Published on 28 November 2025
This roundtable discussion, that was held on 24 October 2024, has been conducted as part of a research project looking into ethical dilemmas in humanitarian negotiations and how these play out in different settings. In this exchange with experts on the topic that have both practical and academic experience, PRIO’s team invited and joined them to reflect on the role of culture and the ethics in humanitarian negotiations.
Culture and humanitarian negotiations
Kristina Roepstorff: How to think about culture in humanitarian negotiations
Culture is difficult to define and often debated. In anthropology, the discipline most focused on culture, there are over 130 different definitions. Despite this variety, most share a common understanding: culture refers to the ideas, customs, and social behaviors shared by groups or societies. It shapes worldviews, norms, and is expressed through traditions, symbols, and everyday practices. Culture encompasses deeply ingrained beliefs, behaviors, and often unwritten rules that guide how people act and make decisions.
In the context of humanitarian negotiations, culture plays a vital role. It influences how people act, communicate, and interpret meaning. On a pragmatic level, successful cross-cultural negotiations require the ability to adapt to different communication styles and align with the cultural norms of one’s counterparts. Culture shapes not only the behaviors and practices of individuals but also their worldviews, norms, and values, which guide the way they negotiate. These cultural factors influence bargaining tactics and the boundaries people set, including their red lines and moral decisions. In our research on ethical dilemmas in humanitarian negotiations, we explore how culture is central to how people experience dilemmas, what types arise, how they are interpreted, and the strategies developed in response. Despite its importance, the role of culture, particularly cultural differences in negotiation styles, has not received much attention in academic discussions or practical approaches to negotiations. In this roundtable, we aim to tap into your expertise to explore the broader role of culture in humanitarian action, specifically how it shapes dilemmas in humanitarian negotiations.
Andrew Cunningham: The role of culture in humanitarian negotiations
There has been a longstanding debate within Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) about whether understanding the local culture, history, and political context is necessary for effective humanitarian action. Some argue that a standardized approach to humanitarian work, independent of the local context, is sufficient if the organization knows what it’s doing. However, others, including myself, believe that understanding the culture, especially the political culture of a place, is essential. A deeper knowledge of the history and culture of a region helps facilitate smoother negotiations and reduces the risk of mistakes. Culture influences behavior, unwritten rules, and discourse, all of which must be properly interpreted in negotiations.
For example, in my work in Afghanistan, I observed firsthand the challenges of negotiating in a complex cultural and political landscape. Comparing how MSF worked with the Taliban in the late 1990s, the primary shift in recent years has been less about the changes in the Taliban or Afghanistan itself, but in how humanitarian organizations, especially from the West, have reacted. In the 1990s, humanitarian actors were more focused on managing the constraints of the environment, such as policies on women’s rights and medical issues, without a strong moral or ethical stance. Today, however, there is a stronger, more moral reaction to the Taliban’s policies, reflecting a shift in Western cultural values. This change demonstrates how culture influences not only the actions of local stakeholders but also how international actors approach and interpret situations. Understanding local culture is key to navigating such complex environments.
Ashley Jackson: The mismatch of negotiating cultures in Afghanistan
In Afghanistan, as in many humanitarian contexts, there is often a mismatch in negotiating cultures. The US Institute of Peace (USIP) published insightful papers on the negotiating cultures of different countries, including Afghanistan, highlighting this disconnect. Humanitarian negotiations are typically transactional, focused more on immediate needs and less on building long-term relationships, which contrasts with Afghan negotiating culture that emphasizes formality, reciprocity, and investment in personal relationships.
The humanitarian sector has become much more scrutinized, with increased pressure from donors and public visibility through social media and journalism. This has led to a shift where humanitarian organizations are often reactive, short-term focused, and constrained by reporting obligations. In contrast, successful engagements in Afghanistan have shown that building trust and investing in relationships is key – being flexible and understanding that sometimes it’s necessary to step back and return later.
