1 Introduction

For a decade, an unprecedented number of people have fled war and deprivation by making their way to Europe. Initially, many came primarily from African and Middle Eastern countries. Most of these refugees were young Muslim men, thus making them a central issue in the rising populist discourse. The Mediterranean passage still claims many lives, and survivors find themselves stranded in unsuitable refugee shelters at Europe’s external borders, where they have high chances of exploitation and abuse, with no prospect of integration or arrival. Although some European states, such as Germany, and the EU initially welcomed these refugees, their reaction became increasingly isolationist and focused on preserving national borders. European policies have focused on externalizing the suffering of refugees and migrants to areas outside of the EU, rather than prioritizing solidarity with those arriving in Europe. This has changed to some degree during the second wave of refugees to European states. Since early 2022, about six million refugees—predominantly women and children—have sought refuge in Europe from the war in Ukraine.Footnote 1 Over the past decade, with refugee camps established in Greece, shipwrecked bodies floating ashore on Italian beaches, and numerous refugees and migrants arriving in European cities and smaller towns needing care, their suffering has become very visible in Europe.

The proximity of this crisis has mobilized European societies: groups of volunteers and citizen-led initiatives have helped people on the move. Their activities have been well-analysed, especially in the context of the “refugee crisis” in Europe since 2014 (Fleischmann 2020; Haaland and Wallevik 2020; Vandevoordt 2019; van Dyk 2020). Studies on citizen-led humanitarianism portray this kind of humanitarian aid as focused more on political activism, solidarity, and rights, in resistance to the approach of professionalized aid organizations (Fechter and Schwittay 2019, p. 1772). Studies on the response of professionalized humanitarian international non-governmental organizations (INGOs) during the “refugee crisis” in Europe are, however, rare. This study seeks to analyse whether the approach of humanitarian INGOs has also changed. Initially, it seemed that they were reluctant to provide aid to refugees coming to Europe (Borton and Collinson 2017, p. 17). They were seemingly hampered by the fact that the humanitarian crisis was unfolding in Europe rather than in the low-income countries of the Global South where these organizations are accustomed to working (Dittmer and Lorenz 2021a, pp. 104–105)—and what fits into a humanitarian system that is still shaped by postcolonial relations and perspectives. The high numbers of refugees arriving in Europe presented a new situation for which professionalized international humanitarian organizations lacked established procedures. Some humanitarian INGOs have shifted from humanitarian aid to advocacy in light of the new situation, focusing on drawing attention to human suffering as much as to the inadequacies of the response of European states for social mobilization (Hanrieder and Galesne 2021; Dany 2019). Nevertheless, in 2015–2016, more and more humanitarian INGOs also initiated or increased aid programs for refugees in Europe; some even established programs for the very first time in countries such as Greece or Germany (Dittmer and Lorenz 2021b). These activities of humanitarian INGOs working in Europe to help refugees deserve closer examination, as they have been so far overlooked in the academic debate about the ongoing crisis of refugee protection.

Studying the actions of humanitarian INGOs toward refugees in Europe highlights the delicate relation between humanitarian aid and human rights. After the academic debate on humanitarianism dealt with the relationship of aid to security within the concept and practices of humanitarian intervention (Duffield 2012, 2018), it has now turned to critically assessing the entanglements of humanitarianism and human rights (Barnett 2020; Klose 2021; Dany 2024). Indeed, the discourses of security, humanitarianism and human rights are powerfully combined, especially in the context of flight and migration (Perkowski 2021). In providing aid to refugees, one can well delineate the tension between humanitarian aid and human rights. In particular, observers of current refugee protection activities reiterated a well-known allegation that focusing on humanitarian action—saving lives and feeding people—obstructs a focus on human rights, for reasons that are explained further below (see Harrell-Bond 2002; Ticktin 2016). However, little light is shed on the perspective of humanitarian NGOs, on the human rights situation of refugees or on the human rights implications of their work.

This study thus asks how humanitarian INGOs have related and contributed to human rights as the protection crisis has unfolded in Europe:

  • What rights do humanitarian INGOs specifically mention?

  • How do humanitarian INGOs seek to contribute to human rights?

  • What possible tensions are thus revealed between human rights and humanitarianism?

