Impartiality and independence of humanitarian organizations in environments controlled by non-state armed groups. A case study of Afghanistan post-2021

Abstract

The increasing prevalence of non-state armed groups (NSAGs) in contemporary conflicts poses significant challenges for humanitarian organizations, particularly in maintaining the principles of impartiality and independence. This thesis explores the implications of these principles for humanitarian operations in NSAG-controlled environments, with a focus on Afghanistan post-2021. Utilizing a qualitative analysis of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) frameworks, including Common Article 3 (CA3) and Additional Protocol II (AP II), the study examines the legal, ethical, operational, and political challenges faced by humanitarian organizations. The findings emphasize that adherence to the principles of impartiality and independence is crucial, especially in contexts where legal clarity and unified approaches are lacking. These principles not only guide humanitarian actions but also help secure the cooperation of NSAGs and ensure the effective delivery of aid. Moreover, the research highlights the necessity for context-based, principled compromises to maintain the long-term effectiveness and integrity of humanitarian operations. The case study of Afghanistan provides detailed insights and practical recommendations, contributing to a nuanced understanding of the complexities of delivering humanitarian aid in conflict zones and offering actionable solutions to enhance adherence to humanitarian principles in NSAG-controlled territories.