Improved compliance with international humanitarian law and human rights law ...

Improved compliance with international humanitarian law and human rights law will remain elusive in the absence of and full acceptance of the need for systematic and consistent engagement with non-State armed groups. Experience in Colombia, Liberia, Nepal, the Philippines, Sierra Leone, Sri Lanka, the Sudan and the former Yugoslavia shows that lives can be saved by engaging armed groups in order to seek compliance with international humanitarian law in their combat operations and general conduct, to gain safe access for humanitarian operations, or to dissuade them from using certain types of weapons. An increasing number of Member States appreciate the importance of engagement for humanitarian purposes, but this must translate into greater consideration of the possible humanitarian consequences of national legal and policy initiatives that effectively inhibit humanitarian actors in engaging armed groups for humanitarian purposes. I am increasingly concerned by the growing body of national legislation and policies relating to humanitarian funding that limit humanitarian engagement with non-State armed groups that have been designated terrorist organizations. In the United States, for example, domestic legislation defines “material support” in such a way that it includes advocacy, technical expertise and advice, even when such activities are aimed at bringing the conduct of these non-State actors in line with international law. Across donor States, the threshold of what constitutes direct or indirect, or intentional or nonintentional material support to designated terrorist organizations varies; so too does the manner in which these are formulated in humanitarian funding policies. The result is a complex web of bureaucratic restrictions demanding extensive vetting of partner organizations and, in some instances, explicit prohibitions on contact with designated terrorist organizations as a condition of funding.