To answer these questions, the publicly available documents of four humanitarian INGOs are here analysed through qualitative content analysis. The analysis focuses on INGOs that work in European states to help refugees: since 2014, mainly for those coming from African countries and the Middle East; since 2022, also for those fleeing from the war in Ukraine. The documents include policy statements, annual reports, project reports, open letters, and websites—a broad array of texts describing what humanitarian INGOs do to help refugees in Europe. The analysis shows how humanitarian INGOs working in Europe to help refugees since 2014 integrate both a humanitarian and a human rights response and the tensions evident in doing so.

2 Humanitarianism and Human Rights in Refugee Protection—a contested relation

This study begins from the basic premise that claiming human rights and providing aid are two sides of the same coin—even if they can sometimes be at odds. The tension between humanitarianism and human rights has always characterized the work of humanitarian organizations that provide short-term humanitarian aid. It is precisely the close association between humanitarianism and human rights that leads to these tensions. This section defines the basic concepts to clarify this point.

Humanitarianism is the provision of humanitarian aid to strangers; it seeks to save lives and alleviate human suffering wherever it occurs. Human rights are intended to protect the fundamental rights to which people are entitled from birth. Barnett describes the two concepts and their related practices as “distant cousins” (2020, p. 1): both seek to reduce suffering and protect people in need. However, they are implemented in different ways through different practices. Humanitarian aid should be as neutral as possible, even when human rights need to be protected or are demanded. Humanitarianism is based on compassion and humanity, while human rights work is based on indignation and solidarity. For this reason, human rights organizations act in a comparatively more political way, denouncing abuses and demanding rights, and are motivated more by a sense of justice. The actions of humanitarian organizations are, on the other hand, led by the fundamental principles of neutrality, impartiality, and independence, being at the same time “more paternalistic” than human rights (Barnett 2020, p. 14). Tensions arise when humanitarianism and human rights intersect. Observers of the responses to refugee flows into Europe over the past decade have emphasized some differences and incompatibilities between the two.

Inspired by the extensive work of the anthropologist Fassin (2007, 2012) on the oppressive sides of humanitarianism, some highly critical studies of refugee aid have emerged. Ticktin describes the main difference thus: “[H]umanitarianism is about feelings rather than rights; it is about compassion, not entitlement” (2016, p. 264). Her study on humanitarianism as a tool in border policy goes on to demand, “if we truly want to stop the growing numbers of dead at our doorstep, we must work with migrants for justice, not find a substitute in humanitarianism or charity” (Ticktin 2016, p. 266). As much as the situation of refugees in the “summer of migration” of 2015 has been conceived as a “humanitarian emergency”—focusing on providing humanitarian aid and volunteerism—human rights may have taken a back seat (Dittmer and Lorenz 2021a). For example, UNHCR, together with humanitarian partner organizations, prioritized material assistance in refugee camps over sustainable integration. As a result, “refugees remain refugees” (Schmalz 2017, p. 24). People were kept in refugee camps as dependents in need of assistance, thereby limiting their right to free movement (Cuttitta 2018). Refugee aid is depicted “as an act of grace, rather than enhancement of human rights” (Cuttitta 2018, p. 783). A focus on humanitarianism would have even furthered “restrictive migration policies and migration management practices, which exclude people from territories and/or rights” (Cuttitta 2018, p. 784). In sum, critical humanitarian and migration studies pit humanitarian approaches against human rights approaches. In particular, humanitarianism can be regarded as excluding and hindering the struggle for human rights. Recent studies thus echo a much longer-standing criticism of humanitarian aid to refugees as leading to inhumane conditions that violate refugees’ rights (Harrell-Bond 2002, p. 53).

However, even fiercest critics have seen the opportunity of a “rights-based humanitarianism” healing such scandalous adversarial effects of humanitarian aid (Harrell-Bond 2002, p. 52). Developments towards “rights-based approaches” (RBA) have been observed—and demanded—since the early 2000s. They even led to the announcement of a new humanitarianism, which is often equated with a politicization of humanitarian aid (Barnett 2005). A multitude of providers of humanitarian aid—including the military, business actors, emerging donors or local actors—have led traditional humanitarian organizations to contest the value of classical humanitarian principles of neutrality, impartiality and independence (Sezgin and Dijkzeul 2016). Whether or not humanitarian principles are adequate guides for current humanitarian aid is still a matter of debate (Slim 2020). While the manipulation and instrumentalization of humanitarian aid by states and international donor organizations is clearly negative, finding compromises between accessing people in need and speaking out about massive human rights violations and genocide is a much more ambivalent choice. Therefore, integrating a human rights perspective into humanitarian aid may be an important avenue for humanitarian organizations.

