The unlawful refusal of emergency humanitarian aid

Recognising that devastating consequences often flow from a Stateâs refusal of emergency humanitarian aid in times of disaster, States and scholars alike have called for and participated in efforts to define, interpret, and develop relevant primary obligations in this area. This thesis examines the extent to which existing international law conditions an affected Stateâs right to refuse. The work identifies and analyses existing primary obligations of States affected by disasters, considering in particular the direct regulation of refusal (principally in treaties but also customary law and non-binding instruments), human rights obligations (namely the right to life and the right to an adequate standard of living), and duties of co-operation (arising primarily from the Charter of the United Nations). The thesis further examines the work of the International Law Commission on the protection of persons in the event of disasters topic since 2007, with focus on its provision of a qualified consent regime for the refusal of emergency humanitarian aid in draft article 13 (adopted as part of a set of eighteen draft articles in 2016). Cognisant of proposals for a new international convention to be concluded on the basis of the Commissionâs work, these examinations were undertaken with a view to ascertaining the potential for and of such an undertaking. This thesis argues that despite considerable progress in recent years in developing rules on refusal, existing legal rules remain unsatisfactory and there is still some way to go before State consensus on key aspects of the International Law Commissionâs draft articles is likely to be achieved such that a new international convention may result. Consideration of other forms of regulation of refusal (a framework convention or set of guiding principles, for example) may therefore be necessary.