The Taliban, too, have changed. While it was once a disorganized, less educated group, today it is more structured and diverse, having inherited a state apparatus. Humanitarian actors face a complicated landscape where international donors, driven by political motives and domestic concerns, often impose their views on Afghanistan, including issues like women’s rights. These political pressures, amplified by media coverage, create additional challenges for humanitarian workers who must navigate this complex environment.
On a positive note, long-established NGOs, especially those with a solidarity focus like the Swedish Committee for Afghanistan and the Norwegian Afghan Committee, have a deep understanding of the country and its people. These organisations, having worked in Afghanistan for decades, are better equipped to navigate the complexities of the situation, though they too face immense pressure to meet the expectations of external audiences.
Paul Harvey: Culture and the ethical dilemmas when engaging with the Taliban
I’d like to start with a personal story from my early days as a country director in Sierra Leone. Back then, as international humanitarian aid agencies were agreeing on joint operating principles, we managed to return to Lunsar, a town three hours from the capital, to try to reopen a health clinic. My colleague and I went to negotiate with the armed groups controlling the area, including a 17-year-old member of the RUF, who was humorously named Colonel Death Squad. Our meeting took place in a marijuana-filled room with even younger members of his group. The task was to present the joint operating principles and negotiate whether our health clinic could reopen. This experience, with such different cultures and languages, highlighted how deeply culture impacts negotiations.
Culture is undeniably central to all negotiations, especially in humanitarian contexts. The principles I was trying to explain to Colonel Death Squad were about the neutrality, independence, and impartiality of international humanitarian action. These principles are fundamentally about perceptions – how local armed groups and stakeholders view the actions of international organizations, and whether they trust them enough to grant permission to operate. In Afghanistan, for instance, trust is in short supply, both between the international community and the Taliban and among international humanitarian actors themselves. Within the humanitarian system, there has often been a lack of trust and cultural clashes, particularly when it comes to addressing ethical dilemmas like the Taliban’s ban on female aid workers.
The difficulty in coordinating a unified approach within the humanitarian system lies in its diversity. Different organizations have distinct cultures and viewpoints, which sometimes lead to toxic disagreements. This fragmentation complicates efforts to present a united front. However, rather than seeing this fragmentation as a weakness, I wonder if it could be leveraged to an advantage. In Afghanistan, for example, recognizing the diversity within the international humanitarian community could offer a way to respond more flexibly to the challenges at hand, acknowledging that there is no one-size-fits-all solution. This diversity could be used strategically to approach dilemmas from multiple angles, allowing for a more nuanced and adaptive response. Ultimately, the question isn’t whether culture is important – because it clearly is – but how we, as international humanitarian actors, can better navigate these cultural divides and use them to improve negotiations and responses.
Nigel Timmins: No Easy Choice – a humanitarian’s guide to ethical principle decision-making
Culture is fundamentally important in negotiations, not just in a formal sense but also in terms of the values and principles that shape the way we view the world. Before my first trip to Afghanistan in 1996, I was introduced to a concept that has stayed with me: Western cultures are often rooted in a “truth and guilt” system, where truth is paramount and guilt arises when we do something wrong. In contrast, cultures like Afghanistan’s prioritize “honor and shame”, where maintaining one’s honor and status is more important than truth. This clash can be fundamental and is something many Western humanitarian workers fail to fully understand or take into account.
Another significant cultural difference is the contrast between individual rights and collective well-being. In many Western societies, there’s a strong emphasis on individual rights, while in other cultures, there is a more collectivist approach, focusing on what’s best for the community. This often plays out in debates around aid distribution, where some advocate for targeting individuals, while others support more equal distribution.
The humanitarian community itself also grapples with cultural differences. Many humanitarians see themselves as progressives, while rural communities they serve may be more traditional, which can create a disconnect. The Red Cross Code of Conduct emphasizes respecting local cultures, a principle I think has been somewhat diluted today. I also appreciated how the organization Tearfund had agreed a set of operating principles that approached culture by acknowledging the need to respect the local culture, but also recognized that every culture, including our own, has flaws.
