Humanitarian Response

In the early period, most GA resolutions responding to conflict events did not include references to humanitarian assistance. However, since the late 1970s, calls for humanitarian relief or humanitarian access have become not only more prominent but also more explicit in their terms.¹ For example, although GA responses to the successive waves of internal conflict in Afghanistan in the 1990s covered many aspects of the crisis, several resolutions included specific appeals to Member States to support the Afghanistan Emergency Trust Fund for humanitarian and rehabilitation assistance, invited financial institutions and humanitarian agencies to contribute additional resources, and called for warring parties to respect freedom of movement for aid agencies and the UN, as well as to stop looting supplies (see e.g. A/RES/50/88 (1995); A/RES/52/211 (1997), paras. 3–6). In relation to conflict in Kampuchea (Cambodia) in the 1980s and to civil war and famine in Sudan in the 1990s, the GA not only supported good offices measures but from the onset of its engagement gave attention to humanitarian access and relief. In the case of Sudan support for humanitarian relief and access was the primary way that the GA engaged, but GA-supported good offices and mediation related to humanitarian access ultimately created pathways toward political talks.

Case example: Kampuchea (1979–late 1990s): Following the Vietnamese invasion of Kampuchea in 1978, the GA adopted a resolution (A/RES/34/22) that gave priority attention to the “widespread hardship and deprivation” of the population, including the existence of famine, and the “large exodus” of the population fleeing to neighbouring countries. The resolution strongly appealed to Member States and humanitarian organizations to increase humanitarian relief and refugee support (ibid., paras. 1–4). These humanitarian appeals were given priority in the operative paragraphs, above the GA’s calls for withdrawal of armed forces and for all parties to cease “acts or threats of aggression” in South-East Asia. In near-annual resolutions for the next decade, the GA continued to empower the Secretary-General to coordinate humanitarian relief, which enabled the Secretary-General to convene pledging conferences and establish the UN Border Relief Operation to coordinate relief efforts.

Common language and provisions related to humanitarian response and access: Several provisions recur across GA resolutions, including appeals for Member States to facilitate or provide emergency relief, including by contributing to relief funds; calling on warring parties to allow the unhindered flow of humanitarian aid or necessary goods, or to otherwise cooperate in enabling provision of humanitarian aid; and encouraging the safe and unhindered passage of UN personnel or other medical or humanitarian personnel. The chart below offers examples of situations where these common provisions have appeared.

Table of recommendations related to humanitarian relief and response

Common language	Examples
Appealing to Member States and humanitarian organizations to facilitate or provide humanitarian aid or emergency relief on an urgent basis	– Following 1982 Israeli attacks on Lebanon (A/RES/ES-7/5; A/RES/ES-7/6) – Following 1978 Vietnamese invasion of Kampuchea (A/RES/34/22) – Following a 1991 coup in Haiti (A/RES/47/20) – In the context of civil war in Sudan in the 1990s (A/RES/53/1[O]) – In the context of Israeli operations in Gaza, 2008–2009 (A/RES/ES-10/18)
Calling on warring parties to allow the unhindered flow of aid, food, medical supplies, water, fuel or other goods, or to cooperate fully in provision of humanitarian assistance	– Following the Soviet intervention in Hungary in 1956 (A/RES/1006 (ES-II)) – In response to Serbian attacks and actions in Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1994 (A/RES/49/10) – In the context of civil conflict in Afghanistan in the 1990s (A/RES/50/88) – In the context of Israeli operations in OPT in 2002 (A/RES/ES-10/10) – In the context of escalating internal conflict in the Syrian Arab Republic in 2012 (A/RES/66/253)
Calling on Member States to fully support collective relief funds or response plans	– Following the Russian Federation’s 2022 intervention in Ukraine (A/RES/ES-11/2) – In the context of civil conflict in Afghanistan in the 1990s (A/RES/50/88; A/RES/52/211) – In the context of civil war in Somalia in the early 2000s (A/RES/47/160) – In the context of civil war in Sudan in the 1990s (A/RES/53/1[O])
Encouraging safe and unhindered access of humanitarian personnel, including freedom of movement for aid workers	– Following the Russian Federation’s 2022 intervention in Ukraine (A/RES/ES-11/2) – In relation to displacement from Abkhazia, Georgia (A/RES/77/293) – In the context of civil conflict in Afghanistan in the 1990s (A/RES/52/211) – In the context of the Congolese Civil War in 1998 (A/RES/54/179) – In the context of civil war in Sudan in the 1990s (A/RES/53/1[0]) – In the context of Israeli operations in Gaza, 2008–2009 (A/RES/ES-10/18) – Following internal violence in Myanmar in 2021 (A/RES/75/287) – In response to use of force following 2018 protests in Gaza (A/RES/ES-10/20) – In the context of operations in Gaza from 2022 to 2025 (A/RES/ES-10/26; A/RES/ES-10/27)
Extolling respect for the safety and security of UN and/or humanitarian personnel, medical facilities and staff	– In response to use of force following 2018 protests in Gaza (A/RES/ES-10/20) – In the context of operations in Gaza from 2022 to 2025 (A/RES/ES-10/26; A/RES/ES-10/27) – In the context of civil war in Somalia in the early 2000s (A/RES/56/106) – In the context of civil war in Sudan in the 1990s (A/RES/53/1[O]) – Following the declaration of a “state of emergency” and internal violence in Myanmar in 2021 (A/RES/75/287) – In the context of the Russian Federation’s intervention in Ukraine in 2022 (A/RES/ES-11/2)
References to a humanitarian corridor, “pause” or ceasefire for humanitarian purposes	– In the context of operations in Gaza continuing in 2023 (A/RES/ES-10/21) – During the siege of Sarajevo amid the 1990s conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina (A/RES/48/88)

