1. Politics of humanitarianism: power, influence, and governance

Humanitarian aid is highly political and influences, or directly is part of, economic processes locally and globally. Humanitarianism is also influenced by wider political movements and decisions, including by donors and host governments. This notably includes the role of USAID but also views of host governments on the ordering of society and positionality of civil society actors. Illiberal and authoritarian practices are on the rise throughout the world, leaving humanitarians with challenges in maneuvering shifting power dynamics. Shifting geopolitics have led to the securitisation of western aid, its focus on some populations and not others, contributing to the rise of alternative donors and aid and humanitarianism. 

New forms of humanitarianism and resistance have emerged in the last few years. The humanitarian space is increasingly populated by movements and networks that interrogate power holders, the way power is used at systemic, structural and individual levels, and propose alternative power distribution. Civil society organisations and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) widely recognise the coloniality that permeates governance, resourcing, and relationships. Notably with the World Humanitarian Summit, held in Istanbul in 2016, and the Grand Bargain, and accelerated by racial justice movements, actors including donors and international NGOs have been pushed to interrogate their own practices and roles in perpetuating systemic inequality. However, despite supposed commitment to localisation and locally-lead humanitarian action, progress is slow. 

This theme welcomes panel submissions investigating any aspect of relations between humanitarianism and power. This includes the following topics: Power use and distribution; Aid and political economies; Coloniality, decolonisation, localisation, and locally-led aid; Humanitarian governance; Democracy and authoritarianism; Humanitarian ethics; Dominant and resistant discourses of aid; Securitisation of humanitarianism; Donor politics; South-South cooperation; Diaspora humanitarian response; Refugee-led community organisations; Local networks of mutual aid.

2. Understanding new trends in disasters, war, and polycrises

This theme explores the interconnected and evolving nature of global crises, focusing on disasters, conflicts, and polycrises that span multiple sectors. The range and severity of humanitarian crises is expanding and compounding, while humanitarian space and response is contracting. This theme is about better understanding these new trends in crises, and how to identify and advocate appropriate responses. 

Conflict remains one of the main causes of humanitarian crisis, famine and starvation, but the numbers affected have increased enormously in the last few years. A notable shift is the increasing impact of disasters, war and crises on urban populations, challenging traditional humanitarian models that were primarily designed for rural or camp-based populations – Gaza and Sudan being prime examples. As a consequence, refugees and forced migration is accelerating, but at the same time facing pushbacks by the growing right-wing populist movements.  European, British and American policies to deter and contain population movements are leading to further suffering and death, and humanitarian crises in the Global North. 

Climate change is now widely recognized as a humanitarian issue, acting as a risk multiplier that exacerbates existing vulnerabilities and inequalities while creating new crises worldwide.

Poverty and hunger is increasing globally, further blurring Global North-South boundaries. For many populations, these crises are becoming increasingly complex and protracted. These crises are frequently caused by a combination of structural and direct violence.  As such, protracted and underreported crises, such as in DRC, Sudan, as well as ‘forgotten’ crises such as the Rohingya, the Americas, Europe, and the Pacific, are important areas of research.

This theme invites contributions that examine new trends in humanitarian crises, the interaction between multiple causes and their effect, as well as how and which populations are affected. We welcome submissions on the following topics: Climate changed-induced crises; Responding to compound crises/polycrises; Disasters, including Disaster Risk Reduction; Conflict and forgotten conflicts; Famine, starvation, and food security; Refugees and Migration; Protracted Crises; Urban settings in crisis and response; Interdisciplinary approaches to research on crises.

