LAST week I was asked to address a conference of academics, diplomats and the military on the Law of Armed Conflict at the Foreign and Commonwealth office in Whitehall. The subject they gave me was “Delivering humanitarian assistance in conflict”. This is what I said: The Red Cross has traditionally borne the cost and risk of monitoring and enforcing that body of international law which arises from the principle that antagonists must discriminate between their enemies and those who are not, or are no longer, a party to conflict. To a great extent the Red Cross still carries out that role. The costs and risks have been rising.

The UK has made its greatest humanitarian endeavour ever by committing £700 million in relief to refugees and others caught up in the Syrian conflict. In Gaza we made a further commitment of £36 million in emergency relief.

In recent years there has been a shocking increase in the number of attacks, violent incidents, kidnappings and killings, with a singling out of health workers. This has led to a “bunkering” mentality as international relief agencies either withdrew or holed themselves up in heavily protected positions. This prompted a counter reaction with a renewed determination among many aid providers to stay and deliver.

If we think of what we have seen reported, consider how much of the body of international law, which arises from the principle that requires discrimination between combatants and non-combatants, has been abrogated: n the prohibition on collective punishment; n the requirement that the occupying power provides basic life support services for civilians; n the prohibition on the use of siege and starvation as part of warfare; n the use of proportionate force; n the requirement to facilitate access to international relief agencies.

On this last issue, consider that while we can take effective measures to assist the three million refugees who have fled Syria, we have very limited access to some ten million displaced people still within Syria’s borders. Security Council resolution 2165 gives the authority to cross Syria’s borders without the government of Syria’s permission in order to deliver aid, but our ability to do so has been limited.

Notwithstanding the growth of a body of law requiring humanitarian intervention based on the ‘duty to protect’ we are constrained by the problem of gaining access to civilians by state and non-state combatants who are either too weak, undisciplined and even ignorant of their responsibilities.

Or are deliberately determined to use access to aid as another weapon. Most worrying is the emergence of groups which will not interact with relief agencies at all, considering them the enemy. “Da’ish” is an obvious example of this. “Da’ish” is a better term than “ISIL” because it is the preferred usage in the region where the terrorists are operating; most importantly, it is hated by the terrorists: in Arabic, “da’ish” is close to another word meaning something less desirable.

What we should certainly not tolerate is the determination of the BBC to continue humouring the terrorists by calling them ‘Islamic State’. They are not a state, and to call them Islamic is an insult to more than a billion peace-loving Muslims.

Little wonder that the report to the Secretary General of the United Nations on the Protection of Civilians in November last year reported that: “The current state of the protection of civilians leaves little room for optimism.”

We at the Department for International Development are not going to run away from the problem: we aim to commit 30 per cent of our expenditure to assistance in conflict zones; we are reviewing how our counter-terrorism laws can provide a remedy; and we are funding studies to see what works best.

I do not believe there will be significant improvement until we are prepared, as they say in the USA, “not to get mad, but to get even”.