A study published by a researcher from Edith Cowan University, in Australia, questions the humanitarian aid distribution model adopted by the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) in Gaza during six months of 2025, arguing that concentrating assistance at four large distribution points may have come into conflict with principles of international humanitarian law.
The analysis, authored by Shannon Bosch, associate professor at the School of Business and Law at Edith Cowan University, focuses on the legal and humanitarian implications of a system that resorted to private security companies to support logistics and protect distribution sites.
Before the GHF came into operation, aid was distributed through more than 400 locations coordinated by the United Nations in Gaza. The new model concentrated distribution at four large, heavily fortified points.
According to the researcher, the civilian population faced significant difficulties reaching the distribution sites. Residents south of Wadi Gaza had to use routes passing through heavily armed Israeli military units and bases, while those in the north traveled longer distances.
Distribution was also, according to the study, unpredictable. In some cases, civilians received only a few minutes’ notice about the opening of a point, which could remain open for a short period.
“My study of the GHF model shows why the way humanitarian aid is delivered matters. Humanitarian assistance in occupied territory must comply with rules designed not only to deliver food to civilians but also to protect the people who receive them,” says Shannon Bosch.
The researcher considers that the model raises questions in light of international humanitarian law and international human rights law, which establish obligations regarding the protection of the civilian population in occupied territories.
Among the principles highlighted in the study is the need for humanitarian assistance to be impartial and based on the needs of the population, as well as sufficiently independent from political and military objectives to preserve its humanitarian character.
“Calling something ‘humanitarian aid’ does not make it so,” says Bosch.
The study also cites accounts of crowd concentrations, turmoil and shootouts at the GHF distribution points and along their access routes. International and human rights organizations have reported deaths and injuries of civilians near these sites.
For Bosch, practices such as coercive crowd control, information gathering, the security procedures and the use of force in spaces designated for the civilian population may exceed the limits of protecting humanitarian operations and come close to military or governmental functions.
“A humanitarian system must reduce the vulnerability of civilians, and not repeatedly expose hungry people to danger in order to obtain food,” she argues.
The researcher also draws attention to the responsibility of States when they resort to private companies to perform functions related to humanitarian assistance. According to the analysis, transferring these functions to private entities does not eliminate States’ legal obligations to comply with international law.
“As governments increasingly rely on private companies to externalize functions previously carried out by States or by established humanitarian organizations, they should be reminded that this does not relieve their legal responsibility to respect international law,” she concludes.
