International Humanitarian Law
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
www.MickMaurer.com
What are the origins of international humanitarian law?
Extract from ICRC publication "International humanitarian law": answers to your questions
To answer this question we have to ask other questions.
What law governed armed conflicts prior to the advent of contemporary humanitarian law?
First there were unwritten rules based on customs that regulated armed conflicts. Then
bilateral treaties (cartels) drafted in varying degrees of detail gradually came into force. The
belligerents sometimes ratified them after the fighting was over. There were also
regulations which States issued to their troops. The law then applicable in armed conflicts
was thus limited in both time and space in that it was valid for only one battle or specific
conflict. The rules also varied depending on the period, place, morals and civilization.
Who were the precursors of contemporary humanitarian law?
Two men played an essential role in its creation: Henry Dunant and Guillaume- Henri Dufour
. Dunant formulated the idea in A Memory of Solferino, published in 1862. On the strength
of his own experience of war, General Dufour lost no time in lending his active moral
support, notably by chairing the 1864 Diplomatic Conference.
Dunant:
"On certain special occasions, as, for example, when princes of the military art belonging to
different nationalities meet (...) would it not be desirable that they should take advantage
of this sort of congress to formulate some international principle, sanctioned by a
Convention and inviolate in character, which, once agreed upon and ratified, might
constitute the basis for societies for the relief of the wounded in the different European
countries?"
Dufour (to Dunant):
"We need to see, through examples as vivid as those you have reported, what the glory of
the battlefield produces in terms of torture and tears."
How did the idea become a reality?
The Swiss government, at the prompting of the five founding members of the ICRC,
convened the 1864 Diplomatic Conference, which was attended by 16 States who adopted
the Geneva Convention for the amelioration of the condition of the wounded in armies in
the field.
What innovations did that Convention bring about?
The 1864 Geneva Convention laid the foundations for contemporary humanitarian law. It
was chiefly characterized by:
* standing written rules of universal scope to protect the victims of conflicts;
* its multilateral nature, open to all States;
* the obligation to extend care without discrimination to wounded and sick military
personnel;
* respect for and marking of medical personnel, transports and equipment using an
emblem (red cross on a white background).
Humanitarian law prior to its codification
It would be a mistake to claim that the founding of the Red Cross in 1863, or the adoption
of the first Geneva Convention in 1864, marked the starting point of international
humanitarian law as we know it today. Just as there is no society of any sort that does not
have its own set of rules, so there has never been a war that did not have some vague or
precise rules covering the outbreak and end of hostilities, as well as how they are conducted.
Taken as a whole, the war practices of primitive peoples illustrate various types of
international rules of war known at the present time: rules distinguishing types of enemies;
rules determining the circumstances, formalities and authority for beginning and ending
war; rules describing limitations of persons, time, place and methods of its conduct; and
even rules outlawing war altogether. (Quincy Wright)
The first laws of war were proclaimed by major civilizations several millennia before our era:
I establish these laws to prevent the strong from oppressing the weak. (Hammurabi, King
of Babylon)
Many ancient texts such as the Mahabharata, the Bible and the Koran contain rules
advocating respect for the adversary. For instance, the Viqayet a text written towards the
end of the 13th century, at the height of the period in which the Arabs ruled Spain contains
a veritable code for warfare. The 1864 Convention, in the form of a multilateral treaty,
therefore codified and strengthened ancient, fragmentary and scattered laws and customs
of war protecting the wounded and those caring for them.
The Lieber Code
From the beginning of warfare to the advent of contemporary humanitarian law, over 500
cartels, codes of conduct, covenants and other texts designed to regulate hostilities have
been recorded. They include the Lieber Code, which came into force in April 1863 and is
important in that it marked the first attempt to codify the existing laws and customs of war.
Unlike the first Geneva Convention (adopted a year later), however, the Code did not have
the status of a treaty as it was intended solely for Union soldiers fighting in the American
Civil War.
Extract from ICRC publication "International humanitarian law": answers to your questions
To answer this question we have to ask other questions.
What law governed armed conflicts prior to the advent of contemporary humanitarian law?
First there were unwritten rules based on customs that regulated armed conflicts. Then
bilateral treaties (cartels) drafted in varying degrees of detail gradually came into force. The
belligerents sometimes ratified them after the fighting was over. There were also
regulations which States issued to their troops. The law then applicable in armed conflicts
was thus limited in both time and space in that it was valid for only one battle or specific
conflict. The rules also varied depending on the period, place, morals and civilization.
Who were the precursors of contemporary humanitarian law?
Two men played an essential role in its creation: Henry Dunant and Guillaume- Henri Dufour
. Dunant formulated the idea in A Memory of Solferino, published in 1862. On the strength
of his own experience of war, General Dufour lost no time in lending his active moral
support, notably by chairing the 1864 Diplomatic Conference.
Dunant:
"On certain special occasions, as, for example, when princes of the military art belonging to
different nationalities meet (...) would it not be desirable that they should take advantage
of this sort of congress to formulate some international principle, sanctioned by a
Convention and inviolate in character, which, once agreed upon and ratified, might
constitute the basis for societies for the relief of the wounded in the different European
countries?"
Dufour (to Dunant):
"We need to see, through examples as vivid as those you have reported, what the glory of
the battlefield produces in terms of torture and tears."
How did the idea become a reality?
The Swiss government, at the prompting of the five founding members of the ICRC,
convened the 1864 Diplomatic Conference, which was attended by 16 States who adopted
the Geneva Convention for the amelioration of the condition of the wounded in armies in
the field.
What innovations did that Convention bring about?
The 1864 Geneva Convention laid the foundations for contemporary humanitarian law. It
was chiefly characterized by:
* standing written rules of universal scope to protect the victims of conflicts;
* its multilateral nature, open to all States;
* the obligation to extend care without discrimination to wounded and sick military
personnel;
* respect for and marking of medical personnel, transports and equipment using an
emblem (red cross on a white background).
Humanitarian law prior to its codification
It would be a mistake to claim that the founding of the Red Cross in 1863, or the adoption
of the first Geneva Convention in 1864, marked the starting point of international
humanitarian law as we know it today. Just as there is no society of any sort that does not
have its own set of rules, so there has never been a war that did not have some vague or
precise rules covering the outbreak and end of hostilities, as well as how they are conducted.
