In Eastern Europe, 1956 was above all the year that marked the beginning of destalinization, following the submission to the 20th Congress of the Soviet Communist Party (17–24 February) of Nikita Khrushchev's famous report on Stalin's crimes.

Khrushchev's revelations were soon to have repercussions, notably in Poland where thousands of political prisoners were released as early as April of the same year. Among them was Wladyslaw Gomulka, former Secretary-General of the Polish Communist Party from 1943 to 1948, who had been dismissed in 1948 for “right-wing and nationalist deviation” and jailed in 1951.

In July 1621 several regiments of the Swedish army were assembled at Årsta Meadow south of Stockholm awaiting transport by ship to the Baltic, where they were to fight the Russian forces which had invaded the provinces in early summer. It was on this occasion that they heard for the first time the new Articles of War read to them by chancellor Axel Oxenstierna. The text had been drafted by King Gustavus himself and revised by Oxenstierna the preceding spring, and the final decree had been signed by the King at camp on 15 July.

Promoting the implementation, dissemination and observance of international humanitarian law has assumed a more crucial place than ever among measures aimed at preventing grave threats to the life and dignity of the individual in armed conflicts. Regional governmental organizations have a vital role to play in this respect. Indeed, emergency humanitarian action and other humanitarian issues, such as the problem of displaced people, anti-personnel landmines and the security of humanitarian workers, figure on their agenda and are often discussed during their meetings.

The United Nations Conference on Human Settlements (HABITAT II) was held in Istanbul from 3 to 14 June 1996. On behalf of the ICRC, Mr Jacques Forster, member of the Committee, gave an address entitled “Survival of the civilian population in wartime”. The Review is publishing part of his statement.

The emblem of the red cross or red crescent occupies a very important place in international humanitarian law. In time of war, the emblem is the visible sign of the protection conferred by the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their Additional Protocols of 1977 on medical personnel and medical units and transports.

Having regard to:

— the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and their Additional Protocols of 8 June 1977, including Annex I to Additional Protocol I as regards the rules on identification of medical units and transports;

— the Regulations on the Use of the Emblem of the Red Cross or the Red Crescent by the National Societies, as adopted by the 20th International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent, and subsequent amendments;

— the law (decree, or other instrument) of … (date) recognizing the Red Cross (Red Crescent) of …., the following are protected by the present law:

— the emblem of the red cross or red crescent on a white ground;

— the designation “Red Cross” or “Red Crescent”;

— the distinctive signals for identifying medical units and transports.

Legal bases

By ratifying the Geneva Conventions of 1949, Switzerland undertook to supplement its national legislation accordingly. Its subsequent revision of the Swiss military penal code in 1950, though certainly prompt, was half-hearted. It was not until 1 March 1968, when a broader revision came into force, that national legislation was fully adapted to meet the requirements laid down in those Conventions:

— the scope of application of Swiss criminal law was extended to cover all armed conflicts within the meaning of international conventions;

— civilians who commit offences against international law in the event of armed conflict were explicitly made liable to military jurisdiction; it is thereby clearly established that Switzerland, or more specifically the military justice authorities, must prosecute violations of international humanitarian law even if the offence is committed outside Switzerland by nationals (civilians or members of the armed forces) of another country.

On 8 July 1996, the International Court of Justice gave its advisory opinion in response to two enquiries as to the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons. Whilst the Court did not examine in detail the request put forward by the World Health Organization, it did give very close attention to the question presented by the General Assembly:

“Is the threat or use of nuclear weapons in any circumstance permitted under international law?”

The Republic of Palau acceded on 25 June 1996, without making any declaration or reservations, to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and their Additional Protocols relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I) and Non-International Armed Conflicts (Protocol II), adopted in Geneva on 8 June 1977.

The Democratic Republic of Sao Tome and Principe acceded on 5 July 1996, without making any declaration or reservations, to the Protocols additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I) and Non-International Armed Conflicts (Protocol II), adopted in Geneva on 8 June 1977.