Individual criminal responsibility requires a separate assessment under the elements of a recognized international crime. Not every unlawful restriction on humanitarian relief constitutes a war crime.

The Rome Statute expressly criminalizes certain attacks against protected humanitarian assistance missions. Article 8(2)(b)(iii) concerns international armed conflicts, while Article 8(2)(e)(iii) addresses non-international armed conflicts. These provisions apply to intentionally directed attacks against personnel, installations, material, units, or vehicles involved in qualifying humanitarian assistance or peacekeeping missions in accordance with the United Nations Charter, provided they retain the protection afforded to civilians or civilian objects.

The existence of such offenses does not mean that every delay, administrative restriction, or refusal of consent satisfies their elements. The conduct must meet the relevant definition of an attack, the required intent and contextual conditions must be established, and the applicable jurisdictional requirements must be satisfied. Other forms of interference may violate humanitarian obligations without falling within these particular criminal provisions.

Restrictions on relief may also raise separate legal questions concerning civilian protection. The siege of Taiz, for example, illustrates the distinct prohibition of starvation as a method of warfare. That prohibition has its own legal requirements and cannot be assumed to follow from every instance of denied humanitarian access. Its relationship to individual criminal responsibility must be assessed separately from the general duty to allow and facilitate qualifying relief.

International courts, domestic jurisdictions, humanitarian monitoring mechanisms, and diplomatic institutions may contribute to establishing responsibility or securing compliance. Their authority differs. Judicial proceedings depend on jurisdiction and the legal questions submitted, while humanitarian organizations frequently rely on negotiated access and cooperation with the parties exercising control.

The existence of binding obligations does not guarantee that assistance will reach civilians. Effective implementation depends on the conduct of the authorities responsible for access, the protection of humanitarian personnel, and the ability of relief organizations to carry out their authorized missions. International responsibility provides a legal framework for addressing violations, but it does not eliminate the operational difficulties of delivering assistance during armed conflict.

Conclusion

States may regulate humanitarian aid, but international law limits their authority to refuse or obstruct relief. During armed conflict, impartial humanitarian assistance is governed by treaty and customary obligations that restrict arbitrary withholding of consent and require the passage of qualifying relief. Lawful inspections and security arrangements remain possible, but they cannot be used to defeat duties imposed by the applicable humanitarian rules.

The obligations are especially demanding in occupied territory. The Fourth Geneva Convention requires an occupying power to ensure essential supplies and, where the population is inadequately supplied, to agree to and facilitate relief schemes. The International Court of Justice's October 2025 advisory opinion confirmed the unconditional character of the latter obligation once its legal requirements are satisfied, while recognizing limited rights of control over humanitarian operations.

The legality of blocking humanitarian assistance ultimately depends on the applicable legal regime, the needs of the civilian population, the authority exercising control, and the justification and effects of the restriction. Sovereignty remains a fundamental principle of international law, but it does not authorize states or occupying powers to disregard their obligations toward civilians who depend on humanitarian relief.

References

Charter of the United Nations (1945) Signed at San Francisco, 26 June 1945; entered into force 24 October 1945. 1 UNTS XVI.

Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1948) Adopted 9 December 1948; entered into force 12 January 1951. 78 UNTS 277.

Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations (1946) Adopted 13 February 1946; entered into force 17 September 1946. 1 UNTS 15.

Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (Fourth Geneva Convention) (1949) Adopted 12 August 1949; entered into force 21 October 1950. 75 UNTS 287.

Henckaerts, J.-M. and Doswald-Beck, L. (2005) Customary International Humanitarian Law. Volume I: Rules. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Human Rights Committee (2018) General comment No. 36 (2018) on article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, on the right to life. CCPR/C/GC/36, 30 October 2018. Available at: https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/CCPR/CCPR_C_GC_36.pdf (Accessed: 4 November 2026).

International Committee of the Red Cross (2023) Humanitarian access: What the law says [online]. 27 November 2023. Available at: https://www.icrc.org/en/document/humanitarian-access-what-law-says (Accessed: 4 November 2026).