Taken as a whole, the war practices of primitive peoples illustrate various types of
international rules of war known at the present time: rules distinguishing types of enemies;
rules determining the circumstances, formalities and authority for beginning and ending
war; rules describing limitations of persons, time, place and methods of its conduct; and
even rules outlawing war altogether. (Quincy Wright)
The first laws of war were proclaimed by major civilizations several millennia before our era:
I establish these laws to prevent the strong from oppressing the weak. (Hammurabi, King
of Babylon)
Many ancient texts such as the Mahabharata, the Bible and the Koran contain rules
advocating respect for the adversary. For instance, the Viqayet a text written towards the
end of the 13th century, at the height of the period in which the Arabs ruled Spain contains
a veritable code for warfare. The 1864 Convention, in the form of a multilateral treaty,
therefore codified and strengthened ancient, fragmentary and scattered laws and customs
of war protecting the wounded and those caring for them.
The Lieber Code
From the beginning of warfare to the advent of contemporary humanitarian law, over 500
cartels, codes of conduct, covenants and other texts designed to regulate hostilities have
been recorded. They include the Lieber Code, which came into force in April 1863 and is
important in that it marked the first attempt to codify the existing laws and customs of war.
Unlike the first Geneva Convention (adopted a year later), however, the Code did not have
the status of a treaty as it was intended solely for Union soldiers fighting in the American
Civil War.
International humanitarian law is the law of armed conflict or law of
war and their effects. The goal of international humanitarian law is to limit the effects of
war on people and property and to protect particularly vulnerable persons.
States have always been limited in the ways in which they conduct armed conflicts, from the
adherence to national laws and bilateral treaties, to the observance of time-honored customary
rules. However, throughout history these limitations on warfare varied greatly among conflicts and
were ultimately dependant on time, place, and the countries involved. Not until the 19th century
was there a successfully effort to create a set of internationally recognized laws governing the
conduct and treatment of persons in warfare.
In the mid-1850s, Henri Dunant - founder of the International Red Cross - helped champion the
first universally applicable codification of international humanitarian law: the Geneva Convention
of 1864. From these roots, international humanitarian law evolved over the course of a century
and a half. The Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1904 limited the means by which belligerent
states could conduct warfare.
Many of the international treaties on armed conflict were made in response to the many new
methods of warfare. World War I (1914-1918) witnessed the first large-scale use of poison, aerial
bombardments and capture of prisoners of war. World War II (1939-1945) saw civilians and
military personnel killed in equal numbers.
The Charter of the United Nations (1945) stipulates that the threat or use of force against other
states is unlawful, except in the case of self-desfense. Following World War II, the Geneva
Conventions of 1949, as well as its two Additional Protocols of 1977, further limited the means of
warfare and provided protections to non-combatants civilians, and prisoners of war. In the
aftermath of the atrocities of the Holocaust, the Genocide Convention of 1948 outlawed acts that
were carried out with the intention of destroying a particular group. In addition to these
conventions, international humanitarian law has been developed and refined through several
statutes and precedents laid down by international tribunals set up to try war criminals, as well as
advisory opinions the International Court of Justice.
Rights at Stake
Humanitarian law is the branch of public international law that comprises the rules, which, in times
of armed conflict, seek to (i) protect persons who are not or are no longer taking part in the
hostilities, (ii) restrict the methods and means of warfare employed, and (iii) resolve matters of
humanitarian concern resulting from war.
The term "humanitarian" is often used in everyday language in a very broad sense, and can be
confused with the term "human rights." Although both are concerned with the protection of the
individual, the two bodies of law apply to different circumstances and possess slightly different
objectives. The main distinction between the two bodies of law is that humanitarian law applies to
situations of armed conflict, while human rights protect the individual in times of both war and
peace. Humanitarian law aims to limit the suffering caused by war by regulating the way in which
military operations are conducted.
Fundamental principles of humanitarian law
International humanitarian law aims to limit the suffering caused by war by forcing parties
engaged in a conflict to:
# engage in limited methods and means of warfare;
# differentiate between civilian population and combatants, and work to spare civilian population
and property;
# abstain from harming or killing an adversary who surrenders or who can no longer take part in
the fighting;
# abstain from physically or mentally torturing or performing cruel punishments on adversaries.
Types of armed conflict
International armed conflicts are conflicts between states. The four 1949 Geneva Conventions
and Protocol I deal extensively with the humanitarian issues raised by such conflicts. The whole
body of law on prisoners of war, their status and their treatment is geared to wars between States
(Third Convention). The Fourth Convention states inter alia the rights and duties of an occupying
power, i.e. a state whose armed forces control part or all of the territory of another state. Protocol
I deals exclusively with international armed conflicts.
Under Protocol I of 8 June 1977, wars of national liberation must also be treated as conflicts of
an international character. A war of national liberation is a conflict in which a people is fighting
against a colonial power, in the exercise of its right of self- determination. Whereas the concept
of the right of self-determination is today well accepted by the international community, the
conclusions to be drawn from that right for the purposes of humanitarian law and, in particular, its
application to specific conflict situations are still somewhat controversial.
The majority of today's armed conflicts take place within the territory of a state: they are conflicts
of a non-international character. A common feature of many such internal armed conflicts is the
intervention of armed forces of another state, supporting the government or the insurgents.
The substantive rules of humanitarian law governing non-international armed conflicts are much
simpler than their counterparts governing international conflicts. They are derived from one main
source, namely article 3 common to the four Geneva Conventions of 1949, which obliges the
parties to an internal conflict to respect some basic principles of humanitarian behaviour already
mentioned above. Article 3 is binding not only on governments but also on insurgents, without,
however, conferring any special status upon them.
Additional Protocol II of 1977 supplements Article 3 common to the Geneva Conventions with a
number of more specific provisions. This is a welcome contribution to the strengthening of
humanitarian protection in situations of internal armed conflict. Protocol II has, however, a
narrower scope of application than common Article 3. It applies only if the insurgent party controls
part of the national territory.
International and Regional Instruments for Protection
International legal instruments take the form of a treaty (also called agreement, convention,
protocol) which may be binding on the contracting states. When negotiations are completed, the
text of a treaty is established as authentic and definitive and is "signed" to that effect by the
representatives of states. There are various means by which a state expresses its consent to be
bound by a treaty. The most common are ratification or accession. A new treaty is "ratified" by
those states who have negotiated the instrument. A state which has not participated in the
negotiations may, at a later stage, "accede" to the treaty. The treaty enters into force when a
pre-determined number of states have ratified or acceded to the treaty.
When a state ratifies or accedes to a treaty, that state may make reservations to one or more
articles of the treaty, unless reservations are prohibited by the treaty. Reservations may normally
be withdrawn at any time. In some countries, international treaties take precedence over national
law; in others, a specific law may be required to give an international treaty, although ratified or
acceded to, the force of a national law. Practically all states that have ratified or acceded to an
international treaty must issue decrees, amend existing laws or introduce new legislation in order
for the treaty to be fully effective on the national territory.
