Every year on 19 August, World Humanitarian Day focuses attention on the risks faced by humanitarian personnel. In the last three years, more than 1,000 aid workers have been killed and many others injured as they attempt to deliver aid to those most in need. While much of the public discussion on aid worker security has understandably focused on such incidents, they are not the only indicator of a system under attack. Arrest, detention and custodial confinements may be less visible, but increasing demonstrate how the space for humanitarian action is restricted, politicised and, in some cases, criminalised.
On average, since 2020, an aid worker has been arrested or detained almost every day. Between 1 January 2020 and 30 June 2026, INSO’s Conflict and Humanitarian Data Centre (CHDC) recorded 959 incidents of arrest, detention and other forms of custodial confinement involving State actors, affecting at least 1,700 humanitarian personnel across INSO’s countries of operation. Confinement accounted for almost half of all serious incidents affecting aid workers recorded by INSO during this period.
INSO’s new briefing note Aid under arrest examines the drivers behind the arrest and detention of aid workers. Such distinctions matter. Not every arrest of an aid worker is an act of criminalisation. Many cases relate to day-to-day law enforcement, alleged misconduct, road safety incidents, family disputes or other issues not directly connected to humanitarian activity. Humanitarian personnel do not necessarily exist outside national legal systems and credible allegations of wrongdoing must be addressed through proper legal processes.
However, the wider pattern is concerning. In almost one in three cases analysed, the primary trigger for detention was directly related to humanitarian activity, including administrative enforcement, programme implementation or the criminalisation of humanitarian action itself.
Detention rarely occurs in isolation. It often sits at the sharp-end of a wider continuum of pressure including visa delays, movement restrictions, informal questioning, threats of closure and hostile narratives. 1Across many contexts the largest single driver of detentions was related to administrative enforcement including, visa denials, delays in work permits, registration refusals, restrictions on movement. Programme implementation disputes, including attempted interference in beneficiary selection, site selection and data collection also accounted for a significant share of cases. In such contexts the detention of aid workers has increasingly become an instrument of control rather than an exceptional event.
When humanitarian action is criminalised
INSO’s briefing identifies 81 incidents in which arrest and detention was linked to the criminalisation of humanitarian action itself. These included allegations of terrorism, espionage charges, allegations of affiliation with a party to a conflict and accusations of supporting the opposing side, as well as incidents where aid workers were detained for ‘speaking out’ on behalf of affected communities.
Whilst it only accounts for 8% of detention incidents recorded, its significance must not be understated. Detentions are the visible end of a general trend where legal, regulatory and security measures are used to penalise or delegitimise organisations for activities that principled humanitarian action requires.
Those activities that underpin principled humanitarian action are also often most vulnerable to misrepresentation and criminalisation. Information collection, needs assessments, context monitoring, humanitarian safety analysis and access negotiations are essential to understanding risk, reaching people in need, reducing exposure for staff and sustaining access in complex environments. However, in some restrictive environments, these same activities have been reframed as intelligence gathering or political interference. Once such narratives take hold, they create a permissive environment for suspensions, expulsions and detentions.
This issue is not abstract for INSO. Last year, several of our colleagues in Burkina Faso were detained after our humanitarian safety data collection activities were misrepresented. All have since been released. This experience reflects a wider concern documented in the briefing note where the collection and analysis of security information for NGOs is misunderstood or deliberately mischaracterised. The purpose of such data collection and analysis is not political. It is a humanitarian function that helps organisations understand the risks around them, adapt operations and make informed decisions about how to reach people in need while reducing exposure for staff and partners. When this legitimate humanitarian work is misrepresented or criminalised, it ultimately places all aid workers at greater risk.
Who carries the risk
Locally recruited staff account for 1,504 of the affected personnel in this dataset, 88 per cent of the total. That distribution reflects sustained exposure. Locally recruited colleagues remain in the contexts where they work, interact continuously with authorities, and may carry risks attached to their profile and identify. They may also have fewer options for relocation, evacuation or diplomatic support when risks escalate.
For affected communities, the implications are equally serious. When detention, coercion and criminalisation pushes organisations to reduce activities, limit presence or withdraw, those affected by crises face reduced assistance and weaker monitoring of protection concerns. This shrinking humanitarian space can also weaken the ability of aid actors to negotiate access based on need rather than political permission.
Humanitarian work must not be treated as a threat
The issue of criminalisation of aid has rightly been recognised in both UN General Assembly resolutions and the recent Declaration for the Protection of Humanitarian Personnel. What is needed now is action to operationalise these commitments and to ensure that humanitarian action is not criminalised. Counter-terrorism, sanctions, national security and administrative frameworks must be reviewed to ensure that principled humanitarian action is not treated as criminal conduct alongside. Aid actors themselves also need to be supported to ensure they have the adequate resources and systems to prevent, prepare for and respond to detention incidents. Finally, those functions that make humanitarian action possible: information collection, analysis, access negotiations, must be protected. Without those functions, aid becomes less safe, less informed and less able to reach people in crisis.
Read the full briefing note, Aid under arrest: arrest, detention and custodial confinement of humanitarian personnel by State actors, here.