Most wars now take place within states instead of between them. In many cases, this requires humanitarians to contend with non-state armed groups in order to access civilians. While armed groups are widely perceived as a threat to the delivery of humanitarian aid, they vary in the extent to which they allow or hinder humanitarian access. Current understandings of this variation revolve around armed groups’ motivations to comply with international humanitarian law (IHL). However, most humanitarians acknowledge that using IHL in negotiations for humanitarian access with armed groups is not a viable strategy. I argue that scholars should broaden their study of humanitarian access by investigating the viability of other strategies and, in particular, the strategy of community acceptance. Drawing upon interviews with humanitarian practitioners, this article discusses the shortcomings of IHL in access negotiations with armed groups, the promises of community acceptance, and the implications of these arguments.

中文翻译：

---

国际人道法在准入谈判中的缺陷：新的战略和前进的道路

大多数战争现在发生在州内，而不是州与州之间。在许多情况下，这需要人道主义者与非国家武装团体抗衡才能接触平民。虽然武装团体被广泛认为是对人道主义援助交付的威胁，但它们允许或阻碍人道主义援助准入的程度各不相同。目前对这种差异的理解围绕着武装团体遵守国际人道法 (IHL) 的动机。然而，大多数人道工作者承认，在与武装团体就人道准入进行谈判时使用国际人道法并不是一个可行的策略。我认为，学者们应该通过调查其他策略的可行性，特别是社区接受策略的可行性来扩大他们对人道主义准入的研究。根据对人道主义从业者的采访，