Who Protects the Protectors? The Global Failure to Safeguard Humanitarian Workers

On March 23rd, 2025, in the southern Gaza city of Rafah, 15 humanitarian workers were killed by Israeli troops. The workers, representing groups including the Palestine Red Crescent Society (PRCS), Palestine Civil Defence, and the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA), were dispatched to collect injured people. Despite being in clearly marked humanitarian vehicles — five ambulances, a fire truck, and a UN vehicle — Israeli troops opened fire. This first strike killed the initial team, and then other emergency and aid crews were struck one after another over the course of several hours as they searched for their missing colleagues, resulting in 15 deaths. Israeli troops then proceeded to bulldoze over the bodies and their vehicles, effectively burying them in a mass grave. The United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) and the PRCS recovered their bodies a week later, though one PRCS worker is still missing. 

These people were not soldiers but medics, firefighters, and aid workers whose only task was to save lives. One of the Rafah victims, Ahmed al-Madhoun, was a veteran paramedic with PRCS who had spent years responding to the bombings across Gaza. The Red Cross revealed that paramedics, including Ahmed, were on their way to transport six-year-old Hind Rajab to safety when they were killed. This is just one of the many examples of deliberate violence against aid workers around the world. 2024 was the deadliest year on record for humanitarian workers, and 2025 is on track to surpass even that toll. In just the past few months, there have been 900 deaths at aid sites in Gaza, 32 attacks on aid workers in Sudan, and 109 incidents that have disrupted aid delivery in Ukraine. Just a decade ago, the annual global death toll for aid workers never exceeded 160. Gaza alone has seen six times that number in only a few months. These numbers reveal a disturbing trend. Not only are aid workers increasingly at risk, but the protection once afforded by international law and international institutions appears to have eroded almost entirely. 

In past conflicts, attacks on humanitarian workers triggered outrage and consequences. For example, during the Bosnian War, a civil war that took place from 1992 to 1995, the targeting of aid convoys prompted international turmoil and investigations. Today, similar acts barely register a political response. That is because the rules of humanitarian law are no longer respected by states. Not only are aid workers getting caught in the crossfire, but there is evidence that a lot violence specifically targets aid workers. Additionally, the violence is mostly being perpetrated by states themselves. This distinction makes these attacks even more troubling. There is an extensive framework of codified and customary international law that is intended to provide legal protection for aid workers from militaries and state apparati. These include the Geneva Conventions of 1949, the 1994 Convention on the Safety of the United Nations and Associated Personnel, the 1998 Rome Statute, and UN Security Council resolutions like Resolution 2730, which was adopted last year. State-led militaries are legally bound by the conventions and resolutions ratified by their governments, but militaries in conflict are completely ignoring them. The hypocrisy is striking. The same states that established these norms are now complicit in violating them.

Accountability is the crux of the problem. Since global courts like the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court lack strong enforcement mechanisms, it is up to states themselves to apply pressure when another state is violating international law. However, the current global political climate and structure of global governance make this unlikely. The failure of accountability is occurring across multiple conflicts where violations of humanitarian law have gone largely unchecked. Russia, as a member of the UN Security Council’s Permanent 5, can veto any resolution that passes through the UN Security Council aimed at holding Russia accountable. The U.S. — Israel’s strongest ally and another member of the P5 — blocks similar efforts. Other powerful states, especially in Europe, have historically hesitated to criticize Israel because of U.S. relations. However, as of late, Europe has started to become more vocal on conflicts like the one in Gaza, but the U.S. seems firm in its position to stay silent and reject any moves toward investigating Israel for violating international law. The result is a culture of impunity that encourages further violations. 

The U.S. and other Western countries cutting back on aid funding point to a deeper crisis: the decline of the liberal world order itself. Institutions and norms that once claimed universality now appear optional, applied only when convenient for states in power. This is not just a crisis of humanitarian protection but of the credibility of international law. However, this hasn’t always been the case. During the Bosnian War, for instance, the international community established the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) to prosecute those responsible for attacks on civilians and humanitarian convoys. The tribunal convicted several leaders, including Bosnian Serb General Radislav Krstic in 2001, for war crimes, including the obstruction of humanitarian assistance. This shows how these laws can, in fact, be enforced when there is a political will. Thirty years ago, the United States helped lead that effort, using its diplomatic influence and position on the Security Council to advocate for accountability. Today, however, Washington’s posture has shifted from active enforcement to active deflection. As one of the founders and strongest advocates for the liberal world order, the United States has a responsibility to protect and enforce it. Many states follow the U.S. lead, which means American inaction and apathy signal permission for others to flout international law with impunity. If Washington abandons its role as the chief guarantor of humanitarian law, the entire system risks collapse. 

Moving forward, accountability must be prioritized. States need to hold other states accountable, especially their allies. Yet in the current geopolitical climate, the feasibility of this is certainly a concern. The mechanisms for enforcement exist, but the political will to use them does not. Still, international law is not optional, and if the liberal order is to have any legitimacy left, its architects must show that no state is above the rules.  

The massacre of aid workers in Rafah is not an isolated tragedy. The international community is failing those who risk their lives to save others. If states cannot summon the political will to hold their allies accountable, then the very idea of humanitarian protection will collapse. The choice is bleak but apparent: either recommit to upholding international law or accept that the safety of humanitarian workers, and thus the integrity of the global order, will continue to erode.

Global NewsAriana HarperComment