However, some critics warn that talking about human rights in the context of humanitarianism might really just be a rhetorical ploy to curtail human rights. For example, the EU, states or FRONTEX would have used human rights rhetoric to legitimize exclusionary border regimes. These actors would refer not only to the need to save lives but also to human rights violations by smugglers in order to prevent migration (Cuttitta 2018, pp. 786–787). However, these objections are not appropriate for a general critique of human rights-based approaches to humanitarianism. These studies are not about humanitarian organizations in the narrow sense, but about institutions that claim to be humanitarian while they actually pursue security-related political interests. This says little about the rights-based approaches of humanitarian INGOs. For humanitarian organizations, human rights seem to be more than a buzzword or a cover for illegitimate goals. A recent study claims that the idea of integrating rights into humanitarian aid has deeply penetrated the self-understanding of humanitarian organizations and their practices (Borgrevink and Sandvik 2022).

The following document analysis examines the extent to which human rights-based approaches have been adopted by humanitarian INGOs working to assist refugees in Europe since the “long summer of migration” in 2015. It explores how their approaches navigate the contested relationship between humanitarianism and human rights in refugee protection by highlighting how humanitarian INGOs relate to and frame human rights in the practice of providing humanitarian aid to refugees, thereby identifying potential tensions between the humanitarian and human rights aspects of their work.

3 Case Selection, Methods and Data

This analysis focuses on humanitarian INGOs that have provided assistance to refugees in Europe over the past decade. The focus on humanitarian INGOs implies that their primary purpose is to save lives and alleviate suffering in accordance with humanitarian principles—particularly neutrality, impartiality and independence. Most humanitarian INGOs do not have exclusively humanitarian objectives, but are multi-mandate organizations (Hilhorst and Pereboom 2016, p. 85). For the organizations selected here, the humanitarian character predominates, even if some more evidently pursue longer-term, rights-based and development-oriented goals. As the analysis focuses on international organizations, they must be active across borders. In addition, the organizations should provide assistance to refugees from Africa, the Middle East and Ukraine on European territory. Based on these criteria, CARE International, the Germany Caritas Association, the International Rescue Committee, and Refugees International were selected.Footnote 2

CARE International (CARE) began supporting refugees in Greece in 2016. It also coordinates the refugee response in Turkey. In regard to Ukraine, it seeks to support internally displaced persons and refugees seeking safety in neighbouring countries such as Poland, where it has been working since 2022. The German Caritas Association is part of Caritas International (CI) and has been active in Greece since 2015, especially on Lesvos, to provide psychosocial support and education to refugees from the Middle East, but also in supporting the local population. CI has been working in the war zones of Ukraine since 2015. Since 2022, the organization has increased its support for war refugees on the border and in neighbouring countries. The International Rescue Committee (IRC) has been working in Europe since 2015–2016. At the height of the refugee movement from the Middle East to Europe, IRC launched aid programs in Greece and Serbia in 2015. Since then, the organization has supported refugees and migrants in Germany, Italy, and in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Since 2021, the IRC has also been active in the United Kingdom, supporting the integration of refugees into British host communities. Since 2022, it has helped Ukrainian refugees in Poland. Finally, Refugees International (RI) focuses its European work on Greece, Spain and Ukraine. However, in Spain it works mainly with refugees from Venezuela, which is not part of this analysis. Unlike other organizations, RI does less operational work but focuses more on rights advocacy; nevertheless, it acts as a key ally for many humanitarian organizations and is therefore included in the analysis.

As this brief overview illustrates, these organizations have all launched new programs or stepped up their activities in Europe due to the high needs of people arriving there or stranded in European refugee centres. The focus is on Greece and Ukraine, as well as bordering countries. For Ukraine, the focus is only on humanitarian aid to internally displaced persons in Ukraine and not to people in zones of active fighting.

The period of almost a decade (2015–2023) makes it possible to include high and low phases of assistance to refugees from different regions of the world. Commonalities of refugee aid in Europe, but also possible differences with regard to the different groups of refugees (women and children from Ukraine vs. mainly Muslim young men from African and Middle Eastern countries) are identified. The analysis is based on publicly available documents issued by the above-mentioned humanitarian INGOs, some of which were drafted in collaboration with other NGOs (local and international) or UN agencies (UN Women). It only includes documents that deal with refugee aid and excludes those relating to aid to those directly threatened by active warfare in Ukraine. A first preview of a larger set of documents revealed which ones focused most on human rights. These were then selected for closer analysis using MaxQDA. As such, between four and seven documents per organization were closely analysed, plus three collaborative documents. The length of the documents varies: some are short press reports of one page, while others are lengthy reports of up to 38 pages.

