Humanitarian exemptions: illusive progress in safeguarding humanitarian assistance in the international counterterrorism architecture

Global counterterrorism efforts have had a number of detrimental effects on the work of humanitarian actors in conflict zones. To mitigate these adverse effects and the underlying normative conflict between counterterrorism frameworks and international humanitarian law (IHL), scholars and humanitarian practitioners have been advocating for the introduction of humanitarian exemptions. These are clauses that exempt humanitarian assistance and related conduct from counterterrorism frameworks in order to ensure an unimpeded provision of humanitarian assistance in areas in which entities designated as 'terrorists' are active. This article argues that the progress promised by the emergence of these exemptions remains at least partially illusive. The exemptions remain shaped by a security-oriented perspective on humanitarian assistance and are preoccupied with actors. As a result, they are beneficial primarily to the largest and most prominent humanitarian actors established in the Global North while neglecting small and local humanitarian actors in conflict areas. As such, they defy IHL's deliberate openness regarding the actors providing humanitarian assistance. Moreover, they violate the obligations of non-belligerent states under IHL to allow and facilitate the free passage of relief consignments which equally protects transnational financial support to local humanitarian actors and applies irrespective of the source of that support. We conclude that humanitarian exemptions are detrimental to efforts to 'localize' and decolonize the humanitarian sector. Therefore, instead of focusing on humanitarian exemptions as a 'micro-solution', advocacy should pursue a more comprehensive critical approach towards the global counterterrorism architecture.