Our work on Humanitarian Diplomacy

The Centre supports humanitarian diplomacy at both the frontline and the highest political levels.

Alongside this, we are building the evidence base by documenting what works in humanitarian diplomacy, supporting humanitarian diplomacy with armed groups, and advising those with the power to change how humanitarian diplomacy is funded, practiced, and understood.

What we mean by Humanitarian Diplomacy

The Centre defines humanitarian diplomacy as the use of advocacy, negotiation, dialogue, and political engagement, at both frontline and high diplomatic levels, to secure and sustain access for humanitarian operations.

However, there is no precise, universally agreed-upon definition of humanitarian diplomacy. Different actors, depending on their positioning or objectives, define it more narrowly or widely. We define it broadly to encompass the full range of actors, diplomatic and humanitarian, who engage in humanitarian diplomacy, and the diverse situations in which it can meaningfully occur.

Why humanitarian diplomacy with armed groups matters

Across the world’s worst crises, armed groups and de facto authorities control territory, regulate access, govern populations, and shape the conditions in which aid can or cannot reach people who need it. Humanitarian diplomacy happens, every day, by frontline aid workers or country directors seeking to address the obstacles to access and protection.

When done deliberately, with clear analysis, sustained relationships, and explicit attention to the conditions under which armed groups make decisions, humanitarian diplomacy with armed groups can shift behaviour. It can reduce harm to civilians and build the kind of operational trust that creates space, over time, for more sustained, safer access and greater protection.

The links between Humanitarian Diplomacy and building peace

Humanitarian diplomacy is distinct from, and independent of, political, peacebuilding, and mediation efforts. Humanitarian action derives its legitimacy and access from being perceived as neutral, impartial, and independent. And that perception must be protected.

But the evidence shows that humanitarian diplomacy can help reduce violence and harm to civilians. In certain cases, it has helped shift group behaviour toward greater protection of civilians, built confidence among parties to a conflict, and created momentum for mediation. This happens not because humanitarians set out to make peace, but as a consequence of their sustained, principled engagement with armed groups.

Humanitarians are often wary of explicitly associating with political actors for fear of tainting perceptions of their independence and neutrality. So the question for humanitarians and peacebuilders alike is whether to engage deliberately with that transformative potential, with all the risks that carries, and under what circumstances.

Why this matters now

Humanitarian Reset calls explicitly for enhanced humanitarian diplomacy, and for stronger linkages between humanitarian action and peace. Yet we lack evidence on what works and in what contexts.

At the same time, the funding architecture built to support this work is collapsing. The 2025 USAID suspension and European aid cuts have hit humanitarian access, research and advocacy teams hard, and cuts to peace and conflict resolution efforts are equally alarming. According to GPPi, from its peak in 2018 until 2023, global aid to peacebuilding and prevention fell by 12%, and conflict assistance by 17%.

Meanwhile, conflict continues to proliferate. Humanitarian diplomacy is one of the highest-leverage, lowest-cost tools available to address both the causes and consequences of that violence.