Many international treaties have a mechanism to monitor the implementation of the treaty.
Many provisions of the four Geneva Conventions, the two Protocols, and the Hague Conventions
of 1899 and 1907 are broadly accepted as restating customary international humanitarian law
applicable to all countries. Humanitarian law applies specifically to armed conflict situations, which
would ordinarily qualify as "public emergencies". (Weissbrodt)
Unlike human rights treaties, which often have a monitoring body to which individuals and states
can submit complaints, humanitarian law relies much more on informal procedures.
The Geneva Conventions and the Additional Protocols require the States party to adopt a number
of measures in order to assure compliance with these treaties. Some of these measures have to
be taken in peacetime, others in the course of an armed conflict. In this short overview, only
three such obligations will be mentioned, as examples:
- Instructions to and training of the armed forces: the complex set of obligations arising out of
the Conventions and the Protocols must be translated into a language which is clearly
understandable to those who have to comply with the rules, in particular the members of armed
forces, according to their ranks and their functions. Good manuals on humanitarian law play a
decisive part in effectively spreading knowledge of that law among military personnel. Rules which
are not understood by or remain unknown to those who have to respect them will not have much
effect.
- Domestic legislation on implementation: Many provisions of the Geneva Conventions and of
their Additional Protocols imperatively require each State Party to enact laws and issue other
regulations to guarantee full implementation of its international obligations. This holds
particularly true for the obligation to make grave breaches of international humanitarian law
(commonly called "war crimes") crimes under domestic law. In the same way, misuse of the red
cross or the red crescent distinctive emblem must be prosecuted under domestic law.
- Prosecution of persons who have committed grave breaches of international humanitarian law:
Such persons must be prosecuted by any State party under whose authority they find themselves.
That State may, however, extradite the suspect to another State Party which is willing to
prosecute him. Individuals accused of violating humanitarian law may also be tried by an
international criminal court. The United Nations Security Council has established two such courts:
the Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and for Rwanda. On 17 July 1998, a Diplomatic
Conference convened by the United Nations in Rome adopted the Statute of the International
Criminal Court.
Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (1949) (article
44, 70)
This treaty protects refugees during war. Refugees cannot be treated as "enemy aliens".
Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection
of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol 1) (1977) (article 73)
"Persons who, before the beginning of hostilities, were considered as stateless persons or
refugees ... shall be protected persons..., in all circumstances and without any adverse
distinction."
Advocacy, Educational and Training Materials
For advocates
Code of Conduct for Conflict Transformation Work (International Alert)
This short guide is designed to act as an ethical framework for transformation work and outlines
the necessary principles for reaching constructive resolution to conflict. Major topics discussed in
this guide include human rights in the context of conflict transformation work, impartiality, and
establishing peaceful partnerships. This guide is appropriate for use in the grassroots, academic,
research, religious or military sectors.
Victims' Guide to the International Criminal Court (Reporters sans frontièrs)
This guide explains the new International Criminal Court (ICC), what its jurisdiction is and how to
bring a case before it, how victims should address a complaint, as well as describing the
challenges and obstacles it faces. The guide includes chapters on: crimes that fall within the
jurisdiction of the Court (crimes of aggression, crime of genocide, crimes against humanity and
war crimes); crimes that particularly target women and children; the participation of victims in
trials; the protection and safety of victims and witnesses; and reparations.
For armed forces
Code of Conduct of the Armed and Security Forces of Mali (Ministry of Defense of the Republic of
Mali)
A practical manual for soldiers and military officers with main stipulations in international human
rights law, the Constitution of Mali and international humanitarian law relating to the role of the
military.
For humanitarian workers
IASC Training Modules on Internally Displaced Persons (Norwegian Refugee Council/Office of the
UN High Commissioner for Human Rights)
Comprehensive training package on internally displaced persons. This online training program
consists of several modules which, used alone or together, discuss the protection and assistance
of internally displaced persons guaranteed by international law. The following modules are
currently available on-line: A Definition of Internally Displaced Persons; Legal Origins and
International Obligations; Protection from Displacement; Return, Resettlement, and
Reintegration; and Recipients as Resources: Community Based Programming.
United Nations Blue Book (by Martin Knotzer, Roland Ulbert and Harald Wurth)
This handbook incorporates basic principles of criminal justice, human rights and humanitarian
law for UN civilian peacekeeping missions. It provides a compact overview of relevant
international standards and norms for field monitors in criminal justice.
For journalists
Human Rights Reporting for Journalists (Institute for War and Peace Reporting)
This module provides background and resources for journalists covering human rights issues and
matters concerning international humanitarian law. It also provides practical guidelines for
journalists investigating human rights abuses. The module is divided into four parts: history,
current frameworks, practical tips for journalists and online resources.
Practical Guide for Journalists (Reporters sans frontièrs)
This handbook is intended to provide practical guidelines for journalists conducting investigations
into violations of freedom of expression and freedom of the press. It includes chapters on the
basic documents on the principle of press freedom, reference documents on professional ethics,
guidelines for journalists who investigate human rights violations, procedures for protecting
journalists; guidelines for writing reports on investigations; and relations with International
Committee of the Red Cross and non-governmental organisations defending human rights and
press freedom.
Reporting Human Rights and Humanitarian Stories: a Journalist's Handbook (by Jo-An Velin)
This handbook aims to support journalists who report stories with human rights or humanitarian
components. It includes chapters on international human rights law and international
humanitarian law; topical chapters (disasters and war; migrants and refugees; minorities and
indigenous/tribal peoples; women and children); country profiles with basic statistical data and a
thesaurus.
For educators
Guidelines for Military Manuals and Instructions on the Protection of the Environment in Times of
Armed Conflict (ICRC)
These guidelines are a summary of the existing applicable international rules which must be
known and respected by members of the armed forces.
by www.hrea.org
war and their effects. The goal of international humanitarian law is to limit the effects of
war on people and property and to protect particularly vulnerable persons.
States have always been limited in the ways in which they conduct armed conflicts, from the
adherence to national laws and bilateral treaties, to the observance of time-honored customary
rules. However, throughout history these limitations on warfare varied greatly among conflicts and
were ultimately dependant on time, place, and the countries involved. Not until the 19th century
was there a successfully effort to create a set of internationally recognized laws governing the
conduct and treatment of persons in warfare.
