In times where humanitarian action is coming under pressure and attack, it is necessary to critically re-examine who carries out various humanitarian actions, such as advocacy, and how. This article aims to bring together several convergent themes to build a case for States to be seen to carry out ‘humanitarian advocacy’. The main question guiding this study is: “How, and in what ways do states utilize advocacy techniques, to affect humanitarian outcomes?” To approach this question, I examine humanitarian advocacy as a trend that runs alongside humanitarian diplomacy, as various factors contribute to humanitarian interactions occurring more often in the advocacy space. These includes ailing multilateral institutions, widescale flouting of International Humanitarian Law, and an appreciation of the complex interplay between a wide range of actors that carry out humanitarian action in some way, including states themselves (often ignored as humanitarian actors, in spite of their legal position as sovereign actors responsible for their populations). In an era of resilience humanitarianism, the role of advocacy as a humanitarian function has grown, and who is understood to be a humanitarian has similarly expanded. The discussion is supplemented by analysis of the official statements, actions, and policies of two less-powerful countries in the wake of the ongoing war on Gaza; the Republic of Colombia and the Republic of Slovenia. Three initial categorisations of ways in which states do humanitarian advocacy are offered, following analysis of the documentation, to serve as a basis for further study.
Abstract Humanitarian aid workers are frequently exposed to ‘potentially morally injurious events’ (PMIEs) and are at risk of moral injury. While research on PMIEs and moral injury in other occupational groups is burgeoning, studies exploring how humanitarian aid workers are affected remain limited. This qualitative study aimed to better understand how moral injury occurs in, and affects, humanitarian aid workers, through exploring the perspectives and experiences of 9 mental health professionals. Semi-structured interviews were conducted and findings analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. The study found that the concept of moral injury was considered a helpful introduction to the mental health lexicon for both participants and their clients, helping to validate the client’s experience. Participants reported that the types of PMIEs causing distress in their humanitarian clients primarily related to acts of omission, and betrayals by organisations, governments, and wider society. Notably, the current humanitarian context, characterised by funding cuts and erosion of humanitarian law, was thought to be exacerbating exposure to, and severity of, PMIEs, thereby increasing moral injury risk. Reported impacts spanned psychological, spiritual, behavioural, and social domains, echoing findings in studies of other groups. Perceived risk factors and barriers to support encompassed both individual and organisational factors, with mitigation approaches seen to lie in improved organisational leadership and duty of care, training and awareness-raising of PMIEs and moral injury, and appropriate support provision. The study provides valuable insights into an under-researched area and has important implications for research, advocacy for improved care, and for organisations, particularly relating to policy, provision of support, insurance, awareness raising and pre-deployment training.
Abstract This article critically examines the One Health (OH) framework in conflict-affected humanitarian settings, where zoonotic disease outbreaks are frequently approached as technocratic challenges. Drawing on case studies from the Democratic Republic of the Congo (Ebola), Yemen (dengue fever), and Syria (rabies), it shows how zoonoses are embedded within complex socio-political and ecological crises, intensified by political violence, displacement, distrust, and the collapse of health systems. Integrating three illustrative case studies with theoretical analysis, this article contends that zoonotic diseases in conflict settings cannot be sufficiently addressed or understood through biomedical or epidemiological models alone. Instead, it advances a relational and socio-politically grounded interpretation of OH that considers structural violence, multispecies vulnerability, and the specific conditions shaping disease transmission and response. The concept of care is employed as an analytical lens to examine how conflict disrupts the practical and institutional conditions through which zoonotic diseases are prevented and managed. Here, care draws attention not only to clinical treatment but also to the infrastructures, relationships of trust, surveillance practices, and human and animal health systems on which effective responses depend. This perspective helps clarify how the practical implementation of One Health is constrained by conflict and institutional breakdown. Thus, OH is treated both as a practical framework and as an object of critique, with its relevance in humanitarian settings dependent on its critical reorientation toward the lived realities of war, displacement, and environmental disruption.
Abstract Disasters and conflict increasingly overlap, yet siloed humanitarian reporting often leaves complex displacement overlooked. Little is known about who is left out and how reporting gaps occur. We conduct a comparative analysis of data reporting in the Philippines, examining cases of the Marawi Siege and Severe Tropical Storm Tembin (Vinta) in 2017 and Severe Tropical Storm Nalgae (Paeng) in 2022. We present disparities in the frequency, timing, and spatial coverage of complex displacement reporting. Our results provide empirical evidence of structural invisibility in complex displacement reporting. This arises from event-based frameworks that prioritise discrete, single-hazard responses, which may unintentionally marginalise communities in politically sensitive or hard-to-access crisis zones. We highlight that capturing displacement data is not only an accounting exercise – it constructs the way displacement is understood. We argue for more dynamic, multi-trigger displacement tracking and for the use of integrated displacement and conflict data in advancing anticipatory action.
Abstract Migration-related crimes, such as human trafficking and smuggling, are key issues in the Horn of Africa, affecting Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, and Somalia. These problems stem from socioeconomic instability, conflict, fragile governance, and porous borders. Ethiopia and Djibouti have anti-trafficking laws, while Eritrea and Somalia have weaker frameworks. Understanding each country's context is crucial. This study uses qualitative Delphi surveys and interviews with law enforcement, community leaders, and CSOs, along with quantitative data from 18 KIIs and 119 Delphi participants (reduced to 77 in the second round), conducted from March 2025 to July 2025 across these nations to account for seasonal and regional differences. It highlights migrants' vulnerability to conflict and economic hardship. Findings show differences in vulnerability and enforcement, as well as shared structural challenges. An intersectional approach that combines humanitarian protection and human rights is recommended to address both systemic and immediate harms. The research stresses regional coordination, better border governance, stronger institutions, harmonized laws, and improved cooperation.
