THE DUTY TO COOPERATE AND FINANCIAL BURDEN-SHARING IN INTERNATIONAL DISASTER LAW: FROM THE DRAFT ARTICLES TO A UNIVERSAL DISASTER TREATY

Abstract

The increase in disasters and their cross-border effects has reinforced cooperation as a fundamental principle in international responses. However, disaster response funding still largely depends on voluntary contributions and irregular aid mechanisms, which can lead to delays and inefficiencies in providing timely assistance to affected regions. This raises an important question regarding whether existing legal frameworks governing international cooperation can support the development of clearer frameworks for financial burden-sharing in disaster response. The ILC (International Law Commission) Draft Articles on the Protection of Persons in the Event of Disasters 2016, represent the most advanced formulation of these principles. Although they stipulate the duty of cooperation between states and humanitarian organisations, they do not include a clear obligation to provide financial assistance or share financial burdens. However, the commentary on Articles 7 and 8 clarifies that the forms of cooperation are not exhaustive and may include financial support. This interpretive openness raises the question of whether the duty to cooperate could serve as a normative basis for developing practices related to financial responsibility-sharing. This study explores this question through doctrinal analysis of the Draft Articles and the travaux préparatoires, empirical examination of OCHA humanitarian financing data (2020–2025), comparative study of regional frameworks (the European Union, ASEAN, and the Arab League/OIC), and lessons from climate finance and disaster risk reduction financing as adjacent regimes offering complementary models. The study concludes that the duty to cooperate provides the conceptual space within which financial burden-sharing can be accommodated, the commentary explicitly mentions financial support, and human rights law provides normative foundations for expansive interpretation, but it does not provide the legal architecture to make it operational. Empirical evidence confirms this finding: the voluntary system covers barely one-third of assessed humanitarian needs and has proven unable to withstand the withdrawal of a single major donor. By analysing this distinction between conceptual accommodation and legal compulsion, and linking it to the ongoing process toward a legally binding instrument on the protection of persons in the event of disasters. this study contributes to discussions about the future of international disaster law and the structuring of financial cooperation provisions in the emerging universal disaster treaty.

Date of Award	2026
Original language	American English
Awarding Institution	HBKU College of Islamic Studies