In the mid-1850s, Henri Dunant - founder of the International Red Cross - helped champion the
first universally applicable codification of international humanitarian law: the Geneva Convention
of 1864. From these roots, international humanitarian law evolved over the course of a century
and a half. The Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1904 limited the means by which belligerent
states could conduct warfare.
Many of the international treaties on armed conflict were made in response to the many new
methods of warfare. World War I (1914-1918) witnessed the first large-scale use of poison, aerial
bombardments and capture of prisoners of war. World War II (1939-1945) saw civilians and
military personnel killed in equal numbers.
The Charter of the United Nations (1945) stipulates that the threat or use of force against other
states is unlawful, except in the case of self-desfense. Following World War II, the Geneva
Conventions of 1949, as well as its two Additional Protocols of 1977, further limited the means of
warfare and provided protections to non-combatants civilians, and prisoners of war. In the
aftermath of the atrocities of the Holocaust, the Genocide Convention of 1948 outlawed acts that
were carried out with the intention of destroying a particular group. In addition to these
conventions, international humanitarian law has been developed and refined through several
statutes and precedents laid down by international tribunals set up to try war criminals, as well as
advisory opinions the International Court of Justice.
Rights at Stake
Humanitarian law is the branch of public international law that comprises the rules, which, in times
of armed conflict, seek to (i) protect persons who are not or are no longer taking part in the
hostilities, (ii) restrict the methods and means of warfare employed, and (iii) resolve matters of
humanitarian concern resulting from war.
The term "humanitarian" is often used in everyday language in a very broad sense, and can be
confused with the term "human rights." Although both are concerned with the protection of the
individual, the two bodies of law apply to different circumstances and possess slightly different
objectives. The main distinction between the two bodies of law is that humanitarian law applies to
situations of armed conflict, while human rights protect the individual in times of both war and
peace. Humanitarian law aims to limit the suffering caused by war by regulating the way in which
military operations are conducted.
Fundamental principles of humanitarian law
International humanitarian law aims to limit the suffering caused by war by forcing parties
engaged in a conflict to:
# engage in limited methods and means of warfare;
# differentiate between civilian population and combatants, and work to spare civilian population
and property;
# abstain from harming or killing an adversary who surrenders or who can no longer take part in
the fighting;
# abstain from physically or mentally torturing or performing cruel punishments on adversaries.
Types of armed conflict
International armed conflicts are conflicts between states. The four 1949 Geneva Conventions
and Protocol I deal extensively with the humanitarian issues raised by such conflicts. The whole
body of law on prisoners of war, their status and their treatment is geared to wars between States
(Third Convention). The Fourth Convention states inter alia the rights and duties of an occupying
power, i.e. a state whose armed forces control part or all of the territory of another state. Protocol
I deals exclusively with international armed conflicts.
Under Protocol I of 8 June 1977, wars of national liberation must also be treated as conflicts of
an international character. A war of national liberation is a conflict in which a people is fighting
against a colonial power, in the exercise of its right of self- determination. Whereas the concept
of the right of self-determination is today well accepted by the international community, the
conclusions to be drawn from that right for the purposes of humanitarian law and, in particular, its
application to specific conflict situations are still somewhat controversial.
The majority of today's armed conflicts take place within the territory of a state: they are conflicts
of a non-international character. A common feature of many such internal armed conflicts is the
intervention of armed forces of another state, supporting the government or the insurgents.
The substantive rules of humanitarian law governing non-international armed conflicts are much
simpler than their counterparts governing international conflicts. They are derived from one main
source, namely article 3 common to the four Geneva Conventions of 1949, which obliges the
parties to an internal conflict to respect some basic principles of humanitarian behaviour already
mentioned above. Article 3 is binding not only on governments but also on insurgents, without,
however, conferring any special status upon them.
Additional Protocol II of 1977 supplements Article 3 common to the Geneva Conventions with a
number of more specific provisions. This is a welcome contribution to the strengthening of
humanitarian protection in situations of internal armed conflict. Protocol II has, however, a
narrower scope of application than common Article 3. It applies only if the insurgent party controls
part of the national territory.
International and Regional Instruments for Protection
International legal instruments take the form of a treaty (also called agreement, convention,
protocol) which may be binding on the contracting states. When negotiations are completed, the
text of a treaty is established as authentic and definitive and is "signed" to that effect by the
representatives of states. There are various means by which a state expresses its consent to be
bound by a treaty. The most common are ratification or accession. A new treaty is "ratified" by
those states who have negotiated the instrument. A state which has not participated in the
negotiations may, at a later stage, "accede" to the treaty. The treaty enters into force when a
pre-determined number of states have ratified or acceded to the treaty.
When a state ratifies or accedes to a treaty, that state may make reservations to one or more
articles of the treaty, unless reservations are prohibited by the treaty. Reservations may normally
be withdrawn at any time. In some countries, international treaties take precedence over national
law; in others, a specific law may be required to give an international treaty, although ratified or
acceded to, the force of a national law. Practically all states that have ratified or acceded to an
international treaty must issue decrees, amend existing laws or introduce new legislation in order
for the treaty to be fully effective on the national territory.
Many international treaties have a mechanism to monitor the implementation of the treaty.
Many provisions of the four Geneva Conventions, the two Protocols, and the Hague Conventions
of 1899 and 1907 are broadly accepted as restating customary international humanitarian law
applicable to all countries. Humanitarian law applies specifically to armed conflict situations, which
would ordinarily qualify as "public emergencies". (Weissbrodt)
Unlike human rights treaties, which often have a monitoring body to which individuals and states
can submit complaints, humanitarian law relies much more on informal procedures.
The Geneva Conventions and the Additional Protocols require the States party to adopt a number
of measures in order to assure compliance with these treaties. Some of these measures have to
be taken in peacetime, others in the course of an armed conflict. In this short overview, only
three such obligations will be mentioned, as examples:
- Instructions to and training of the armed forces: the complex set of obligations arising out of
the Conventions and the Protocols must be translated into a language which is clearly
understandable to those who have to comply with the rules, in particular the members of armed
forces, according to their ranks and their functions. Good manuals on humanitarian law play a
decisive part in effectively spreading knowledge of that law among military personnel. Rules which
are not understood by or remain unknown to those who have to respect them will not have much
effect.
- Domestic legislation on implementation: Many provisions of the Geneva Conventions and of
their Additional Protocols imperatively require each State Party to enact laws and issue other
regulations to guarantee full implementation of its international obligations. This holds
particularly true for the obligation to make grave breaches of international humanitarian law
(commonly called "war crimes") crimes under domestic law. In the same way, misuse of the red
cross or the red crescent distinctive emblem must be prosecuted under domestic law.
