This article analyses the relationship between the scope of security needs that are cited as justification for restricting humanitarian assistance in situations of occupation and the scope of the occupant's obligation to facilitate and/or proactively provide humanitarian relief. It argues that, compared with a non-occupant, an occupying power may consider broader security goals as reasons to restrict humanitarian assistance, but that doing so imposes a greater responsibility on the occupying power to provide alternatives to the humanitarian assistance being restricted. In addition, as a normative matter, as increasingly long-term security goals are included in the ‘military necessity’ cited as a reason for restricting humanitarian assistance, the ambit of what is included in humanitarian assistance should be expanded to include the economic development and investment in infrastructure needed to provide for humanitarian needs in the long term. This kind of regime would enhance the self-regulation of warring powers by requiring those with the ability to engage in long-term security planning to use that ability also to provide for the long-term humanitarian needs of the civilian population. The article examines restrictions on humanitarian assistance in Gaza as an example of how this normative arrangement might work in practice.

中文翻译：

---

为重建加沙的限制辩护：军事必要性和人道主义援助

本文分析了被引用为在占领情况下限制人道主义援助的理由的安全需求范围与占领者促进和/或主动提供人道主义救济的义务范围之间的关系。它认为，与非占领国相比，占领国可能会将更广泛的安全目标视为限制人道主义援助的理由，但这样做会使占领国承担更大的责任，以提供受限制的人道主义援助的替代方案。此外，作为规范问题，随着越来越多的长期安全目标被包含在“军事必要性”中，被引用为限制人道主义援助的原因，人道主义援助的范围应扩大到包括经济发展和对基础设施的投资，以满足长期人道主义需求。这种制度将通过要求那些有能力参与长期安全计划的国家利用这种能力来满足平民的长期人道主义需求，从而加强交战国家的自我监管。本文以对加沙人道主义援助的限制为例，说明这种规范性安排如何在实践中发挥作用。这种制度将通过要求那些有能力参与长期安全计划的国家利用这种能力来满足平民的长期人道主义需求，从而加强交战国家的自我监管。本文以对加沙人道主义援助的限制为例，说明这种规范性安排如何在实践中发挥作用。这种制度将通过要求那些有能力参与长期安全计划的国家利用这种能力来满足平民的长期人道主义需求，从而加强交战国家的自我监管。本文以对加沙人道主义援助的限制为例，说明这种规范性安排如何在实践中发挥作用。