Paper details

Paper authors	Rob Grace
In panel on	Trust in Humanitarian Action
Paper presenter(s) will be presenting	In-Person / Online

Abstract

What explains how and why international humanitarian organizations (IHOs) sometimes succeed, and sometimes fall short, in their efforts to negotiate access during armed conflicts to implement humanitarian relief programs? This paper argues that geopolitics shapes the trust-building process during humanitarian access negotiation with governments and non-state armed groups. To illustrate the argument’s validity, the paper offers empirical evidence from the conflict in Ukraine, where Western IHOs have negotiated more successfully with the pro-Western government and less successfully with Russian-backed separatists. Conversely, in this context, Russian aid efforts have been more restricted by the Government of Ukraine and more embraced by the separatists. This case study is based on 47 semi-structured interviews conducted with humanitarian workers, governmental actors, and other experts on the context. This paper, by offering a causal explanation for humanitarian access negotiation outcomes, aims to contribute to our understanding of the intersection between the political and relational dynamics at play during humanitarian access negotiation processes. Nevertheless, the argument challenges the viability of principled humanitarianism. Indeed, if the trust-building necessary for access hinges largely on political alignments, IHOs will not be able to be as principled as they publicly purport to be.

Back