The exploratory analysis of the documents focuses first on which human rights are particularly highlighted—for example because they are violated or demanded. It then turns to the practices through which humanitarian INGOs themselves choose to contribute to the promotion of human rights. Finally, the tensions that the organizations see between humanitarian and human rights practices in refugee assistance will be highlighted. For the analysis, “human rights” is understood broadly and not defined at the outset. The analysis sought to leave room for the inductive identification of human rights frameworks by humanitarian organizations. However, while there is no single definition of what “human rights” means and encompasses in the context studied, there are some features that are commonly associated with rights-based approaches to humanitarian action. Exemplary features of rights-based approaches include: going beyond a needs-based approach; solidarity rather than charity; drawing attention to rights violations and demanding compliance with existing rights (advocacy); promoting and supporting strategies that can put rights into practice, such as protest and litigation. The analysis thus focuses on these characteristics and inductively explores from the documents how NGOs describe the human rights situation and how they sought to contribute to human rights in the specific context relevant here as well as how they perceive possible tensions between humanitarian aid and human rights approaches.

4 What rights?

With the first group of refugees who are from mainly Africa and the Middle East, humanitarian INGOs denounce human rights violations at EU borders, violations of asylum rights and restrictions of the right to freedom of movement. Illegal pushbacks, crimes at detention camps outside of the EU and the overall high-risk routes to Europe make the German Caritas Association call “for human rights violations at EU frontline borders to be stopped and not simply be tacitly accepted” (German Caritas Association 2021, p. 4). Illegal pushbacks and poor reception conditions, as well as incomplete information, would “rob refugees of the opportunity to even lodge a request for protection through an asylum procedure in the EU” (German Caritas Association 2023, p. 4). The restrictions on freedom of movement in Greek camps, from where there are no free exit and re-entry options, would equal a “de facto detention and can lead to a violation of their right to private and family life” (Refugees International 2022). Consequently, several NGOs, including humanitarian INGOs, have called for “the right to freedom from arbitrary detention” as a “fundamental right” (Joint NGOs 2017, p. 6, footnote 11). A joint NGO document—drafted by CARE and IRC, among others—identifies children as the most vulnerable group whose rights are violated (Joint NGOs 2017, p. 9). For years, children as refugees on the Greek islands have been deprived of their “right to education” (Joint NGOs 2017, p. 10) as they lack access to public schools.

Some organizations also push to secure longer-term rights for refugees after they leave the camps and live in a host country, calling for fair asylum procedures and social rights. For example, the German Caritas Association emphasizes that, “[r]efugees and migrants have the right to live together with their families” (German Caritas Association 2021, p. 3). The organization also demands that refugees be allowed to travel in order to find employment (German Caritas Association 2021, p. 3). For persons who have been in Germany for a certain time, the aim should be to grant the right of abode after a specified period of time to end their insecure legal status (German Caritas Association 2021, p. 3). In the long run, the IRC works for the economic self-determination of refugee women, such as from Syria, in host countries, such as Germany, as a prerequisite for greater overall empowerment, freedom, human rights and dignity (IRC 2022b, p. 16).

Regarding Ukrainian refugees, CARE and UN Women focus on the special risks of women and girls, as well as minority groups such as Roma, disabled people and members of the LGBTQIA+ community, and acknowledge intersectional levels of vulnerability. They mainly demand special protection for people from these groups, as well as sexual and reproductive health rights, gender equality and access to political participation. A report has detailed data on gender-based violence, sexual exploitation, rape, human trafficking and abuse. Many women and girls face such threats in conflict-affected regions in Ukraine since years (UN Women and CARE International 2022, p. 20), yet the current escalation of war and massive displacement have increased these rights violations (UN Women and CARE International 2022, p. 6). The humanitarian organizations furthermore mention violations of freedom of movement, mainly for specific groups of people; since most men are denied exit from Ukraine, “LGBTQIA+ people of conscription age who are male, or whose ID cards identify them as male” have been unable to flee the country (UN Women and CARE International 2022, p. 26). The same is true for people from third countries who also face restrictions in crossing borders from Ukraine to neighbouring countries. With regard to Roma people, and in particular Roma girls, the humanitarian INGOs further highlight discrimination with regard to access to humanitarian aid, as these girls would rarely be registered. This accounts for special risks to them as refugees, as well as the possibility of more early marriages and pregnancies, further inhibiting their access to education (UN Women and CARE International 2022, p. 21).