- Prosecution of persons who have committed grave breaches of international humanitarian law:
Such persons must be prosecuted by any State party under whose authority they find themselves.
That State may, however, extradite the suspect to another State Party which is willing to
prosecute him. Individuals accused of violating humanitarian law may also be tried by an
international criminal court. The United Nations Security Council has established two such courts:
the Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and for Rwanda. On 17 July 1998, a Diplomatic
Conference convened by the United Nations in Rome adopted the Statute of the International
Criminal Court.
Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (1949) (article
44, 70)
This treaty protects refugees during war. Refugees cannot be treated as "enemy aliens".
Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection
of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol 1) (1977) (article 73)
"Persons who, before the beginning of hostilities, were considered as stateless persons or
refugees ... shall be protected persons..., in all circumstances and without any adverse
distinction."
Advocacy, Educational and Training Materials
For advocates
Code of Conduct for Conflict Transformation Work (International Alert)
This short guide is designed to act as an ethical framework for transformation work and outlines
the necessary principles for reaching constructive resolution to conflict. Major topics discussed in
this guide include human rights in the context of conflict transformation work, impartiality, and
establishing peaceful partnerships. This guide is appropriate for use in the grassroots, academic,
research, religious or military sectors.
Victims' Guide to the International Criminal Court (Reporters sans frontièrs)
This guide explains the new International Criminal Court (ICC), what its jurisdiction is and how to
bring a case before it, how victims should address a complaint, as well as describing the
challenges and obstacles it faces. The guide includes chapters on: crimes that fall within the
jurisdiction of the Court (crimes of aggression, crime of genocide, crimes against humanity and
war crimes); crimes that particularly target women and children; the participation of victims in
trials; the protection and safety of victims and witnesses; and reparations.
For armed forces
Code of Conduct of the Armed and Security Forces of Mali (Ministry of Defense of the Republic of
Mali)
A practical manual for soldiers and military officers with main stipulations in international human
rights law, the Constitution of Mali and international humanitarian law relating to the role of the
military.
For humanitarian workers
IASC Training Modules on Internally Displaced Persons (Norwegian Refugee Council/Office of the
UN High Commissioner for Human Rights)
Comprehensive training package on internally displaced persons. This online training program
consists of several modules which, used alone or together, discuss the protection and assistance
of internally displaced persons guaranteed by international law. The following modules are
currently available on-line: A Definition of Internally Displaced Persons; Legal Origins and
International Obligations; Protection from Displacement; Return, Resettlement, and
Reintegration; and Recipients as Resources: Community Based Programming.
United Nations Blue Book (by Martin Knotzer, Roland Ulbert and Harald Wurth)
This handbook incorporates basic principles of criminal justice, human rights and humanitarian
law for UN civilian peacekeeping missions. It provides a compact overview of relevant
international standards and norms for field monitors in criminal justice.
For journalists
Human Rights Reporting for Journalists (Institute for War and Peace Reporting)
This module provides background and resources for journalists covering human rights issues and
matters concerning international humanitarian law. It also provides practical guidelines for
journalists investigating human rights abuses. The module is divided into four parts: history,
current frameworks, practical tips for journalists and online resources.
Practical Guide for Journalists (Reporters sans frontièrs)
This handbook is intended to provide practical guidelines for journalists conducting investigations
into violations of freedom of expression and freedom of the press. It includes chapters on the
basic documents on the principle of press freedom, reference documents on professional ethics,
guidelines for journalists who investigate human rights violations, procedures for protecting
journalists; guidelines for writing reports on investigations; and relations with International
Committee of the Red Cross and non-governmental organisations defending human rights and
press freedom.
Reporting Human Rights and Humanitarian Stories: a Journalist's Handbook (by Jo-An Velin)
This handbook aims to support journalists who report stories with human rights or humanitarian
components. It includes chapters on international human rights law and international
humanitarian law; topical chapters (disasters and war; migrants and refugees; minorities and
indigenous/tribal peoples; women and children); country profiles with basic statistical data and a
thesaurus.
For educators
Guidelines for Military Manuals and Instructions on the Protection of the Environment in Times of
Armed Conflict (ICRC)
These guidelines are a summary of the existing applicable international rules which must be
known and respected by members of the armed forces.
by www.hrea.org
The Geneva Conventions:
Protecting People in Times of War
By Yves Sandoz
Director of International Law and Communication
International Committee of the Red Cross
Disproportion between the single battle that gave rise to humanitarian law and the all-out
warfare that has since engulfed vast territories, affecting virtually entire populations, and
between nineteenth-century rifles and modern nuclear weapons, as well as the major changes
that have swept the planet in the past fifty years -- decolonization, the end of the cold war,
the unbridled demographic growth and severe environmental degradation -- all raise two
important questions: Do the norms contained in the relevant Conventions still measure up?
And does humanitarian law remain relevant in today's world order?
This law, as we know it today, first came into being with the signing of the 1864 Geneva
Convention. As for the modern Geneva Conventions, which now constitute the backbone of
that law, they were adopted 50 years ago in August. The primary aim of humanitarian law has
always been to prohibit any form of violence that is not justified by military imperatives, and
this certainly remains essential if potential victims -- the wounded, prisoners, civilians -- are to
be protected from wanton attack.
At its inception, humanitarian law had only one purpose: to ensure that wounded and sick
soldiers were treated with humanity. Although the idea did not take on tangible form until
Henry Dunant witnessed with horror the wounded men lying abandoned on the ground after
the bloody battle of Solferino, its seeds had been sown much earlier. Rousseau, for one,
affirmed in The Social Contract that "war gives no right, which is not necessary to its ends",
and that soldiers who surrender or lay down their weapons "cease to be enemies or
instruments of the enemy and become ordinary human beings again".
Despite the proliferation of armed conflicts and the unprecedented technological advances of
recent years, humanitarian law has continued to develop, although more in relation to its
foundations inspired by Rousseau than in relation to its initial and very specific objective.
In view of the rapid development of modern weaponry, however, States have felt the need to
impose further restrictions, in particular the prohibition against bombing, starving or terrorizing
the civilian population as a means of forcing the enemy to capitulate, and the principle of
proportionality between the anticipated military gains of an attack and the risk of collateral
damage to civilians and their property. Protection of the natural environment has also
gradually become a part of the philosophy underpinning humanitarian law.
Can it thus be concluded that the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols are still
perfectly capable of fulfilling their role? On the whole and given the purpose they are intended
to serve, these instruments undoubtedly remain equal to their task, and the few adjustments
they may require in light of recent experience would probably not justify the cost and
uncertainty of a thorough review of their provisions. There are nevertheless two issues which
deserve particular attention.
