may just be too fine of a distinction for counterterrorism laws to capture, particularly at a time when national security concerns are running so high.”87 Particular concern has been expressed about the need to exclude humanitarian workers, including medical personnel, treating “fighters” who have been wounded on the battlefield. The role and protection of such personnel has been “a cornerstone of IHL since […] its codification over 150 years ago”.88 The provision of forms of humanitarian assistance such as medical aid is a protected activity under IHL that must not be jeopardized. Greater legal and regulatory scrutiny concerning FTF threats may also affect the willingness of donors to provide funds and of private actors, such as banks and other financial institutions, to provide financial services and facilitate financial transactions in situations of armed conflict. For example, they may be reluctant to provide funds or financial services to humanitarian projects engaging with armed groups or entities that may ultimately be deemed by certain states as “terrorist”, or to organizations merely because they operate in particular territories (such as parts of Iraq and Syria) that are, or were, controlled by groups engaged in FTF recruitment. While not specific to FTF-related laws and policies, greater legal and regulatory scrutiny under provisions to counter-terrorism financing may also have a differential impact on humanitarian assistance by women’s rights organizations and on gender equality, due to the profile and operating environments of those organizations.89 A limited number of states have sought to carve out exceptions for humanitarian operations. The exceptions for conduct permissible under IHL, noted above, are relevant and may protect some legitimate activity recognized in IHL.90 Untargeted measures to counter FTFs risk undermining humanitarian assistance, as well as public appreciation 87  Ibid. 88  S. Ojeda, “Out of balance: Global counter-terrorism & the laws of war”, Humanitarian Law & Policy blog, 15 September 2017, <blogs.icrc.org/law-and-policy/2017/09/15/out-of-balance-global-counter-terrorism-the-laws-of-war/>. 89  “Tightening the Purse Strings: What Countering Terrorism Financing Costs Gender Equality and Security”, Duke Law International Human Rights Clinic and Women Peacemakers Program, March 2017, <law.duke.edu/ sites/default/files/humanrights/tighteningpursestrings.pdf>, (hereafter, “Tightening the Purse Strings: What Countering Terrorism Financing Costs Gender Equality and Security”, Duke Law International Human Rights Clinic and Women Peacemakers Program). Based on a survey of women’s organizations around the globe, the report found, for example, that there was a growing donor preference for larger, well-known international organizations with greater absorption capacity and compliance resources and towards making fewer grants to the detriment of women’s rights organization that are often smaller and operating at the grassroots level. Furthermore, concern regarding the potential diversions of funds to terrorism appeared to have reduced funding for women’s peacebuilding and humanitarian assistance in areas where violent groups are active or exercise control, see p. 9. 90  Other good practices from outside of the OSCE area include Australian law, which exempts those who only provide “aid of a humanitarian nature” from the offence of association with terrorist organizations, while New Zealand explicitly allows for the provision of food, clothing and medicine, even to designated terrorist entities as far as is necessary to satisfy essential needs. See: Australian Criminal Code, division 102.8(4)(c); and New Zealand Terrorism Suppression Act 2002, sections 9(1) and (2). Although the United States material support statute once also contained a “humanitarian assistance” exception, this has been abolished and US courts have found any form of material assistance to terrorist organizations, even provision of training to promote respect for IHL that plainly serves ends of counter-terrorism, to constitute “material support”. See: Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, (2010), United States Supreme Court, 561 U.S. 1, 130 S.Ct. 2705, (hereafter, Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project). Guidelines for Addressing the Threats and Challenges of “Foreign Terrorist Fighters” 27