In this context, humanitarian organizations denounce the denial of humanitarian assistance as a right violated. For those fleeing Ukraine, particularly Roma people and persons identifying as LGBTQIA+, would be “discriminated against or denied humanitarian assistance” (CARE International 2023, p. 1). On a more general note, IRC claims that protecting civilian infrastructure from attack and maintaining humanitarian access is critical to upholding international humanitarian law and human rights (IRC 2022a).

To be clear: the point is not establishing whether the above rights have or should have the status of human rights, but describing how humanitarian INGOs frame the situation of refugees as one that relates to human rights. Compared to the other group of refugees, it is noticeable that the situation of Ukrainian women and girls as well as minority groups is less frequently framed as a human rights issue. Only the joint detailed report by UN Women and CARE International specifically addresses gender-based violence and discrimination towards Roma and LGBTQIA+ people as human rights violations, citing data and demands from human rights organizations. With regard to the first cohort of refugees from Africa and Middle East, their human rights problems are attributed to a deficient legal framework. The asylum law is complicated, lacks transparency and is violated by EU partners—therefore, humanitarian organizations call for better education about rights as well as for reforming the asylum system.

5 How are human rights enacted?

Humanitarian organizations seek to contribute to these rights in various ways, with some differences between Ukrainian, Middle Eastern and African refugees. Firstly, they do so through advocacy: formulating demands to, and placing responsibility on, political actors to fulfil their responsibilities. They call for states and IOs (UN and EU) to better comply with existing laws and commitments and to change policies. However, they also take action themselves.

5.1 Information gathering on rights violations

Humanitarian INGOs gather all sorts of information on the human rights situation of refugees. Not least, they condemn “illegal pushbacks on the border”, reminding Europe of its duty to respect and defend human rights (German Caritas Association 2021, p. 1). They further assemble long reports based on field observations and interviews and make them available to policy makers and the public. A report published by Refugees International states, for example, that, according to UN information, “there is sexual violence, forced labor; there is still torture and there are still beatings” in state-run detention centres in Libya (Leghtas 2018, p. 10). The situation in camps on the Greek islands is described as only marginally better. There, asylum seekers would “have extremely limited access to basic rights and services, including health care, social services, legal assistance, and information about the asylum process” (Fox and Cone 2020, p. 9). RI also speaks of “detention-like conditions” in Spanish refugee camps, where in particular the children living in the camps particularly “face severe mental health problems and obstacles to education” (Panayotatos 2020).

As well as providing information itself, RI further disseminates quite detailed information on human rights issues provided by human rights organizations. For example, RI states, “According to I Have Rights (HR), an organisation that provides free legal information and legal support on Samos, asylum seekers are detained on average for 12 days after being identified by the Reception and Identification Service” (Refugees International 2022). Similarly, CARE and UN Women cite data from Amnesty International on the increase of gender-based violence in Ukraine’s Donetsk region before 2019, as well as after the current outbreak of war (UN Women and CARE International 2022, p. 20). However, unlike information gathered with regard to the first group of refugees, the humanitarian organizations mainly assemble information about gender-based violence, sexual exploitation, human trafficking and abuse with regard to Ukrainian refugees. Such information gathering about rights violations is necessary for advocacy to shame and put pressure on political institutions, but also to make appropriate and needs-oriented offers of assistance. Documentation of human rights violations can further lead to the implementation of legal proceedings at a later stage.

5.2 Demanding rights education and legal advice

Humanitarian organizations demand that state institutions enhance information-sharing on rights. All organizations complain about a massive information gap regarding refugees and migrants from the Middle East and African states, and many complaints are targeted at the complexity of the asylum process. As soon as refugees cross borders, they would therefore need “access to independent advice and effective legal protection” (German Caritas Association 2021, p. 2). They call for the EU to ensure that “applicants receive independent (legal) advice, explaining the entire system and the process” (German Caritas Association 2023, p. 2). It is not clear from the documents whether the humanitarian organizations themselves provide legal advice to refugees. However, RI published a comprehensive Global Refugee Work Rights Report in 2022 together with other organizations (Ginn et al. 2022).