I remember conversations in Afghanistan where local people would challenge Western values. For instance, when my wife was working with Afghan women, they would question how we treat our elderly, asking, “Why do you put your old people in homes until they die?” This was an eye-opening reflection on how different cultures approach vulnerability and care for the elderly.
Humanitarian organisations also differ in their cultures, often divided between pragmatic, operational approaches and those driven by advocacy for change. This difference can influence the types of people attracted to each branch of an organization, creating distinct internal cultures. Humanitarians sometimes assume that because they follow principles of neutrality and impartiality, they hold moral superiority over others. But in reality, every humanitarian organisation comes with its own agenda, and we need more humility in recognizing this.
Ultimately, we are negotiating values and cultures, and instead of asserting that our values are superior, we should be searching for common ground. Acknowledging the diversity within humanitarian organisations and within the countries we serve is crucial for more effective and respectful negotiations. Reflecting on past interactions with the Taliban, such as their initial rejection by the UN due to their treatment of women, we see how cultural clashes and lack of recognition foster distrust and ultimately lead to conflict. Understanding these dynamics and adopting a more humble approach in our engagements will likely lead to more constructive outcomes.
Sulagna Maitra: Findings from a case study on local humanitarian actors negotiating in the Rohingya Response in Cox’s Bazar, Bangladesh
The discussion on culture in humanitarian negotiations often focuses on societal or national culture, but it’s also essential to consider organisational culture. This shift in perspective was particularly useful in our Bangladesh case study, where we expected to encounter ethical dilemmas rooted in religion or moral values conflicting with neutral, impartial humanitarian principles. However, we found that the real challenges were more related to organisational culture, particularly the influence of multinational corporations (MNCs) on the humanitarian sector.
Locals often viewed international NGOs and UN bodies as similar to large corporations, though with more ethical operations. This perception was shaped by the fact that many individuals transitioning from the corporate sector brought with them corporate practices and outlooks. Interestingly, the ethical dilemmas stakeholders faced were not related to their own religious or moral compass but arose from the difference in organisational cultures. The clash between the public sector’s government culture and the more operational approach of NGOs led to ethical challenges, particularly around power dynamics and domain of operations. This mirrors global struggles, where organisations compete for space and influence, particularly in power struggles between governments and NGOs.
Another fascinating finding was the difference between the so-called “elite” working in policy roles at the international level, mainly around Cox’s Bazar, and the grassroots workers who were based directly in the camps. The elites often had a more global outlook, shaped by education in top universities, while the grassroots workers were more locally embedded, speaking the regional language and coming from local universities. This creates a divide between the global culture of humanitarian organisations and the vernacular culture of those on the ground, who are often not part of the international system and lack access to the same training or resources.
These cultural divides are important to recognize because the grassroots workers – often from marginalized backgrounds – are key to humanitarian negotiations and support. Yet they don’t seem to benefit from the same integrated system or resources as their counterparts in policy-making roles. Addressing these cultural differences within the humanitarian sector and ensuring that those on the ground have access to proper training and resources is crucial for effective and inclusive humanitarian action.
Ayse Bala Akal: Ethical dilemmas, tacit engagement and the culture of silence
Thank you for the opportunity to discuss this conceptualisation we’ve been developing, which we call tacit engagement. This phenomenon, we believe, is central to humanitarian negotiations, though it’s often reported in the literature in fragmented ways. Tacit engagement refers to the practices of secrecy and silence about the trade-offs and compromises frontline humanitarians make to achieve access, protection, efficiency, and legitimacy. This purposeful opacity is not just about confidential information, but about sensitive decisions, often involving compromises that are kept silent, not just among different organisations, but also within different hierarchies of the same organisation.
This practice differs from debates around neutrality or confidentiality, as it pertains more to how humanitarian organisations manage compromises in high-risk, complex environments. For example, in the case of Al-Shabaab in Somalia, humanitarian organisations were aware of tax demands being paid but avoided addressing the issue openly due to fear of sanctions and counterterrorism regulations, as Dr. Jackson’s work highlighted. Our research builds on such field reports and acknowledges that tacit engagement arises from systemic issues within the humanitarian sector, such as counterterrorism sanctions, donor pressures, top-down localisation, and insufficient security risk management for local actors.