The first has to do with the rules governing the conduct of hostilities, which were reaffirmed
and developed in Additional Protocol I of 1977. Recent world events have shown that the exact
scope of these rules and their underlying principles require further thought. What exactly
constitutes a military objective? What can be considered an acceptable degree of collateral
damage? What limits should be imposed on warfare in order to protect the environment?
The second issue to be addressed is the proliferation of violations of humanitarian law, which
must be countered with more efficient means of ensuring compliance with its rules. If this is to
happen, a better understanding must be gained of the underlying causes of these violations.
But, in addition to those who are simply ignorant, there are, sadly, many who deliberately flout
it. A survey recently carried out by the International Committee of the Red Cross among war
victims the world over has shown that humanitarian rules are very often so violated. There are
two main reasons: either the rules stand in the way of the warring parties' military objectives,
or those who are fighting have become alienated from society and are acting outside of its
traditional norms. In the face of violations of humanitarian norms, such as forced
displacement or the implantation by a foreign power of its own population in an occupied
territory, aid agencies are powerless. As a result, humanitarian law ceases to be an inviolable
and sacrosanct haven, and these agencies can do little more than seek to protect the
immediate interests of victims by striving to discourage murder, rape and other ill-treatment.
In making such compromises, are we compromising our principles? I think not. Concessions in
a given situation are not tantamount to an overall lowering of standards. But "politicization" or
"adulteration" of humanitarian law can leave aid agencies no choice but to withdraw from an
area. In genocidal warfare, for example, they are simply unable to operate, as in situations of
general chaos, where might makes right. When humanitarian convoys are openly looted and
aid workers murdered in cold blood, agencies are compelled to evacuate their staff.
Persuasion, the only real "weapon" they have, is no longer enough, and the international
community must consider other actions, such as penal measures, collective pressure or armed
intervention. We are probably witnessing a fundamental shift in the relationship between
humanitarian law and the existing world order. At its inception, that law did not call into
question the legitimacy of war. Since then, the restrictions set forth in the Covenant of the
League of Nations and the prohibition laid down in the UN Charter against the waging of
international wars of aggression have reduced the role of humanitarian law to a lifeline in the
event of violations of international law in general.
What Can the United Nations Do to Reinforce the Geneva Conventions?
Over the past few years, the drive to do away with impunity has received growing public
support. The establishment by the United Nations Security Council of ad hoc international
criminal tribunals and the adoption of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court
(ICC) are further signs that the current trend is towards a more systematic prosecution of
major war criminals. This should at least give pause to anyone who may be tempted to flout
humanitarian law. But collective pressure has yet to find clear and effective expression. While
Article 1 common to the four Geneva Conventions places an obligation on all States parties to
ensure respect for these treaties, both individual and joint actions pose delicate problems.
Beyond efforts at persuasion derived from friendly relations, commercial ties, geographic
proximity or other special connections that States can undertake unilaterally, little can be
expected from the international community outside the framework of the United Nations or
regional organizations. But pressure can be exerted by the United Nations, in conformity with
its Charter and Protocol I additional to the Geneva Conventions, which expressly provides, in
the event of grave violations of the treaties and their Protocol, for action to be taken by the
High Contracting Parties, "in cooperation with the United Nations and in conformity with the
United Nations Charter". But ethical and legal problems arise, in particular when severe
suffering is inflicted on a civilian population as the result of sanctions such as an embargo.
In extreme cases, recourse to force may be taken. As stipulated in Protocol I of 1977,
however, any such recourse must be in conformity with the UN Charter. The obligation to
ensure respect for international humanitarian law cannot therefore be considered as sufficient
grounds for unilaterally deciding on military intervention as a means of putting an end to
grave violations of the law. This rule governing international conflicts no doubt also applies to
internal conflicts in which the United Nations has intervened on the basis of its interpretation of
grave and massive violations of human rights or humanitarian law as a threat to international
peace.
UNICEF/J. Isaac
Yet, in deciding whether or not to take military action, the Security Council should consider all
the parameters of a given situation and not just the issue of respect for humanitarian law. The
United Nations is not simply an aid agency set up to meet essential needs in dire situations; it
is a political organization responsible for settling disputes by addressing their causes. While it
can rely on relatively well-established rules in the case of international conflicts, this is
unfortunately not the case when it comes to internal conflicts.
Hence the confusion and disarray that follow in the wake of interventions, such as in Somalia,
once the emergency phase is over. Humanitarian law is built around the notion of international
conflicts, whereas it is largely internal conflicts which have proliferated since the end of the
Second World War. It is true that Article 3 common to the Geneva Conventions, which first
introduced humanitarian norms applicable to internal conflicts, was considered as a major step
forward in 1949. Yet, these norms are very general and, despite the introduction of more
detailed rules with Additional Protocol II of 1977, the refocusing of humanitarian law on
internal conflicts continues to meet with broad resistance. The most reluctant States are those
which, having thrown off the colonial yoke, still live in fear that an international settlement of
internal problems may serve as a pretext to call into question the independence they fought
so hard to gain.
Fortunately, however, the trend towards placing internal and international conflicts on an equal
footing has been strengthened in recent years by developments in the areas of penal
repression and restrictions on the use of certain weapons. To continue distinguishing between
internal and international conflicts in these areas is both unethical and illogical. How can
anyone argue that it is permissible to attack one's own countrymen with weapons which are
prohibited in international conflicts, and that those responsible for looting or rape should be
considered as war criminals only if their actions take place in international conflicts but not
internal? The review process of the 1980 Convention on Conventional Weapons and the
adoption of the ICC Rome Statute have provided two opportunities to begin eliminating such
artificial distinctions.
A grey area nevertheless remains, for although international conflicts have been outlawed by
the UN Charter, which provides for the peaceful settlement of international disputes, this is not
so for internal armed conflicts. Humanitarian law, therefore, still has a central role to play in
such conflicts in which the United Nations can take action to prevent serious violations but not
to resolve the underlying problems. Change in this area is slow, a fact to which priority
attention should be given on the eve of the twenty-first century. The prodigious means of
warfare available today and the vast consequences of certain internal conflicts render obsolete
the argument that States should stay out of each other's affairs. In fact, more often than not,
internal conflicts have a major regional if not a worldwide impact. Those fleeing the fray cross
borders into other countries, and the environmental effects of increasingly murderous weapons
are ever more widespread. We are all concerned by the burden of refugees and the deep
ecological scars inflicted on our planet, whose vulnerability has become more and more
evident with each passing day. It therefore appears vital to develop clearer international rules
for the peaceful settlement of internal conflicts and to propose practical solutions for the
problems underpinning such conflicts, in particular those linked to demands for territorial
autonomy, the protection of cultural identity and the legitimacy of existing governments. It
also seems essential to adopt more specific rules pertaining to these problems and
international procedures for resolving disagreement over them, if we are to avoid further
conflicts in a world that is already saturated with violence.