In Ukraine, there seem to be more efforts to provide refugees with information about their rights at the borders. The EU Commission has set up a Solidarity Platform through which, among other things, “information for refugees about their ability to exercise their rights to make informed choices about where to live” is disseminated (Cone and Panayotatos 2022, p. 11). Despite these “efforts made by the authorities to provide refugees with information about their rights and entitlements, as well as the availability of services”, site visits in Poland have shown a “significant information gap at border crossings and reception centers” (CARE International 2022b, p. 5). CARE and UN Women call on donors and humanitarian organizations to better inform the affected population, particularly about Protection from Sexual Harassment, Exploitation and Abuse (PSHEA), “including information on what PSHEA is, what their rights are and how they can access the complaints mechanism” (UN Women and CARE International 2022, p. 8). According to a survey conducted by UN Women, local women’s organizations, grassroots movements and feminist collectives have begun providing new services, including providing “legal advice and assistance for the evacuation of queer and transgender people from Ukraine, who are experiencing particular challenges due to the inability of men aged 18–60 to leave the country” (UN Women and CARE International 2022, p. 22).

5.3 Localisation

Localisation is a recent common objective in the humanitarian community as a main outcome of the World Humanitarian Summit in 2016. It means that, as a principle, local actors should be responsible for providing humanitarian aid, thus changing the role of international humanitarian actors to those of supporters, funders and coordinators. Localisation has been received as a way to make humanitarian action more efficient and less hierarchical, yet the agenda is at the same time criticized for remaining conceptually vague, being insufficiently implemented and overlooking possible negative effects (Roepstorff 2020). The results of this study confirm this ambivalence.

On the one hand, the idea has influenced the work of CARE in Ukraine. CARE seeks to enhance the human rights of refugees through localisation; in Ukraine and neighbouring countries, “CARE is partnering with 32 WLOs and WROs (…) and is committed to amplifying their voices” (CARE International 2022a, p. 1). CARE demands the better integration of local women-led organizations and women’s rights organizations (WLOs/WROs) in the humanitarian response. CARE seeks to enhance the involvement of local organizations, particularly as they place emphasis on human rights, and more concretely on sexual and reproductive health rights (SRHR), which “need to be highly prioritized in the humanitarian response”, according to a leading SRHR NGO in Poland is cited (CARE International 2022a, p. 2). CARE acknowledges that local and national WROs and WLOs are “advocating for the rights of women and girls and are essential to increase the participation of those groups in processes and decisions that affect them now and will continue to impact them after the war” (CARE International 2022a, p. 1). Polish WROs working “in areas related to gender equality, GBV and sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR)” are important in the refugee response, as “their activism and solidarity will be critical in supporting Ukrainian women to navigate a restrictive and difficult environment for SRHR in Poland” (CARE International 2022b, p. 4). In the long run, the inclusion of local NGOs with a women’s rights focus and a donor focus on human rights and feminist approaches should contribute to women’s participation and leadership, which is regarded as important for stabilization, peacebuilding and recovery in Ukraine (CARE International 2022b, p. 6).

Yet, despite far-reaching commitments to localisation, the inclusion of local organizations remains insufficient. Local WROs/WLOs feel sidelined by poor information, language barriers, and bureaucratic hurdles. A Ukrainian WRO described an informational donors’ event as “heavy with lingo and slim on entry points for local initiatives and smaller and newer CSOs” (CARE International 2022a, p. 2). While they are asked to give policy advice, they would not be able to play a role in decision-making within the international humanitarian aid system (IRC 2023, p. 2). This “points to a historic marginalisation of WROs/WLOs that has not yet been reformed, despite much rhetoric on the importance of WROs/WLOs” (IRC 2023, p. 15). Thus, while localisation is embraced as a principle and is especially supported by CARE, the situation in Ukraine shows again that it is hard to implement. Moreover, it should be noted that localisation can have ambiguous effects, as the following section about observed tensions illustrates.

6 Tensions between humanitarianism and human rights in European refugee aid

Fundamental tensions between humanitarianism and human rights are inherent in humanitarian action. Of interest here is how international humanitarian organizations describe these tensions and possible down sides—either for a principled humanitarian approach or for a more human rights-oriented approach to refugee assistance.

