On 19 August 2026, the United Nations lowered its flag to half-mast at its offices and duty stations worldwide to mark World Humanitarian Day and honour humanitarian personnel who have lost their lives. The gesture was solemn; however, it should also prompt a serious question as to why people who enter conflicts to save lives are increasingly exposed to violence themselves.
Violence against aid workers is not new, but its scale has increased alarmingly. The Aid Worker Security Database (AWSD) records major security incidents against aid workers from 1997 onwards, reporting that 3,398 aid workers were killed and 3,380 wounded between 1997 and 2025. It also recorded 2,553 kidnappings and 930 detentions during the same period.
Attacks on aid workers have increased sharply in recent years. In 2025 alone, the AWSD recorded 350 aid workers killed and 322 wounded. It also recorded 712 major security incidents, compared with 35 in 1997 and 168 in 2015.
This increase cannot be explained simply by saying that humanitarian work has always been dangerous. The figures show a substantial deterioration in the security environment. In the first ten years covered by the database, from 1997 to 2006, some 514 aid workers were killed, and 380 were wounded. In the most recent ten-year period, from 2016 to 2025, the corresponding figures were 1,922 killed and 2,022 wounded, which is nearly four times higher, while recorded injuries were more than five times higher.
This data is particularly jarring because humanitarian personnel have legal protection under international law during armed conflict. Article 71(2) of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions provides that personnel participating in relief actions “shall be respected and protected”. Article 71(3) requires parties receiving relief consignments, to the fullest extent practicable, to assist relief personnel in carrying out their mission. Restrictions on their activities or movement may be imposed only in cases of imperative military necessity and must be temporary.
The protection is also recognised as customary international humanitarian law. Rule 31 of the ICRC’s Customary International Humanitarian Law Study provides that humanitarian relief personnel must be respected and protected in both international and non-international armed conflicts.
Moreover, international criminal law gives further protection. Under Article 8(2)(b)(iii) of the Rome Statute, it constitutes a war crime in international armed conflicts to deliberately attack personnel who are taking part in humanitarian aid missions, provided that those personnel are entitled to protection as civilians under international law. Article 8(2)(e)(iii) contains the corresponding provision for non-international armed conflicts.
These international legal rules show that the law is not silent, but the gap lies between legal protection and practical enforcement.
Recent evidence from the International Committee of the Red Cross illustrates the problem well. The ICRC recorded 338 attacks against humanitarian workers in 2024 and more than 600 attacks on healthcare facilities and personnel during 2023 and 2024. It also reported that 27 Red Cross and Red Crescent staff members and volunteers were killed in the line of duty in 2025.
The environment in which humanitarian organisations operate is also changing. The ICRC reports that the number of armed conflicts reached around 130 in 2024, more than twice the number recorded 15 years earlier. Drones, artificial intelligence, and cyber operations are changing the conduct of hostilities, while humanitarian access is becoming increasingly restricted.
Technology, however, is not the whole explanation. The deeper concern is the weakening of respect for humanitarian principles because humanitarian assistance depends on humanity, impartiality, neutrality, and independence. When humanitarian organisations are politicised or portrayed as parties to a conflict, the distinction between humanitarian action and political action blurs, placing both organisations and their personnel at greater risk. Furthermore, the consequences of these attacks extend beyond the workers who are attacked. A humanitarian worker may be a doctor, driver, engineer, logistics officer, or local volunteer. When that person is killed or detained, the consequences can reach thousands of civilians who depend on humanitarian services and disrupt access to food, medicine, shelter, and protection.
The data also reveals that national humanitarian personnel face far greater risks of violence than international personnel. The AWSD recorded some 43 international personnel among those affected by major security incidents in 2025, while the vast majority were national humanitarian personnel. This disparity matters because local humanitarian workers often cannot simply leave a conflict zone, as their families and communities are there. They may be among the first to respond to a crisis and the last to leave. Protection strategies therefore need to treat national personnel with the same seriousness as international staff, including security training, protective equipment, insurance, evacuation arrangements, and institutional support.
In addition, legal protection alone is insufficient without accountability. Under Article 70(2) of Additional Protocol I, parties to a conflict and relevant states are required to allow and facilitate the rapid and unimpeded passage of humanitarian relief supplies, equipment, and personnel, subject to the conditions set out in the Protocol. Where humanitarian access is willfully obstructed, or protected personnel are deliberately targeted, investigations and accountability measures ought to proceed whenever the relevant legal criteria are fulfilled.
The data points to a disturbing trend where humanitarian operations are being conducted in an increasingly violent environment. The UN flag at half-mast is therefore more than a symbol of mourning. It should remind governments, armed groups, and international institutions that humanitarian protection is not a matter of courtesy, but a legal obligation.
development.
Mst. Asma Mahmud is a senior civil judge in the Bangladesh Judicial Service. She is also an MPhil researcher at the Institute of Bangladesh Studies, University of Rajshahi. She can be reached at [email protected].
Views expressed in this article are the author's own.
Follow The Daily Star Opinion on Facebook for the latest opinions, commentaries, and analyses by experts and professionals. To contribute your article or letter to The Daily Star Opinion, see our guidelines for submission.
