This is another edition of Inklings, where we explore all things aid and aid-adjacent unfolding in humanitarian hubs, on the front lines of emergency response, or in the dark corners of online aid punditry.
It’s also available as an email newsletter. Subscribe here.
Today: The ICC, the IRC, and the ERC. Also: The next steps after COP29 disappointment.
On the radar|
The ICC and aid: Humanitarian aid in Gaza is at the centre of International Criminal Court atrocity crime allegations against Israeli leaders. Pre-trial judges announced on 21 November that they had issued arrest warrants for Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, and its former defence minister, Yoav Gallant, for war crimes and crimes against humanity.
-
Forced to amputate without anaesthetics: Israel’s destruction of Gaza has killed at least 43,000 people, but most of the evidence cited in the arrest warrants hinges on aid denials rather than military attacks. The pre-trial chamber judges said the evidence provided by the ICC prosecution “only allowed it to make findings on two incidents that qualified as attacks that were intentionally directed against civilians” – a war crime. Four other atrocity allegations relate to the denial of aid. This includes allegedly using starvation as a method of warfare, and allegedly committing murder, persecution, and other inhumane acts. Because Netanyahu and Gallant intentionally limited or prevented medical supplies from getting into Gaza, for example, “doctors were forced to operate on wounded persons and carry out amputations, including on children, without anaesthetics”, the judges wrote in their notice explaining the evidence behind the arrest warrants.
-
What does it mean for humanitarians? Humanitarians trying to work in Gaza say there are obvious needs. But Israel has also instrumentalised aid, tightening and loosening access like a valve. “Pledges of humanitarian assistance, performative hand-wringing about aid access, ineffective air drops, and the absurd US pier project only serve to focus attention on false solutions while distracting from Western complicity in Israel’s actions,” Yara Asi, assistant professor at the School of Global Health and Informatics at the University of Central Florida, wrote in a piece earlier this year. If or when Israeli authorities next loosen aid restrictions on Gaza, a phalanx of humanitarian groups – many well funded by governments aligned with Israel – will be waiting to scale up. Though humanitarians are loath to talk about it publicly, the cases building in international courts may further complicate those future decisions.
-
What the ICJ says: In July, the International Court of Justice weighed in as part of a separate “advisory opinion” that said Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territory is illegal. “All states are under an obligation not to recognise as legal the situation arising from the unlawful presence of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory,” judges wrote. “They are also under an obligation not to render aid or assistance in maintaining the situation created by Israel’s illegal presence.” This “duty of non-recognition”, the judges continued, “also applies to international organisations, including the United Nations”. Advisory opinions aren’t legally binding, but can be used as legal precedents in other courts.
The IRC and access: Staff at the International Rescue Committee say a pattern of self-censorship and top-down interference has hurt the NGO’s Gaza response, and created a rift between leadership and its frontline workforce, we reported last week. Here are a few more tidbits:
-
‘The number of times I have been accosted’: An internal “learning exercise” of the Gaza response, shared with The New Humanitarian, described growing tensions between staff and leadership. Staff spoke of opaque decision-making, unusual interference at the board and leadership level, and poor communication and duty of care. “At HQ, the number of times that I have been accosted – it isn't even friendly,” one respondent said. Staff described “hurt and disappointment” and being demoralised – but reported being labelled as “exaggerating and emotional” when they spoke up. “IRC needs to listen to staff when they say they are uncomfortable,” the review concluded. “As one respondent noted, ‘We cannot take on more contexts like this unless we fundamentally shift. We are breaking people with this response.’”
-
Language: Staff who spoke to us were particularly upset by what appeared to be volatile changes to the way IRC describes Israel’s destruction of Gaza. For example, unexplained changes to a high-traffic website article appear to soft-pedal language around Israeli actions, spotlight Hamas, dim the focus on Palestinian deaths, erase attribution for their killings, and adopt terms like “co-mingling”, favoured by Israel’s government and military. This language appears to be an outlier compared to other aid groups, and even from IRC’s internal communications guidelines.
