This study highlights the role of humanitarian diplomacy to obtain humanitarian access to civilian victims of forced confinement in the municipality of Samaniego, Colombia. Humanitarian diplomacy is made of humanitarian negotiations, coordination and advocacy to provide suffering-alleviation to victims of armed conflicts, and these components will be discussed thoroughly. To inquire in the use of humanitarian diplomacy by international relief organizations, interviews with thirteen humanitarian workers, two public officers and a human rights worker were conducted. The findings, which are complemented with humanitarian and human rights reports and framed in the theoretical discussion, will be the base to discuss whether humanitarian diplomacy contributed to gain humanitarian access in villages of Samaniego facing restrictions in the mobility of civilians and limitations in the supply of basic means of livelihood and humanitarian assistance.

Due to the high rates of criminal violence and the alternative authority of Criminal Armed Groups (CAGs) in Guatemala humanitarian access faces multiple barriers in regions under CAG control, often leaving vulnerable populations without necessary humanitarian services. With limited institutional and conceptual frameworks to support negotiating for humanitarian access in these criminally violent contexts the international humanitarian system favors avoiding these contexts altogether to minimize the risk of their operations, but with the trends of violence increasing in the region not addressing the issue of negotiating for humanitarian spaces in these contexts only will result in crises worsening. Currently there are few substantive discussions regarding establishing such negotiation frameworks in crime-rich environments, those which do discuss the topic directly suggest using frameworks meant for negotiations with Non-State Armed Groups (NSAGs) in armed conflict. However, due to the difference in motivations between CAGs and NSAGs and drastic contextual differences there is doubt for whether the strategies are transferable between the two contexts. Recently few scholars have shifted the conversation to creating the necessary frameworks to approach negotiating humanitarian access specifically in criminally violent situations, providing guidance based on the typology of the criminal organization and the level of violence. While these new discourses have expanded the resources necessary for humanitarian organizations to negotiate access in regions with high rates of criminal violence it is still necessary to broaden topic further. Therefore, examining strategies for negotiating humanitarian access in regions with high rates of criminal violence in Guatemala seeks to understand how to ensure that affected populations in regions under criminal control continue to receive humanitarian aid despite the threat of violence. To examine this phenomenon this study utilizes the mixed qualitative methods of an extensive literature review on the themes of humanitarian access, criminal governance, and humanitarian negotiations, along with a review of the case of El Salvador’s negotiated 2012 gang truce, and semi-structured interviews with experts in the field of negotiating access. Together with considerations of the unique context of Guatemala the points of intersection between themes and responses assisted in triangulating the analysis of the appropriate strategies to consider when negotiating humanitarian access in regions prevalent criminal violence. Ultimately in regions under criminal control in Guatemala strategies which respect the CAG authority, balance the perceived threat of violence with the real threat of violence, communicate humanitarian impartiality, and are specifically crafted for the type of CAG control are potential paths negotiating humanitarian access to affected populations otherwise forgotten.