At the same time, something must be done to address the legitimate demands of the growing
numbers of people who have fallen through the cracks of society-those who have no access to
education, work or any form of support whatsoever. Peace cannot be built outside a just
society, and exclusion leads to the rejection of all social norms, to marginalization and the
growth of a parallel society that feeds on criminal activities, drugs and weapons trafficking,
theft and corruption. It's not hard to see how the ensuing instability can spawn violence and
war.
Lastly, if we are to have any hope of overcoming the major environmental problems of our
day, people from all over the world must work together in a world free from armed conflict.
Efforts to clarify, adapt and develop the rules of humanitarian law and to spread knowledge of
and improve compliance with them should be pursued without let-up, for as long as there are
wars, this law will remain indispensable. But it is no longer enough. The international
community must now demonstrate greater resolve in tackling the problems that trigger
internal conflicts and in adopting specific rules and procedures for resolving them peacefully.
Indeed, the number and scale of such conflicts present a major threat to the world today. In
the past, the idea of eradicating war once and for all was generally considered to be the
dream of a handful of utopian humanists. As we stand poised to enter the twenty-first century,
however, it has become a question of survival for the entire planet.
Our way of thinking must therefore evolve considerably. If international humanitarian law still
has a key role to play in this respect, it is because disregard for the principles enshrined in the
Geneva Conventions -- compassion for those who suffer, respect for human dignity, and
solidarity -- "sets the stage for war" and "respecting them during wartime facilitates the return
to peace". This was the opinion expressed by 14 eminent figures from around the world,
including the United Nations Secretary-General, in a special appeal launched on 12 August
1999 to mark the fiftieth anniversary of the Geneva Conventions.
The time has come to pay heed.
Protecting People in Times of War
By Yves Sandoz
Director of International Law and Communication
International Committee of the Red Cross
Disproportion between the single battle that gave rise to humanitarian law and the all-out
warfare that has since engulfed vast territories, affecting virtually entire populations, and
between nineteenth-century rifles and modern nuclear weapons, as well as the major changes
that have swept the planet in the past fifty years -- decolonization, the end of the cold war,
the unbridled demographic growth and severe environmental degradation -- all raise two
important questions: Do the norms contained in the relevant Conventions still measure up?
And does humanitarian law remain relevant in today's world order?
This law, as we know it today, first came into being with the signing of the 1864 Geneva
Convention. As for the modern Geneva Conventions, which now constitute the backbone of
that law, they were adopted 50 years ago in August. The primary aim of humanitarian law has
always been to prohibit any form of violence that is not justified by military imperatives, and
this certainly remains essential if potential victims -- the wounded, prisoners, civilians -- are to
be protected from wanton attack.
At its inception, humanitarian law had only one purpose: to ensure that wounded and sick
soldiers were treated with humanity. Although the idea did not take on tangible form until
Henry Dunant witnessed with horror the wounded men lying abandoned on the ground after
the bloody battle of Solferino, its seeds had been sown much earlier. Rousseau, for one,
affirmed in The Social Contract that "war gives no right, which is not necessary to its ends",
and that soldiers who surrender or lay down their weapons "cease to be enemies or
instruments of the enemy and become ordinary human beings again".
Despite the proliferation of armed conflicts and the unprecedented technological advances of
recent years, humanitarian law has continued to develop, although more in relation to its
foundations inspired by Rousseau than in relation to its initial and very specific objective.
In view of the rapid development of modern weaponry, however, States have felt the need to
impose further restrictions, in particular the prohibition against bombing, starving or terrorizing
the civilian population as a means of forcing the enemy to capitulate, and the principle of
proportionality between the anticipated military gains of an attack and the risk of collateral
damage to civilians and their property. Protection of the natural environment has also
gradually become a part of the philosophy underpinning humanitarian law.
Can it thus be concluded that the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols are still
perfectly capable of fulfilling their role? On the whole and given the purpose they are intended
to serve, these instruments undoubtedly remain equal to their task, and the few adjustments
they may require in light of recent experience would probably not justify the cost and
uncertainty of a thorough review of their provisions. There are nevertheless two issues which
deserve particular attention.
The first has to do with the rules governing the conduct of hostilities, which were reaffirmed
and developed in Additional Protocol I of 1977. Recent world events have shown that the exact
scope of these rules and their underlying principles require further thought. What exactly
constitutes a military objective? What can be considered an acceptable degree of collateral
damage? What limits should be imposed on warfare in order to protect the environment?
The second issue to be addressed is the proliferation of violations of humanitarian law, which
must be countered with more efficient means of ensuring compliance with its rules. If this is to
happen, a better understanding must be gained of the underlying causes of these violations.
But, in addition to those who are simply ignorant, there are, sadly, many who deliberately flout
it. A survey recently carried out by the International Committee of the Red Cross among war
victims the world over has shown that humanitarian rules are very often so violated. There are
two main reasons: either the rules stand in the way of the warring parties' military objectives,
or those who are fighting have become alienated from society and are acting outside of its
traditional norms. In the face of violations of humanitarian norms, such as forced
displacement or the implantation by a foreign power of its own population in an occupied
territory, aid agencies are powerless. As a result, humanitarian law ceases to be an inviolable
and sacrosanct haven, and these agencies can do little more than seek to protect the
immediate interests of victims by striving to discourage murder, rape and other ill-treatment.
In making such compromises, are we compromising our principles? I think not. Concessions in
a given situation are not tantamount to an overall lowering of standards. But "politicization" or
"adulteration" of humanitarian law can leave aid agencies no choice but to withdraw from an
area. In genocidal warfare, for example, they are simply unable to operate, as in situations of
general chaos, where might makes right. When humanitarian convoys are openly looted and
aid workers murdered in cold blood, agencies are compelled to evacuate their staff.
Persuasion, the only real "weapon" they have, is no longer enough, and the international
community must consider other actions, such as penal measures, collective pressure or armed
intervention. We are probably witnessing a fundamental shift in the relationship between
humanitarian law and the existing world order. At its inception, that law did not call into
question the legitimacy of war. Since then, the restrictions set forth in the Covenant of the
League of Nations and the prohibition laid down in the UN Charter against the waging of
international wars of aggression have reduced the role of humanitarian law to a lifeline in the
event of violations of international law in general.