Operational and context-specific humanitarian recommendations: Beyond general calls for supporting or enabling humanitarian aid, some resolutions have engaged in a more detailed way with operational challenges necessary to ensure humanitarian aid. In a 1992 resolution responding to the siege of Sarajevo and obstruction of food and aid supplies in the former Yugoslavia, the GA urged the SC to consider taking measures to establish additional airfields and airports for humanitarian relief flights, and to pursue emergency airdrops as a “stop-gap measure” (A/RES/47/121, para. 8). The box below on OLS provides a further example.

Some resolutions have also engaged with context-specific blockages and obstructions. In the late 1990s, when the Taliban exercised control as the de facto authorities of Afghanistan, the GA responded to significant restrictions on women’s ability to seek medical care, food or other provisions by noting the need to ensure that assistance is distributed equally, with no discrimination in access or participation on the basis of gender (A/RES/53/203[B], para. 10).

Case example: Sudan (1989–late 1990s): In 1989, the GA authorized OLS, a major UN initiative that addressed humanitarian needs during the civil war in Sudan. Subsequent resolutions on OLS urged the international community to help fully fund and support the initiative.2 Some specifically focused on assistance to improve transport links and infrastructure that would facilitate aid delivery, given access challenges due to both warring parties’ lack of cooperation (and active obstruction at points), as well as by poor transport links and flooding. Several of these resolutions also stressed the need for all parties to cooperate to improve aid delivery.

Provisions related to refugees and internally displaced persons

Although provisions related to humanitarian access and aid sometimes include references to refugees or IDPs, attention to the rights, return or relief efforts for these populations tend to be dealt with in separate provisions within GA resolutions. To offer a sense of the prevalence of these types of provisions, in one UNU-CPR study of 46 cases of GA responses to responses to conflict, in 17 of those cases the GA resolutions contained significant operative provisions related to refugees or IDPs. This was generally not the main focus of the resolution.³ These operative provisions tended to be a mix of appeals to support the needs of refugees or displaced persons, or to respect their rights.

Such provisions have been included in GA resolutions from the earliest period – for example, in the GA resolutions responding to the Soviet intervention in Hungary in 1956 and the outbreak of conflict between India and Pakistan surrounding the territory that is now Bangladesh in 1971. In both cases, the GA drew attention to the issue and called for additional emergency assistance to the refugees, either as supported by Member States or by specialty agencies, such as the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (A/RES/1006 (ES-II), para. 1; A/RES/2793(XXVI), para. 3). The GA also called for Member States to support and strengthen coordination with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees following the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979.