While tacit engagement can be seen as a form of ad hoc risk management by frontline staff trying to stay operational in difficult environments, we don’t want to critique it directly. Instead, we apply critical silence theory to challenge traditional views of silence as passive or indicative of a lack of agency. We understand that this practice may be necessary but also acknowledge its potential pitfalls. These include difficulties in pushing back on counterpart demands, challenges in establishing red lines, and the increased burden on frontline staff, often local actors, to make high-risk decisions without adequate protection. Additionally, tacit engagement can hinder accurate oversight and risk management by higher levels of the organization.
Although the benefits of tacit engagement may outweigh its drawbacks in certain contexts, we argue for a collective reflection on this practice, its causes, and its long-term implications for both local and international actors. Acknowledging the factors that lead to tacit engagement will help the sector better understand its consequences and improve humanitarian action
Cultural Difference and Humanitarian Negotiations
Kristoffer Lidén: Distinct cultures of humanitarian negotiations
This leads directly to the question we wanted to focus on – namely, the dynamics of negotiation. We’ve already touched on the broader topic of ethics in humanitarian action and the role of culture within that. But I’d like to invite any of you to reflect more specifically on whether there are distinct cultures of negotiation. As it has already been mentioned, internal organisational cultures can shape how humanitarian actors approach negotiations. But beyond that, we’re also interested in the diverse ways negotiations unfold across different humanitarian contexts and settings.
Andrew Cunningham: Generational differences in organisational culture
This ties into something I’ve been thinking about, especially regarding the generational shift within MSF. The people who negotiated in the 1990s and early 2000s in places like Afghanistan had a very different approach and understanding of the organisation’s culture compared to those negotiating now. There’s a noticeable clash between the perspectives of my generation and those of younger colleagues – people who are 30 years younger, for instance. The world has changed and so they have their own expectations.
One of the most striking differences is the evolving identity of humanitarian organisations. Within MSF, for example, there’s now a much stronger emphasis on decolonisation and human rights perspectives, which has shifted how we view negotiations and the organisation’s stance. This new approach doesn’t always resonate with those of us from the older generation, who traditionally drew a clearer line between humanitarian work and human rights advocacy.
As a result, the organisation’s culture has changed significantly, and that has a direct impact on how we negotiate. It’s not that all the “old guard” has left and been replaced by a new group of people. Instead, there’s a mix, creating a dynamic internal discussion about how we should negotiate, what we represent, and what values we uphold. This has to be resolved internally before entering negotiations with external actors. Otherwise, there’s a risk of appearing inconsistent or unclear about our identity, which can undermine our position at the negotiating table.
Ashley Jackson: Navigating the different cultures of negotiations and lack of training
I completely agree, and I think it’s something that all humanitarian workers face, even within their own organisations. Navigating the different cultures of negotiation takes a lot of patience. What’s interesting, though, is that I don’t think there’s enough formal training on this. When I first started with the International Committee of the Red Cross, the focus was on respecting different cultures, especially as it related to the code of conduct. But actually navigating these different cultural dynamics in negotiations is something I feel has been overlooked.
Of course, in recent years, as debates on decolonisation have gained more prominence and the face of humanitarianism has become more inclusive, there’s been more attention to this issue. However, it still feels like an essential skill that many humanitarians need, yet it’s not always acknowledged or supported in the way it should be. There’s definitely room for improvement when it comes to equipping people with the tools to better navigate cultural differences in negotiation settings.
Sulagna Maitra: Culture as a strategic tool in negotiations
I’d like to emphasize what Ashley said, particularly about the stark lack of training for those working on the frontlines. As Ayse pointed out, those at the “coal face” of humanitarian work are often taking significant risks in negotiations, sometimes for the very survival of their organisations. In the Bangladesh context, local NGOs absorb these risks and act as intermediaries between international NGOs and the local government. However, these local actors are often left vulnerable, caught in a complex situation where culture plays a major role. Kristina and I debated whether this vulnerability was an asset that was strategically used by locals for survival, but that’s a nuanced topic for another time.
