For some decades now, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) has periodically undertaken the difficult task of reassessing its policy in respect of situations of internal violence. Since 1872, when it made its first offer of services to the parties to a non-international armed conflict, and 1918, when it carried out its first visit to security detainees, the ICRC has accumulated a wealth of experience. During that time it has gradually extended its mandate to cover situations in which human suffering called for action on its part which it would not have contemplated a few years previously.

International humanitarian law and human rights law share a common goal, namely to protect the individual and to ensure respect for human dignity. Yet these two branches of international public law each have their own characteristics and origins and have evolved in different ways.

Nevertheless, the troubled aftermath of the Second World War, the unchecked rise of violence and poverty in recent decades and the resulting need for improved protection of the ever-growing number of victims of violations of fundamental human rights have all contributed not only to the evolution of the two branches of law but also to their convergence, like “two poor crutches on which disarmed victims can lean simultaneously”, to quote an expressive image by Karel Vasak. This expert went so far as to estimate in 1984 that “the convergence of the two branches has led to an overlapping both on paper and, increasingly, in practice as well”.

Eight hundred and fifteen delegates from 160 States, 39 Ministers, 20 Deputy Ministers and 12 Secretaries of State, the United Nations Secretary-General, the High Commissioner for Refugees and the Under Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs, the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement represented by the Presidents of the ICRC and the Federation and the Chairman of the Standing Commission, and all the major governmental and non-governmental organizations active in the sphere of armed conflictthe Swiss government succeeded within the space of a few months in arranging for all these to come together in Geneva for a three-day meeting to discuss the protection of war victims and adopt a substantive declaration on the issue. The International Conference for the Protection of War Victims was undeniably a success.

The problems associated with the use of anti-personnel mines, especially in Cambodia, Afghanistan, Kuwait and Angola, to mention but a few of the countries where they have been deployed in large numbers and in areas where they constitute a threat to civilians long after hostilities have ceased, call for closer examination.

International humanitarian law is increasingly perceived as part of human rights law applicable in armed conflict. This trend can be traced back to the United Nations Human Rights Conference held in Tehran in 1968 which not only encouraged the development of humanitarian law itself, but also marked the beginning of a growing use by the United Nations of humanitarian law during its examination of the human rights situation in certain countries or during its thematic studies. The greater awareness of the relevance of humanitarian law to the protection of people in armed conflict, coupled with the increasing use of human rights law in international affairs, means that both these areas of law now have a much greater international profile and are regularly being used together in the work of both international and non-governmental organizations.

International humanitarian law governing the treatment of prisoners of war is designed to protect almost every aspect of human welfare, in order to minimise as far as possible the adverse effects of captivity. As noted by the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg.

In his book “A Memory of Solferino”, Henry Dunant set out two proposals for action on the international level to alleviate the suffering of war victims: the first was to have governments adopt an international treaty to be respected in time of war, and the second was to establish an organizational framework for ensuring compliance with such international obligations. Dunant seemed to realize that only the combination of international, treaty-based obligations and an organization to implement them could induce governments to act in the way he wished. The outcome of his proposals was of course the adoption of the Geneva Convention of 1864 on the one hand, and the founding of the Red Cross Movement on the other.

Ever since international humanitarian law (IHL) was first codified the States, as contracting parties, have undertaken to adopt every measure necessary to implement their obligations under the relevant treaties. The duty to ensure implementation derives from the customary rule whereby the parties to a treaty must carry out its provisions in good faith. In addition, the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their Additional Protocols of 1977 set forth special means of implementation which strengthen and specify this customary rule and apply from the moment a treaty enters into force. One such provision is Art. 6 of Protocol I, entitled “Qualified persons”.

The ICRC was represented at the second World Conference on Human Rights which took place in Vienna from 14 to 25 June 1993. (See under the heading “Miscellaneous”, pp. 319–324 the article on the work and Final Declaration of the Conference, including the address by the President of the ICRC.)

Governments are principally responsible for the implementation of international human rights and humanitarian law during periods of armed conflict. During non-international armed conflicts, governments and armed opposition groups each bear responsibility for their obedience to those norms.

International organizations can encourage the participants in armed conflicts to respect human rights and humanitarian law. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) has long played a leading role in working for the application of humanitarian law during armed conflicts; it has also begun to refer to human rights law in situations of internal strife or tensions not covered by international humanitarian law. The United Nations General Assembly, the UN Commission on Human Rights, the International Court of Justice, and several other intergovernmental organizations have occasionally attempted to secure respect for human rights law during armed conflicts and have referred on an irregular basis to humanitarian law in such endeavors. The UN Security Council has almost exclusively used humanitarian law in its decisions.

In recent years, and especially in 1992, the number of United Nations peace-keeping operations has increased at an unprecedented rate. Thirteen such operations were carried out between 1945 and 1987, whereas fourteen have been initiated since 1987. In 1992 alone, three new operations were started — in Cambodia, the former Yugoslavia and Somalia — and 1993 brought another, in Mozambique. The number of United Nations personnel deployed in the field quadrupled during 1992 to more than 50,000 persons, with a total budget of some $2,500 million at the end of the year.

Historical events since 1939 and the only partially completed codification of the law of air warfare have made it one of the most controversial areas of the law of war. Though Protocol I additional to the Geneva Conventions does contain provisions governing air warfare, it has not yet assumed its due significance owing to the hesitancy shown in ratifying it. All the more importance must therefore be attributed to the historical development of such rules.