CARE regards the localisation approach as a way of combining human rights considerations, particularly regarding SRHR, with the provision of humanitarian aid. However, while localisation is generally supported by many humanitarian actors, they also observe down sides. In Ukraine, the localisation of aid has contributed to a mixing of humanitarian aid and military action, as Refugees International has described. Local actors would deliberately put humanitarian aid at the service of the military: “… many Ukrainian groups view their relief efforts as part of a whole-of-society resistance to the Russian invasion” (Noe and Lang 2023, p. 15). According to the INGO Nonviolent Peaceforce, as well as multiple observations over the summer of 2022, local humanitarian aid groups and distribution centres in Ukraine would be “simultaneously providing support for armed Ukrainian actors, including the military and territorial defense units” (Noe 2022, p. 13). This support can be provided on the one hand through the provision of humanitarian aid supplies and, on the other hand, through tasks that aid recipients should perform for the military—apparently in return for the aid supplies. These are smaller tasks, such as beneficiaries sewing camouflage nets in several locally run shelters in Dnipro Oblast (Noe 2022, p. 13). Still, the mixing of humanitarian and military aid contradicts the necessity of humanitarian aid to remain neutral and independent, especially from military and state interests. While this is not seen as a problem by local NGOs, who, on the contrary, “remain adamant that they will never separate from the military or end their support,” it is certainly a problem for international humanitarian aid (Noe and Lang 2023, p. 17). Humanitarian INGOs would lose their credibility and access to conflict zones and the people they seek to help if they became instruments of one party to a conflict. RI therefore demands that “donors and aid agencies should strengthen support for Ukrainian organisations willing to separate humanitarian operations from the military effort” (Noe 2022, p. 6). The move toward local humanitarian actors is a double-edged sword: on the one hand, it advances the human rights agenda but, on the other, it also promotes the militarization of aid.

There are now other barriers to localisation, rooted in the tension between humanitarian aid and human rights. CARE presents some perspectives from local women’s and women’s rights groups in Poland, Hungary, and Romania that began providing humanitarian assistance to refugees in the early months of the war. These local NGOs, which sought to provide relief and a stronger focus on sexual and reproductive health rights, needed funding, but faced difficulties in securing funding from international donors within the existing humanitarian funding system. They had to devote significant resources to secure funding, which was often short-term. Due to the highly bureaucratic procedures and the generally short-term, inflexible and insecure funding mechanisms, this took up time and human resources that were then not available for their actual work and beneficiaries:

“As we did not have any prior experience with the humanitarian funding system, and there were no platforms (and time) for proper interaction and learning in the beginning, it was a challenge for us to understand how these funding mechanisms work, what we can realistically expect as a front-line organisation, and how we could contribute to the ecosystem of humanitarian organisations without leaving local beneficiaries behind.” (Emma Association, WRO, Hungary, cited in CARE International 2023, p. 2)

The same local organization in Hungary reports that it had to discontinue established programs in order to take on the new task of assisting Ukrainian refugees:

“In the first few months of the crisis response (…) we had to withdraw both financial and human capacities from our core activities offered to local women. We had to make extremely difficult moral decisions, but we prioritised the urgency of the humanitarian crisis for the short run.” (Emma Association, WRO, Hungary, cited in CARE International 2023, p. 6)

As a result, however, social tensions arose between host communities in some countries and Ukrainian refugees (CARE International 2023, p. 6). The increased humanitarian effort has thus compromised the effort of local organizations to fight for women’s and girl’s rights with regard to SHRH. In addition to reporting these concerns from its local partners, CARE mentioned another tension, albeit implicitly. CARE cautions that promoting marginalized voices, especially women’s, should not come at the expense of the safety and security of aid workers and beneficiaries: “Where safe to do and being mindful of do no harm, provide visibility of the diverse roles that men and women are taking in, humanitarian response and decision-making, including promoting the voices of marginalized groups” (UN Women and CARE International 2022, p. 27).

Compared to this more nuanced reflection on the work of local and international NGOs, tensions between humanitarianism and human rights are rarely mentioned in relation to the first group of refugees—those fleeing since 2014 to Europe from the Middle East and Africa. However, the German Caritas Association points to a possible tension that may arise when it advocates for equality between groups of refugees after observing that refugees from Ukraine often had better conditions and more rights than those from other countries. This call for equality and equal rights for refugees may risk lowering the standard for Ukrainian refugees, warns the German Caritas Association (Welskop-Deffaa and Schlenker 2022, p. 2). It also warns that addressing the root causes of forced migration as part of a human rights strategy should not undermine the protection of refugees as part of a responsible refugee and migration policy (German Caritas Association 2021, p. 4).

