Safeguarding Humanitarian Action under Sanctions and Counterterrorism Regimes
There have been ongoing efforts to ensure that UN sanctions are more targeted and do not affect the livelihoods of the general population. Yet in some instances, UN sanctions regimes and counterterrorism measures, along with national regimes and measures, have unintentionally impeded principled humanitarian action. This impact on impartial humanitarian aid is often indirect and diffuse, reverberating across the humanitarian supply chain and involving numerous stakeholders, including member states, humanitarian organizations, financial institutions, and donors. De-risking by the private sector, restrictive clauses in donor agreements, and chilling effects on humanitarian workers are some of the challenges having an impact on principled humanitarian action.
Since 2019, IPI has published several reports on how to proactively limit the impact of UN sanctions regimes on principled humanitarian action. In 2022, IPI also published a report on carving out space for humanitarian action in the UN counterterrorism architecture and related sanctions regimes. Throughout this project, IPI has convened discussions among humanitarian actors, counterterrorism and sanctions stakeholders, legal experts, and member-state representatives to put forward concrete actions for the UN Security Council to protect principled humanitarian action.
Strengthening the Implementation of Security Council Resolution 2286
In 2016, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 2286 to condemn attacks on healthcare in situations of armed conflict. Yet even after the adoption of this resolution, attacks against healthcare continue unabated, and the council’s political commitment has yet to translate into concrete change on the ground. More needs to be done to strengthen this resolution’s implementation.
IPI has thus been examining ways to improve the implementation of Resolution 2286. This has included a 2017 research project on mechanisms for holding perpetrators of attacks on healthcare accountable. In 2022, IPI also conducted a research project on how to better coordinate, harmonize, and standardize initiatives to collect data on attacks on healthcare in armed conflict.
Bridging Geneva and New York on Humanitarian Affairs
The UN systems in Geneva and New York have developed distinct entities and separate identities over the years. New York has become known for its focus on the maintenance of international peace and security through the work of the Security Council, while Geneva has been predominantly regarded as a humanitarian hub. While both New York and Geneva have increasingly addressed international humanitarian law and thematic and context-specific humanitarian issues in their respective multilateral for a and entities, they sometimes remain disconnected on humanitarian affairs. At a time when geopolitical dynamics are shifting and armed conflicts and humanitarian crises are becoming more protracted, these two UN capitals cannot continue to grow apart.
To further bridge institutions in Geneva and New York, IPI cooperates with humanitarian organizations to organize humanitarian briefings on country-specific and thematic areas that require greater attention in New York.
Peace and Health in Pakistan and Afghanistan
Through its strategic partnership with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) on issues related to peace and health, IPI conducts research on the security situation in polio-affected regions of Pakistan and Afghanistan to reduce risks and increase the effectiveness of the campaign to eradicate polio. IPI also advises BMGF more broadly on issues related to peace and development in Pakistan.