What is clear is that culture – particularly elements like ethnicity, religion, and nationality ––becomes instrumentalised in these intersectoral negotiations. While mainstream humanitarian literature typically separates the international humanitarian culture from local cultures, our findings suggest that, in these negotiation scenarios, local people often see themselves as part of an organisation, with government or military actors as distinct entities. These cultural elements are then leveraged in negotiations. For instance, local humanitarian workers might be reminded that, while they represent an international NGO, they are also Bangladeshi and should prioritise the interests of their fellow nationals, sometimes even over the needs of refugees, like the Rohingya. This dynamic creates an interesting and sometimes conflicting situation, where culture becomes a strategic tool in negotiation and decision-making.
Conclusion and Outlook
Kristoffer Lidén: The concept of culture
As we approach the end of our discussion, I’d like to circle back to Kristina’s introduction on the concept of culture. As Kevin Avruch already wrote in a paper on culture and humanitarian negotiations from 2004 in the Harvard Negotiation Law Review, culture relates to the shared values, beliefs, and symbols of a social group. However, he points out that individuals can belong to multiple social groups, and within each group, there will be significant variation.
This nuance is essential when considering, for example, how a Norwegian representative of a humanitarian organisation might act very differently from someone from a multinational corporation. Both would have distinct cultural frameworks that shape their actions and perspectives. Humanitarian workers often speak of the “context” of operations in a simplified way, treating humanitarian action as the “text” and the local setting as the “context.” This categorisation downplays the multitude of cultures both in humanitarian agencies and the societies where they operate. As such, they are both “texts” in their own right. Avruch also stresses that culture plays a key role in communication, which is obviously key to humanitarian negotiations and how values and beliefs shape ethical decisions therein.
Kristina Roepstorff: Take-aways from the discussion
It’s challenging to wrap this up because it feels like we’re only just beginning an important conversation. What I find most interesting from our discussion is that we’ve explored how culture applies to different levels and contexts. It’s not just national or organisational culture, but also professional cultures and the identities we hold within these entities. Culture is a lens that helps us understand not just how we act, but how we perceive one another, as Paul pointed out earlier. And this is key when thinking about humanitarian negotiations – how we frame ourselves and the “other”, and how we expect certain behaviours and practices from one another.
This makes culture an essential framework for understanding the complexities involved in humanitarian action and negotiations. As Ashley mentioned, there’s a practical side to this – the skill set needed to navigate cross-cultural dynamics in negotiations. This is an area where more guidance and training would be incredibly helpful for humanitarians. But beyond just skill-building, it’s also about understanding the deeper clashes of norms, practices, and expectations – not only with external counterparts but within organisations themselves. Different organisations may have varying interpretations of collective action, and understanding these internal cultural dynamics is crucial.
Another important point that emerged, and something we should definitely keep in mind, is the dynamic nature of culture. Andrew and Nigel brought up the idea of generational shifts in culture, which is something we see clearly in the humanitarian sector as well. These changes are important to recognize, especially in how younger generations view and approach negotiations differently from those who have been in the field longer. The Afghanistan case also highlighted how cultural shifts can be impacted by broader societal changes, like the rise of digitalisation and media, which Ashley mentioned.
The role of new technologies, including artificial intelligence, in humanitarian negotiations is a topic that’s gaining importance. It’s an evolving aspect of culture that could shape negotiations in ways we can’t fully anticipate yet. With that in mind, I’ll invite any final thoughts, as we start wrapping up this fascinating conversation.