It is worth noting the different emphasis on tensions in relation to the two groups of refugees: more tensions are mentioned in Ukraine and neighbouring countries, especially in relation to localisation; less tensions are mentioned in relation to the humanitarian approach to helping refugees from the Middle East and Africa in Europe. As localisation has emerged as a catch-all topic for the international humanitarian system in 2016, this discussion has clearly had more impact on the reflections of humanitarian organizations working in Ukraine than during the heyday of refugee arrivals in Europe in 2014–2015. Moreover, providing assistance to refugees in situations of war certainly makes the tensions in the Ukrainian context more salient.

7 Conclusion

The “refugee crisis” is not over and manifests as an ongoing crisis in refugee protection within Europe. The human rights of refugees are under constant threat from overcrowded and capsized boats in the Mediterranean, human trafficking, sexual exploitation, torture, and inhumane living conditions in refugee camps. Even though refugees should be given special protection, they are at high risk of facing human rights violations. In public and political debates in Europe, the right of states to self-determination and their interests in national security and immigration control are prioritized over a focus on human rights. This study has described how humanitarian INGOs have responded to this situation and, in particular, their relationship to human rights in this context.

Overall, while providing aid to refugees in Europe, humanitarian INGOs have integrated human rights approaches into their humanitarian work: the four organizations that were analysed have all denounced the violation of refugees’ rights, advocated for rights, or called for cooperation with local human rights organizations. One reason for this focus on human rights may be that the crisis and the humanitarian response took place in Europe rather than in distant regions. As the crises unfolded close to home (from the perspective of humanitarian INGOs)—in the EU or at its borders—it apparently became easier to focus on promoting refugee rights. The proximity of the crisis seems to have created a special sense of indignation and urgency for helping those in need by any means possible. In addition, humanitarian organizations did not have established procedures for delivering aid in their own backyard. This created space for new approaches, as there were no or only a few established humanitarian programs in Europe.

Some humanitarian organizations mentioned tensions from the new localities and practices of providing aid, however they have not featured prominently in the reports of humanitarian agencies. Tensions have been more pronounced in the case of Ukraine, particularly regarding the practice of localising aid in order to integrate more rights-oriented groups into the humanitarian response. The observations of humanitarian NGOs illustrate that, while there is great consensus on the necessity of localisation in the humanitarian community since the World Humanitarian Summit in 2016, implementing localisation can be difficult and has ambivalent effects. On the one hand, it may advance the human rights agenda: The move to localisation can be a way to integrate human rights practices into humanitarian aid work, as local actors who help refugees are more likely to connect humanitarian aid to more far-reaching goals, such as promoting development and peace (Biehler et al. 2023, p. 7). On the other hand, localisation may risk compromising humanitarian principles, as they may make humanitarian aid conditional on supporting the military, as the case of Ukraine illustrates. These results finally lead to a broader debate on the linking of humanitarian aid, development cooperation and peacebuilding in the so-called nexus approach. As with localisation, the nexus can make humanitarian assistance more effective in terms of strengthening rights-based approaches, but it also creates tensions for humanitarian agencies as they struggle to remain neutral, independent and impartial.

What may work better is a kind of division of labour: while large humanitarian INGOs focus on providing humanitarian aid, they may work with smaller local organizations that take a more human rights-based approach. In this way, humanitarian INGOs do not risk their reputation as neutral, independent and impartial actors but can still contribute to a stronger focus on human rights. A similar division of labour has been described in the context of NGOs as law enforcers. Smaller, less resourced local NGOs focus on law enforcement because it allows them to gain influence and occupy a niche. In contrast, established larger and international NGOs—which have more to lose—stick to less risky advisory and service provision activities (Sangiovanni and Sharman 2022, p. 212). However, these possible explanations and possibilities for integrating human rights approaches into humanitarian aid remain to be tested in further studies. Further research should also be conducted on whether and how the geographic focus of humanitarian aid affects what types of organizations and how humanitarian aid is delivered.

Finally, one general insight remains: pitting humanitarian aid against human rights is too simplistic. The normative framework of rights-based approaches in humanitarian aid, as well as individual case studies, suggest that humanitarian aid and human rights are integrated, despite some emerging tensions. Humanitarian organizations denounce rights violations and demand improvement of the rights situation of refugees. They also seek to contribute to further these rights themselves, albeit with modest means and with increasing attention towards tensions that may arise. Navigating these tensions between humanitarianism and human rights is necessary in order to achieve both a humanitarian and a human rights response to the European refugee protection crisis.