Drawing attention to the large number of refugees and IDPs generated by conflict, and calling for greater relief efforts and assistance, has also been prominent in GA resolutions responding to several internal conflict situations: the former Yugoslavia in the 1990s, the Syrian Arab Republic from 2012 onward (see e.g. A/RES/66/253B; A/RES/68/182) and Myanmar since the declaration of a state of emergency in 2021.⁴ Several GA resolutions following the outbreak of conflict in Ukraine in 2022 also highlighted humanitarian needs for refugees and those displaced.⁵

Enabling or facilitating return: Another common provision in GA resolutions dealing with refugees relates to enabling, supporting or facilitating their return. Even some of the earlier cases reference this issue – for example, by urging intensified efforts to create conditions necessary for the “voluntary return” of those who fled due to the 1971 India and Pakistan conflict (A/RES/2793(XXVI), para. 2), or by calling on all parties to the 1974 Cyprus conflict to “undertake urgent measures” to enable refugees to return to their homes safely (A/RES/3212(XXIX), para. 5).

Beginning in the 1990s, resolutions with language related to the “safe and voluntary” return of refugees or IDPs have become much more common and the language much more standardized. Illustrating this trend, in a resolution related to the ongoing internal conflict in Afghanistan in 1996, the GA urgently appealed to Member States and UN and humanitarian organizations to provide assistance enabling the “voluntary, safe and secure return of refugees and internally displaced persons, with dignity and honour” (A/RES/51/195A, para. 8). Since then, there have been many instances of GA resolutions calling for “voluntary and safe”, “unhindered”, and/or “dignified return”.⁶ The chart below offers some examples of these terms used across different contexts.

Table of recommendations related to refugees and internally displaced persons

Country situation	Language related to safe, voluntary or dignified return	Sample resolutions
Afghanistan, 1992–2001	Appealing for assistance to enable the “voluntary, safe and secure return of refugees and internally displaced persons”	A/RES/50/88; A/RES/51/195; A/RES/53/203 B
Ukraine, post-2022	Demanding that all parties protect “civilians fleeing armed conflict” to allow “voluntary, safe and unhindered passage”	A/RES/ES-11/2
Bosnia and Herzegovina, 1992–1996	Demanding “safe, unconditional and honourable repatriation of the refugees and deportees” and requesting assistance in facilitating the right to “return voluntarily … in safety and dignity”	A/RES/46/242; A/RES/49/10
Myanmar, 2019–present	Calling for the creation of the conditions necessary for the “safe, voluntary, dignified and sustainable return” of “all refugees, including Rohingya Muslim refugees” and “forcibly displaced persons”	A/RES/74/246; A/RES/77/227; A/RES/79/182
Georgia, those who fled from Abkhazia and South Ossetia, 2009–2023	Calls to “create favourable security conditions conducive to the voluntary, safe, dignified and unhindered return of all internally displaced persons and refugees”	A/RES/63/307; A/RES/77/293; A/RES/79/292

Refugee rights and protection: While a larger share of the GA resolution provisions related to IDPs and refugees have focused on humanitarian assistance and needs, some have also referenced refugee rights and protection obligations under international law. One GA resolution passed in 1999 during the second Congo civil war called on all conflict parties in the Democratic Republic of the Congo to respect IHL provisions, including those related to the protection of “refugees and internally displaced persons within the territory of that country regardless of their origin” (A/RES/54/179, para. 3(b)). The same resolution also called on the Government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo to “take a leading part in efforts to prevent conditions that might lead to further flows of internally displaced persons and refugees within the Democratic Republic of the Congo and across its borders” (ibid., para. 4(b); see also A/RES/53/160).

Where situations of protracted displacement persist, the GA has sometimes passed resolutions to stress the right of return for refugees or IDPs. Such provisions have been prominent in GA resolutions responding to:

• Refugees or those displaced from Bosnia and Herzegovina and other parts of the former Yugoslavia, particularly following the Dayton Peace Agreement (A/RES/51/203 (1997); A/RES/54/119 (1999)).
• The 2008 conflict and aftermath in the regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia in Georgia (see e.g. A/RES/62/249 (2008); A/RES/77/293 (2023)).
• The situation in the disputed territories of Nagorno-Karabakh (A/RES/62/243 (2008)).
• Hostilities in Israel and the Middle East, and Palestinians’ right of return (A/RES/36/226[A](1981).