International Court of Justice (2024a) Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel), Order of 28 March 2024, Request for the modification of the Order of 26 January 2024 indicating provisional measures. General List No. 192. Available at: https://www.un.org/unispal/document/icj-order-gaza-genocide-covention-28mar24/ (Accessed: 4 November 2026).

International Court of Justice (2024b) Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel), Order of 24 May 2024, Request for the modification of the Order of 28 March 2024 indicating provisional measures. General List No. 192. Available at: https://www.un.org/unispal/document/icj-order-24may24/ (Accessed: 4 November 2026).

International Court of Justice (2024c) Legal Consequences Arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, Advisory Opinion, 19 July 2024. General List No. 186. Available at: https://www.un.org/unispal/document/advisory-opinion-icj-19jul24/ (Accessed: 4 November 2026).

International Court of Justice (2025) Obligations of Israel in relation to the Presence and Activities of the United Nations, Other International Organizations and Third States in and in relation to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion, 22 October 2025. General List No. 196. Available at: https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/196/196-20251022-adv-01-00-en.pdf (Accessed: 4 November 2026).

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966) Adopted 16 December 1966; entered into force 23 March 1976. 999 UNTS 171.

International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966) Adopted 16 December 1966; entered into force 3 January 1976. 993 UNTS 3.

International Law Commission (2001) Draft articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, with commentaries. Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its fifty-third session, A/56/10, Chapter IV. Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 2001, Vol. II, Part Two.

International Law Commission (2016) Draft articles on the protection of persons in the event of disasters, with commentaries. Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its sixty-eighth session, A/71/10, Chapter IV.

Kuijt, E.E. (2015) Humanitarian Assistance and State Sovereignty in International Law: Towards a Comprehensive Framework. Cambridge: Intersentia.

Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I) (1977) Adopted 8 June 1977; entered into force 7 December 1978. 1125 UNTS 3.

Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts (Protocol II) (1977) Adopted 8 June 1977; entered into force 7 December 1978. 1125 UNTS 609.

Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (1998) Adopted 17 July 1998; entered into force 1 July 2002. 2187 UNTS 3.

Spieker, H. (2015) ‘Humanitarian Assistance, Access in Armed Conflict and Occupation’, Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Syrian Arab Republic (2023) Letter dated 13 July 2023 from the Permanent Representative of the Syrian Arab Republic to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General and the President of the Security Council. S/2023/526, 13 July 2023.

United Nations General Assembly (1991) Strengthening of the coordination of humanitarian emergency assistance of the United Nations. Resolution 46/182, A/RES/46/182, 19 December 1991.

United Nations General Assembly (2025) United Nations Conference of Plenipotentiaries on Protection of Persons in the Event of Disasters. Resolution 80/169, A/RES/80/169, 15 December 2025.

United Nations General Assembly (2026) Dates and venue of the United Nations Conference of Plenipotentiaries on Protection of Persons in the Event of Disasters. Decision 80/551, A/DEC/80/551, 4 September 2026.

United Nations Office of Legal Affairs (2026) Protection of Persons in the Event of Disasters: Background [online]. Available at: https://legal.un.org/diplomaticconferences/pped/bg.shtml (Accessed: 4 November 2026).

United Nations Secretary-General (2023a) Statement attributable to the Spokesperson for the Secretary-General – on Syria [online]. 8 August 2023. Available at: https://www.un.org/sg/en/content/sg/statement/2023-08-08/statement-attributable-the-spokesperson-for-the-secretary-general-syria (Accessed: 4 November 2026).

United Nations Secretary-General (2023b) Letter dated 15 August 2023 from the Secretary-General addressed to the President of the Security Council. S/2023/603, 15 August 2023.

United Nations Security Council (2014) Resolution 2165 (2014). S/RES/2165 (2014), 14 July 2014.

United Nations Security Council (2022) Resolution 2664 (2022). S/RES/2664 (2022), 9 December 2022.

United Nations Security Council (2024) Resolution 2761 (2024). S/RES/2761 (2024), 6 December 2024.