Abstract
Since the 1970s, humanitarian issues have been a key feature of international life. Among the main characteristics of contemporary humanitarian action, three stand out : its adaptability, its evolutionary character, and the existence of a " aid system " on a global scale. Gradually built up, it is designed to be deployed - in varying ways - in situations of natural disaster or armed conflict.
However, since the beginning of the 21st century, in the latter case - especially in contexts of radicalized confrontation with strong religious, ethnic or politico-ideological stakes - access, impartiality and the very presence of humanitarian third parties [whether of non-governmental origin (organizations of the Red Cross, Red Crescent Movement or NGOs) or public (above all UN agencies specialized in this field)] are increasingly being called into question by a number of local politico-military actors, both state and non-state. As a result, humanitarian workers (both national and international) and the organizations to which they belong are faced with massive denial of access to populations in need of aid, increased risks of instrumentalization, and, last but not least, an accelerated deterioration in security conditions. When they are not specifically targeted.
In other words, they are faced with the negation of an autonomous " humanitarian space " enabling prior needs assessment, non-discriminatory implementation of aid, monitoring and evaluation of its impact, and relatively free access to victims. While the concept of " humanitarian space " has been criticized, the reality of these difficulties cannot be denied. Hence the growing questions about the meaning, scope and acceptability of the humanitarian gesture in certain geographical areas : north-eastern Sri-Lanka (in 2009), territories dominated by Islamist Shebab militias in Somalia, Pakistani tribal regions, northern Mali (from March 2012 to February 2013), parts of Syrian territory controlled by various rebel groups since 2012.
