In November 2025, the ICRC published the report titled, “Navigating violence: learning from civilian experiences and strengthening humanitarian action in contested territories”. The report can be downloaded here.
As of July 2025, the International Committee of the Red Cross estimated that 204 million people were living in areas controlled or contested by armed groups. This represents an increase of 30 million since 2021. Many of them must navigate competing rules imposed by different armed actors, never knowing which allegiance might keep them safe or put them at risk. Most find themselves caught between violence and marginalization, with little to no access to essential services. Meaningful humanitarian support is often limited by the challenges of operating in these spaces, such as navigating the presence and demands of multiple armed actors.
Unlike most humanitarian analysis that emphasizes institutional responses, this report focuses on how people cope and adapt in places with shifting territorial control and unpredictable violence. Drawing on the ICRC’s experience, existing literature, and research conducted between July 2024 and January 2025 in Cameroon, Iraq and the Philippines, it identifies pathways for strengthening protection and humanitarian responses in areas contested by armed groups. It does so by examining people’s own strategies for protection and community organization under the most constrained circumstances.
The case studies highlight the differing nature of contestation. In anglophone Cameroon, where hostilities involving multiple actors continue, violence is a constant menace. In north-west Iraq, the trauma of the recent conflict hangs heavy over those who experienced privation or saw their family members vanish when the Islamic State group controlled parts of the country. Some still carry the stigma of having stayed in areas that came under their control and are labelled as supporters or collaborators. In the Philippines, despite a peace agreement that ended a decades-long conflict in the Bangsamoro Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao, violence remains a stubborn presence in people’s lives.Footnote 1
Navigating daily life in contested territories
Contested territories – areas under the full or fluid control of armed groups – exhibit many of the typical characteristics of conflict-affected areas. Yet some key dynamics set them apart, with severe protection implications for people living in these places.Footnote 2 People’s lives are shaped by multiple changes in rule, with periods of relative stability and periods of heightened violence. In situations of contested governance, questions of loyalty and control become paramount, with serious consequences for people’s safety, agency and access to public services. Group and individual identities profoundly influence people’s experiences, with communities being alternately targeted, favoured, or co-opted by armed groups for their perceived identity.
Every day, people experience marginalization, economic hardship, neglected infrastructure, a lack of educational opportunities and disrupted health services. International and domestic sanctions on armed groups pile on woes for people living in areas they control. Identity documents are hard to come by, limiting movement and access to public services. Trade blockages and restricted access to banking, internet and telecommunications push people into informal economies; many see their incomes and quality of life plummet. Illicit economies thrive, raising the cost of living and draining people’s savings. Trust in institutions falters. Looming over all this is usually the constant threat of violence, both generalized and targeted.
People deploy diverse strategies to cope with, adapt to and navigate contestation: displacing temporarily, signalling non-alignment, negotiating with armed groups or relying on respected intermediaries within the community. Some seek to avoid attention to stay safe; others choose to organize to better defend themselves. Community institutions and people’s ability to take collective action can mitigate some of the consequences of violence and privation. However, whether community institutions are co-opted – and by whom – will shape the ability of these institutions to influence armed actors’ behaviour.
Implications for humanitarian response
In such settings, aid is hamstrung by security and access constraints, state-imposed restrictions and domestic and international counter-terrorism legislation. The ICRC’s experience shows that it is possible to implement programmes and boost protection despite these challenges, particularly through sustained engagement with armed actors to prevent violations of rights. This requires a sound understanding of shifting community and conflict dynamics and a long-term investment in building trust in a climate of deep mistrust. Programmes designed to adapt to the constantly evolving nature of conflict can help address the most acute needs. Prioritizing support for community-led initiatives and self-protection strategies offers a more sustainable approach to working in unpredictable environments.
Our call
This report seeks to stimulate a much-needed conversation on strengthening the protection of people living in areas contested by armed groups. Based on the insights gathered, we propose the following:
States and armed groups have the primary responsibility for respecting people’s safety and dignity, and for meeting their essential needs. They must:
PROTECT people living in contested territories. States must fulfil their obligation to protect all people within their territory, including those in areas controlled by armed groups as far as possible. Non-state armed groups must also protect the lives and dignity of people in accordance with international humanitarian law and must facilitate access to essential services in areas they control. States and armed groups must neither forcibly displace people nor restrict them from accessing basic services and livelihoods, maintaining contact and reuniting with family members, or moving to safer areas.
ENABLE impartial humanitarian organizations to reach people who are unable or unwilling to leave areas of contestation. States and non-state armed groups must allow impartial humanitarian actors to sustain rapid and unimpeded operations and must facilitate such operations, including by ensuring respect for and protection of humanitarian personnel. States must continue to include and respect humanitarian carve-outs in international and national counter-terrorism legislation and sanctions regimes.
Humanitarian and development actors can play a vital, complementary role. To do so effectively and sustainably, they need to:
UNDERSTAND communities, their self-governance structures and their living environment. Deepening knowledge of people’s experiences, priorities and aspirations must be a continuous process. It is key to understanding the multifaceted nature of vulnerability and vital to supporting existing capacities.
BUILD trust with all actors of influence, including armed groups, communities and their intermediaries. This is a long process and requires sustained support and resourcing for humanitarian action. Organizations and donors should jointly develop long-term strategies that include support for development to address the deeper, structural drivers of contestation.
SUPPORT and complement people’s existing self-protection strategies, including through efforts to prevent rights violations. Communities often succeed in negotiating for services and safety, but may have limited influence on the broader protection environment. Development actors also have a role to play in shoring up inclusive access to essential services.
The path forward demands operational courage, to work differently. That means accepting calculated risks in order to reach the people most affected by violence, supporting community strategies that may seem unfamiliar and engaging with all actors. This report shows that people take initiatives to protect themselves even under the most constrained circumstances. Humanitarian actors must match their resilience with operational innovation, their agency with institutional support and their local knowledge with global resources.
Open access