Nigel Timmins: Concluding reflection
That’s a great point. It’s important to recognize that within governments, there are different cultures even within the same institution or ministry. When I worked in Syria, for example, we had a relationship with the Ministry of Water Supplies. When you entered their office, it was clear they had very little funding, and the staff – mostly engineers –were entirely focused on practical issues, like fixing water systems and pumps. Their primary concern was just getting things to work. But just a couple of hours later, I was at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, where the atmosphere was completely different. We were being criticised for a public report Oxfam had written, and the tone was much more formal and antagonistic. The contrast in these two experiences highlighted the very different cultures within the government. I’ve seen similar things in Afghanistan, where people at the Ministry of Health just wanted things to function, without the same level of bureaucratic tension present in other ministries.
So, when we think about culture in humanitarian work, we need to acknowledge that it’s not just about the local culture versus the humanitarian culture – it’s also about what each party is trying to achieve. Even within the government side, there can be different cultural dynamics depending on the specific ministry or department. Understanding these variations can open doors for connection and collaboration, making it easier to navigate complex negotiation processes.
To access the full audio recording of this debate: https://www.prio.org/multimedia/51
Speakers :
Kristoffer Lidèn
Senior researcher at the Peace Research Institute Oslo (PRIO) with a focus on the ethics of international affairs in the fields of peacemaking, humanitarian action, security and digital technologies. Kristoffer acts as PRIO Research Director of the Dimensions of Security Department and currently leads project Red Lines and Grey Zones: exploring the ethics of humanitarian negotiations, funded by the Research Council of Norway.
Kristina Roepstorff
Senior Lecturer in International Relations at the University of Magdeburg and Senior Researcher (deputy research lead) of the research project Red Lines and Grey Zones: exploring the ethics of humanitarian negotiations at PRIO. Her focus lies on humanitarian action, peacebuilding and forced migration with a special interest in locally-led actions.
Ayse Bala Akal
Research assistant under the research project Red Lines and Grey Zones: exploring the ethics of humanitarian negotiations at the Peace Research Institute Oslo (PRIO). Ayse has a background in international humanitarian law and focuses on questions concerning humanitarian access.
Sulagna Maitra
Centre for Humanitarian Action, University College Dublin (UCD CHA). Lecturer/Assistant Professor in Humanitarian Action and Coordinator of the International School on Addressing Gender-Based Violence in Emergencies at UCD Centre for Humanitarian Action, School of Agriculture and Food Science. In her research Sulagna focuses on humanitarian action, the sociology of violence and conflict resolution.
Andrew Cunningham
Independent Researcher. Scholar-practitioner with a background in the aid sector for over 30 years, having spent 25 years with Médecins Sans Frontières. Andrew works as a researcher, strategic evaluator, and governance advisor for various humanitarian organisations. This informed his research interest in authoritarian states, authoritarian practices, and the relationship between international humanitarian NGOs and states. He recently published the edited volume Authoritarian Practices and Humanitarian Negotiations with Routledge.
Paul Harvey
Paul Harvey has worked in humanitarian action for over twenty years as an aid worker, researcher and consultant. Before starting “Humanitarian Outcomes” he was a Research Fellow with the Humanitarian Policy Group in the Overseas Development Institute and an emergency manager for NGOs including work in Somalia, Sierra Leone and Kosovo. In his work he focusses on cash programming, the role of states, corruption and dependency in humanitarian action. He recently has researched on ethics and humanitarian action, with a special attention on Afghanistan.
Nigel Timmins
Associate and consultant at “Humanitarian Outcomes”, with working experience in the humanitarian sector since 1996. The organisation that shaped a lot of his thinking is Oxfam. Together with Manisha Thomas he most recently developed an ethics guide based on his interest in looking at how organisations internally handle their ethical dilemmas and how they discuss and try and resolve what is the best way forward.
Ashley Jackson
Co-director and founder of the Centre on Armed Groups, an NGO that does research on and helps people to engage with armed groups for the purpose of humanitarian access, political dialogue and peacebuilding. Ashley started her career as an aid practitioner, working with Oxfam, the Red Cross and the United Nations, among other countries in Afghanistan. This influenced her later career in research in which she examines how humanitarian actors can better engage with armed groups.
Picture credit : © Peter Caton pour Action contre la Faim