3. International accountability and IHL

Global consensus on accountability and IHL has been challenged by a particularly contentious political moment characterized by increased populism, a rise in violent conflict, and challenges to the liberal international order by authoritarians and democracies alike. Conflicts in Syria, Sudan, DRC, Gaza, Ethiopia, Ukraine, Myanmar and so many others are now known for their unbridled brutality against civilians. The widespread perception is that states violate the conventions whenever they see fit and face no punishment for doing so. As geopolitical tensions boil over, major changes in the means, modes, and actors involved in conflict further test the relevance, interpretation, and resilience of the Geneva Conventions. New means of warfare, such as autonomous weapons systems or ‘killer robots,’ combine with age-old methods of siege and starvation to produce calamitous outcomes for the civilians caught in the cross-hairs. Narrow and literal interpretations of the law, violations by powerful states, and the failure to support and enforce the decisions of the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court threaten IHL’s very efficacy.

In addition to formal, legal mechanisms of accountability, humanitarian actors also continue to develop standards, tools, and principles for reflecting on, practicing, and evaluating accountability to affected populations (AAP). AAP is a commitment by humanitarian organizations to center crisis-affected populations and local communities and partners in all humanitarian programs and a pledge to use power responsibly. Commitments to AAP are articulated and enforced via norms, informal self- and peer-evaluation, reporting, and feedback mechanisms. Three decades after the emergence of the first AAP mechanisms, what progress has been made? How accountable are humanitarian organizations to affected communities? What challenges and problems persist in realizing AAP?

This theme welcomes panels on following topics: Humanitarian diplomacy and negotiations; IHL in the Context of Contemporary Global and Regional Armed Conflicts; New Warfare Technologies and IHL; Siege, Starvation, and their Legal Assessment under IHL; International Courts, their Decisions and the Applicability of IHL; IHL and the Need for Reform; Sanctions and the Effectiveness of IHL Enforcement; War Crimes and the Culture of Impunity: Accountability Mechanisms; The Applicability of IHL to States and Non-State Armed Actors; Civilian Protection in Contemporary Conflicts; Case-Based Analyses of IHL; The Role of State and Non-State Actors in Strengthening and Disseminating IHL; Accountability to Affected Populations; Assessing progress and challenges to AAP.

4. Design, adaptation, and practice

This theme examines how humanitarian response and programming is designed and implemented – in other words, the practice of humanitarianism – in the face of growing needs, scarce resources, and long-standing critiques of inequitable power dynamics, colonial legacies, and inefficiencies. It explores evolving policies, practices, and leadership models, as well as how diverse forms of evidence and knowledge inform program design and decision-making.

A key issue is whose knowledge is valued and how it shapes humanitarian action. Current leadership models are increasingly challenged, particularly in the majority world, as coloniality and white saviorism continue to influence and shape decision-making. Despite calls to integrate local and indigenous knowledge, a hierarchy of knowledge(s) persists, often privileging external, quantitative data over locally grounded insights. This contradicts the “Do No Harm” principle and limits inclusive, local, and contextually relevant action.

Emerging approaches such as anticipatory action, which reflect a broader shift toward proactive and preparedness strategies in humanitarian response, emphasize linking science, policy, and practice. At the intersection of social protection and humanitarian programming, evidence is critical not only for system design but also for measuring impact on dignity, resilience, and long-term vulnerability reduction. Meanwhile, digitalization, and emerging technologies are reshaping humanitarian practice, offering opportunities for efficiency and innovation but also introducing new risks and vulnerabilities for crisis-affected populations that remain poorly understood.

This theme explores how humanitarian practices, knowledge, and leadership models are adapting – and disrupting -adopting in response to both the critiques and external drivers of change. It welcomes panels willing to explore and critically address practices that work on transformative, decolonized, alternative, feminist leadership, and on practices to decolonize knowledge in programs and projects. We welcome submissions on the following topics: Critical reflections on new and emerging trends in humanitarian program design and implementation (e.g. Artificial Intelligence); Equity, sustainability, and dignity in humanitarian programming; Anticipatory action; Social policy and humanitarian assistance; Practices and cultures of humanitarianism; Decolonisation and localisation in practice; Locally-led leadership and programming; Coloniality of knowledge; Knowledge, evidence, and programme design.