-
The problem with the access argument: Humanitarian groups often (though not always) hold their tongues in the name of preserving access. Some attribute the IRC’s unusual language choices to this dynamic. But almost no aid had entered northern Gaza in 40 days, the UN said last week. Even the IRC’s impact, as reported on its explainer page, is modest: It includes eight medical teams (not deployed at the same time), 10,000 patient consultations, 9,000 kids receiving mental health support, and 3,500 households receiving food (the last three through partner NGOs). And, of course, the ICC arrest warrants are built around the denial of aid and access. If aid groups are watching their words because of access, many don’t have a lot to show for it.
-
⌘-c ⌘-v: The IRC did not respond to specific questions for this story. An IRC rep sent a broad email reply, parts of which were identical to a statement sent to The New Humanitarian a year ago, and to an internal response to staff concerns sent in August by the IRC’s president, David Miliband. This suggests not only that the IRC copy-pastes old talking points for journalists, but also for sending missives to its own staff. BTW: Staff who respond on behalf of IRC communications generally do not identify themselves, even in emails, which is an unusual practice for most aid organisations.
The new ERC’s manifesto: Tom Fletcher began his tenure as the UN’s new relief chief (aka emergency relief coordinator) this month. His first calls included a mutual aid volunteer in Sudan, his first trip was to Sudan, and his first gilet was baby blue. In an intro note on Day One, Fletcher said he plans to hire an “adviser for the future”. And he announced that deputy Joyce Msuya (who held the interim tag for months) and Norwegian Refugee Council boss Jan Egeland would lead a “four-week anti-bureaucracy blitz“ to propose ways “to get the system leaner and faster”. Everybody has a newsletter these days, and so does Fletcher. The jury’s still out on the name: Humanifesto.
Data points|
$16.9 billion: That’s how much the World Food Programme says it’ll cost to respond to humanitarian food needs in 2025. Fletcher and the UN's humanitarian coordination arm, OCHA, are planning to release the yearly estimate of total emergency aid needs and costs next week. But amid sector-wide budget squeezes and cuts, WFP appears to be jumping the gun a bit this year. Its 2025 Global Outlook report is essentially a funding appeal – and a new product for the agency. The UN’s refugee agency, UNHCR, also publishes its appeal ($10.248 billion, a slight drop) around this time each year. Some outfits release a similar tally in December or January.
End quote|
The UN climate summit in Azerbaijan turned colleague Will Worley from COPtimist to pessimist in a few not-so-short days. He writes in this reporter’s notebook:
“If you can’t see it for the circus it is, you’re part of the problem.”
Summit dysfunction, heavy fossil-fuel lobbying, price gouging, and backsliding climate agreements seem to have that effect on many attendees.
Representatives from vulnerable countries were disappointed as well, though not shocked: “It was never going to be enough,” Vanuatu’s Ralph Regenvanu said in a statement at COP29’s conclusion.
Now, their focus turns to a back-up plan years in the making. On 2 December, the ICJ begins public hearings in the Vanuatu-led quest for an advisory opinion on state obligations for climate change. It’s just one example of how frontline communities are using courts – domestic and international – as levers for climate justice when the multilateral system disappoints.
In previous interviews on the subject, ni-Vanuatu officials have sought to downplay the potential punitive aspects of legal action (“There will be no finger-pointing or shaming,” diplomat Georges Maniuri told us in 2022).
But when COP negotiations fail, countries like Vanuatu have another avenue. “The limitations of the [UN climate change] process motivate our case at the International Court of Justice,” Regenvanu said.
The court is expected to hear from dozens of countries. The World Health Organization and the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, or OPEC, are also on the schedule. Judges met with IPCC scientists on 26 November.
Have any tips, recommendations, or indecipherable acronyms to share with the Inklings newsletter? Get in touch: [email protected]
