There were two requests for advisory opinions from the International Court of Justice — the first from the World Health Organization (WHO), and the second from the United Nations General Assembly.

Following widespread disappointment with the modest amendments made in 1996 to Protocol II relating to landmines, of the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW), hopes have risen that 1997 may see the adoption and signing of a new international treaty prohibiting the production, export, transfer and use of anti-personnel landmines. Although such a treaty might not attract universal adherence at the outset, it would nevertheless establish a significant international legal norm and represent a major advance towards the ICRC's goal of bringing the scourge of landmines to an end.

In the spring of 1994 more than 500,000 people were killed in Rwanda in one of the worst cases of genocide in history. The slaughter began on 6 April 1994, only a few hours after the plane bringing the Presidents of Rwanda and Burundi back from peace negotiations in Tanzania was shot down as it approached Kigali Airport.

Becoming party to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, their Additional Protocols of 1977 and other treaties of international humanitarian law is but a State's first step in complying with that law. It must be followed by action at the national level to ensure implementation of the different provisions. That action can take various forms ranging from the adoption of national laws and regulations to the location and appropriate marking of buildings and other objects protected by the humanitarian law.

At the close of the Diplomatic Conference on the Reaffirmation and Development of International Humanitarian Law (Geneva, 1974–1977), the representatives of the States party to the 1949 Geneva Conventions adopted, on 8 June 1977, two Protocols additional to those Conventions. Following a preparatory period including intense negotiations that lasted for nearly ten years, the new treaties were accepted, despite considerable obstacles, by the plenipotentiaries without a vote and without opposition. Though the solutions adopted for particularly controversial problems could not always suit everyone concerned, the diplomats, legal advisers and military experts who had taken part nevertheless had every reason to return to their capitals with a feeling of satisfaction.

The response of the international community to the massacres and genocide in Rwanda was at times “reluctant” and “inadequate”. This can partly be explained by the amount of human and material resources that would have been required to restore peace and address the more fundamental issues of the failure of the State itself. The Rwandan experience does, however, also raise serious questions about the adequacy of international and regional structures responsible for maintaining and restoring peace.

Armed forces have for many years developed new methods of observation in order to increase their capacity to fight at any time of day or night and in any weather conditions. Some have thus equipped themselves with thermal imaging or infrared (IR) cameras, which make it possible to recognize and detect people and objects not only at night but also in poor daytime visibility conditions (for example, through smoke, foliage or light rain).

Committees or other national bodies for international humanitarian law, Report of the meeting of experts, Geneva, 23–25 October 1996, Cristina Pellandini ed., ICRC, Geneva, 1997.

This publication contains the proceedings of a meeting of experts on committees or other bodies for the national implementation of international humanitarian law, organized by the ICRC Advisory Service on International Humanitarian Law.

The debate in the First Committee of the United Nations General Assembly (51st Session, 1996) on agenda items 71 and 75 (disarmament and the 1980 Conventional Weapons Convention) gave the ICRC the opportunity to make the following brief comment on the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice relating to the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons:

This was the first time that the International Court of Justice analysed at some length international humanitarian law governing the use of weapons. We were pleased to see the reaffirmation of certain rules which the Court defined as “intransgressible”, in particular the absolute prohibition of the use of weapons that are by their nature indiscriminate as well as the prohibition of the use of weapons that cause unnecessary suffering. We also welcome the Court's emphasis that humanitarian law applies to all weapons without exception, including new ones. In this context we would like to underline that there is no exception to the application of these rules, whatever the circumstances. International humanitarian law is itself the last barrier against the kind of barbarity and horror that can all too easily occur in wartime, and it applies equally to all parties to a conflict at all times.

Francisco Suárez, “the prince of modern jurists”, was accused by some of being a great anti-monarchist, even the first regicide, because he was the first “convinced and avowed republican”.

He incorporated Platonist, Aristotelian, Augustinian and Thomist ontology, metaphysics and theodicy within a legal framework; in urisprudence, he introduced the world of ideas into the material world; his discourse on law is valid for his own day and for all time. In dealing with abstract questions, he developed a philosophy of law that is applicable to concrete situations.

Questions inevitably arise about the concurrent competence and complementary nature of an international tribunal and national courts, and about cooperation between them. Those questions may well apply to any State on earth because, by virtue of the principle of universal competence, many crimes which international tribunals are competent to try may also be tried by any State irrespective of the place where they are committed or the nationality of the perpetrator.

The august solemnity of Latin confers on the terms jus ad helium and jus in bello the misleading appearance of being centuries old. In fact, these expressions were only coined at the time of the League of Nations and were rarely used in doctrine or practice until after the Second World War, in the late 1940s to be precise. This article seeks to chart their emergence.

The Convention on the prohibition of the development, production, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons and on their destruction, of 13 January 1993 (Chemical Weapons Convention - CWC) enters into force on 29 April 1997, following the deposit by Hungary on 31 October 1996 of the 65th instrument of ratification. This landmark Convention complements and reinforces the 1925 Geneva Protocol prohibiting the use of chemical and biological weapons by also banning the development, production and stockpiling of chemical weapons — as well as their use — and requiring the destruction of existing stockpiles. The 1925 Geneva Protocol was adopted following a dramatic appeal against chemical warfare by the ICRC at the end of the First World War. The Biological Weapons Convention, in force since 1975, has outlawed the development, production and stockpiling of these weapons.

Determined to put an end to the suffering and casualties caused by anti-personnel mines, that kill or maim hundreds of people every week, mostly innocent and defenceless civilians and especially children, obstruct economic development and reconstruction, inhibit the repatriation of refugees and internally displaced persons, and have other severe consequences for years after emplacement,