What Can the United Nations Do to Reinforce the Geneva Conventions?
Over the past few years, the drive to do away with impunity has received growing public
support. The establishment by the United Nations Security Council of ad hoc international
criminal tribunals and the adoption of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court
(ICC) are further signs that the current trend is towards a more systematic prosecution of
major war criminals. This should at least give pause to anyone who may be tempted to flout
humanitarian law. But collective pressure has yet to find clear and effective expression. While
Article 1 common to the four Geneva Conventions places an obligation on all States parties to
ensure respect for these treaties, both individual and joint actions pose delicate problems.
Beyond efforts at persuasion derived from friendly relations, commercial ties, geographic
proximity or other special connections that States can undertake unilaterally, little can be
expected from the international community outside the framework of the United Nations or
regional organizations. But pressure can be exerted by the United Nations, in conformity with
its Charter and Protocol I additional to the Geneva Conventions, which expressly provides, in
the event of grave violations of the treaties and their Protocol, for action to be taken by the
High Contracting Parties, "in cooperation with the United Nations and in conformity with the
United Nations Charter". But ethical and legal problems arise, in particular when severe
suffering is inflicted on a civilian population as the result of sanctions such as an embargo.
In extreme cases, recourse to force may be taken. As stipulated in Protocol I of 1977,
however, any such recourse must be in conformity with the UN Charter. The obligation to
ensure respect for international humanitarian law cannot therefore be considered as sufficient
grounds for unilaterally deciding on military intervention as a means of putting an end to
grave violations of the law. This rule governing international conflicts no doubt also applies to
internal conflicts in which the United Nations has intervened on the basis of its interpretation of
grave and massive violations of human rights or humanitarian law as a threat to international
peace.
UNICEF/J. Isaac
Yet, in deciding whether or not to take military action, the Security Council should consider all
the parameters of a given situation and not just the issue of respect for humanitarian law. The
United Nations is not simply an aid agency set up to meet essential needs in dire situations; it
is a political organization responsible for settling disputes by addressing their causes. While it
can rely on relatively well-established rules in the case of international conflicts, this is
unfortunately not the case when it comes to internal conflicts.
Hence the confusion and disarray that follow in the wake of interventions, such as in Somalia,
once the emergency phase is over. Humanitarian law is built around the notion of international
conflicts, whereas it is largely internal conflicts which have proliferated since the end of the
Second World War. It is true that Article 3 common to the Geneva Conventions, which first
introduced humanitarian norms applicable to internal conflicts, was considered as a major step
forward in 1949. Yet, these norms are very general and, despite the introduction of more
detailed rules with Additional Protocol II of 1977, the refocusing of humanitarian law on
internal conflicts continues to meet with broad resistance. The most reluctant States are those
which, having thrown off the colonial yoke, still live in fear that an international settlement of
internal problems may serve as a pretext to call into question the independence they fought
so hard to gain.
Fortunately, however, the trend towards placing internal and international conflicts on an equal
footing has been strengthened in recent years by developments in the areas of penal
repression and restrictions on the use of certain weapons. To continue distinguishing between
internal and international conflicts in these areas is both unethical and illogical. How can
anyone argue that it is permissible to attack one's own countrymen with weapons which are
prohibited in international conflicts, and that those responsible for looting or rape should be
considered as war criminals only if their actions take place in international conflicts but not
internal? The review process of the 1980 Convention on Conventional Weapons and the
adoption of the ICC Rome Statute have provided two opportunities to begin eliminating such
artificial distinctions.
A grey area nevertheless remains, for although international conflicts have been outlawed by
the UN Charter, which provides for the peaceful settlement of international disputes, this is not
so for internal armed conflicts. Humanitarian law, therefore, still has a central role to play in
such conflicts in which the United Nations can take action to prevent serious violations but not
to resolve the underlying problems. Change in this area is slow, a fact to which priority
attention should be given on the eve of the twenty-first century. The prodigious means of
warfare available today and the vast consequences of certain internal conflicts render obsolete
the argument that States should stay out of each other's affairs. In fact, more often than not,
internal conflicts have a major regional if not a worldwide impact. Those fleeing the fray cross
borders into other countries, and the environmental effects of increasingly murderous weapons
are ever more widespread. We are all concerned by the burden of refugees and the deep
ecological scars inflicted on our planet, whose vulnerability has become more and more
evident with each passing day. It therefore appears vital to develop clearer international rules
for the peaceful settlement of internal conflicts and to propose practical solutions for the
problems underpinning such conflicts, in particular those linked to demands for territorial
autonomy, the protection of cultural identity and the legitimacy of existing governments. It
also seems essential to adopt more specific rules pertaining to these problems and
international procedures for resolving disagreement over them, if we are to avoid further
conflicts in a world that is already saturated with violence.
At the same time, something must be done to address the legitimate demands of the growing
numbers of people who have fallen through the cracks of society-those who have no access to
education, work or any form of support whatsoever. Peace cannot be built outside a just
society, and exclusion leads to the rejection of all social norms, to marginalization and the
growth of a parallel society that feeds on criminal activities, drugs and weapons trafficking,
theft and corruption. It's not hard to see how the ensuing instability can spawn violence and
war.
Lastly, if we are to have any hope of overcoming the major environmental problems of our
day, people from all over the world must work together in a world free from armed conflict.
Efforts to clarify, adapt and develop the rules of humanitarian law and to spread knowledge of
and improve compliance with them should be pursued without let-up, for as long as there are
wars, this law will remain indispensable. But it is no longer enough. The international
community must now demonstrate greater resolve in tackling the problems that trigger
internal conflicts and in adopting specific rules and procedures for resolving them peacefully.
Indeed, the number and scale of such conflicts present a major threat to the world today. In
the past, the idea of eradicating war once and for all was generally considered to be the
dream of a handful of utopian humanists. As we stand poised to enter the twenty-first century,
however, it has become a question of survival for the entire planet.
Our way of thinking must therefore evolve considerably. If international humanitarian law still
has a key role to play in this respect, it is because disregard for the principles enshrined in the
Geneva Conventions -- compassion for those who suffer, respect for human dignity, and
solidarity -- "sets the stage for war" and "respecting them during wartime facilitates the return
to peace". This was the opinion expressed by 14 eminent figures from around the world,
including the United Nations Secretary-General, in a special appeal launched on 12 August
1999 to mark the fiftieth anniversary of the Geneva Conventions.
The time has come to pay heed.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |