Humanitarianism is not collapsing but is being increasingly traded and compromised by governments, according to Amitabh Behar, Executive Director of Oxfam International. This erosion of principles is endangering the lives of humanitarian workers and the vulnerable communities they serve, particularly as international law is selectively applied or disregarded.

Historically, humanitarian work has been underpinned by a consensus that certain lines, even in war, should not be crossed. For decades, international agreements protected children needing food and medics treating the sick as fundamental legal rights. However, this consensus has weakened, with many governments failing to consistently defend the rules-based order they helped establish.

Behar highlights that some governments openly disregard international law when it suits them, while others condemn adversaries for violations but tolerate similar actions by allies. Many remain silent when condemnation is needed. This selective application and indifference diminish the rules-based humanitarian system, leading to inconsistent enforcement, routine tolerance of civilian casualties, and the normalization of previously unthinkable actions. Impunity is flourishing as bad actors feel empowered to break laws without fear of accountability.

The consequences of this transactional approach to humanitarian protection are starkly measured in human lives. At least 1,000 aid workers have been killed in the past three years, a near threefold increase compared to the preceding period. In 2025 alone, hundreds of attacks on humanitarian operations resulted in 350 aid workers killed, 322 injured, 235 kidnapped, and 280 detained, according to UN data.

Oxfam has experienced these risks firsthand, losing five colleagues and partner staff over eight years and involving over 1,300 personnel in at least 1,200 security incidents. Crucially, the killing of aid workers often occurs in conflict zones where belligerents are supported by the same governments that fund humanitarian responses, illustrating a direct contradiction.

Beyond direct attacks, states often impose unnecessary restrictions that hinder aid workers' duties. Behar cites an instance in December where Israeli authorities informed Oxfam and 36 other international organizations of new restrictions, demonstrating how protection can become a bargaining chip rather than a universal obligation.

This shift transforms the protection of civilians and aid workers from a universal duty into a political commodity. It becomes a "political investment" demanding a "political return," where withholding or selectively applying protection can be used for leverage. This transactional worldview fundamentally undermines the principles of neutrality and impartiality that are essential for effective humanitarian action.

The trend suggests a worrying future where geopolitical interests consistently overshadow legal obligations and humanitarian imperatives. The challenge for the international community is to reaffirm the non-negotiable nature of international humanitarian law and hold accountable those who violate it, ensuring that the lives of aid workers and vulnerable populations are not sacrificed for political expediency.