In its Final Declaration of 1 September 1993, the International Conference for the Protection of War Victims inter alia urged all States to make every effort to:

“Consider or reconsider, in order to enhance the universal character of international humanitarian law, becoming party or confirming their succession, where appropriate, to the relevant treaties concluded since the adoption of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, in particular:

—the Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts of 8 June 1977 (Protocol I);

—the Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts of 8 June 1977 (Protocol II);

—the 1980 Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons and its three Protocols;

—The 1954 Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict”.

Des poisons ayant joué pour la première fois au cours de la guerre mondiale un rôle dans la conduite des opérations militaires, cette question a été vivement discutée, et une série de publications, principalement aussi des articles de la presse quotidienne, ont fait beaucoup de bruit à propos des horreurs des gaz asphyxiants.

La Société des Nations et la Croix-Rouge se sont occupées de cette question à plusieurs reprises, et lors de la conférence de Washington, le Ier janvier 1922, une série de grandes puissances tombèrent d'accord pour interdire l'emploi des poisons au cours d'opérations guerrières.

In the space of two months, the ICRC has lost four members of its delegations, who died while carrying out their humanitarian mission. Three were Swiss and one was African. They were all prompted by that spirit of devotion and sacrifice which impels some people to help their neighbour in distress. They were highly conscious of the responsibility with which they were entrusted and in facing danger they met their deaths, giving a wonderful example of human brotherhood.

At the end of March 1978, the ICRC in a private ceremony took leave of Mr. Claude Pilloud who had reached the age limit and was leaving the service of the ICRC after a fruitful career lasting nearly forty years. On behalf of the ICRC, its President, Mr. A. Hay, thanked Mr. Pilloud for the eminent services he had rendered to the whole of the Red Cross movement.

Los Gobiemos son los principales responsables de la aplicación del derecho internacional de los derechos humanos y del derecho humanitario en tiempo de conflicto armado. En caso de conflicto armado no internacional, los Gobiernos y los grupos armados de la oposición tienen la obligación de respetar estas normas.

Las organizaciones internacionales pueden alentar a las partes implicadas en conflictos armados a respetar los derechos humanos y el derecho humanitario. El Comité Internacional de la Cruz Roja (CICR), que desempeña, desde hace mucho tiempo, un papel preponderante en la tarea de velar por la aplicación del derecho humanitario durante los conflictos armados, también ha comenzado a hacer referencia al derecho de los derechos humanos en las situaciones de disturbios interiores o tensiones internas no cubiertas por el derecho internacional humanitario. La Asamblea General de las Naciones Unidas, la Comisión de Derechos Humanos de las Naciones Unidas, la Corte Internacional de Justicia y otras varias organizaciones intergubernamentales han intentado en diversas oportunidades garantizar el respeto del derecho de los derechos humanos durante los conflictos armados, refiriéndose ocasionalmente en dichas tentativas al derecho humanitario. En sus decisiones, el Consejo de Seguridad de las Naciones Unidas se ha valido casi exclusivamente del derecho humanitario.

Las organizaciones internacionales no gubernamentales han reconocido que, durante los conflictos armados, pueden cometerse violaciones de los derechos humanos en sus respectivos ámbitos de incumbencia. Efectivamente, las violaciones graves de los derechos humanos, incluidos los malos tratos, las detenciones, las muertes arbitrarias, etc.

At the time when the Centenary of the Red Cross is about to be celebrated, it would be fitting to remember the rôle so many members and officers of the International Committee of the Red Cross have played in the drafting and the proclamation of the Rights of the Child. This declaration called the Declaration of Geneva was proclaimed forty years ago by the Council of the “Save the Children International Union” (SCIU). It was on May 17, 1923, that the final draft in five brief clauses was adopted. It is to be recalled that at that time the ICRC and the SCIU worked in close co-operation. Indeed, it was Dr. Frédéric Ferrière's report (then Vice-President of the ICRC) on the disastrous situation in which children lived in Vienna which incited Eglantyne Jebb to come to Geneva for the first time.

The International Committee of the Red Cross is deeply concerned about the increasing number of children recruited or volunteering to take part in hostilities throughout the world. Such children are exposed to the worst dangers and the most horrible suffering, both psychological and physical. What is more, they are easily manipulated and encouraged to commit grievous acts which they are often unable to comprehend.

There emerged at the close of the three years of preparatory work by the Government Experts convened by the ICRC, from 1971 to 1973, a provision that had no counterpart in the four Geneva Conventions of 1949. This was a provision requiring the employment of legal advisers to military Commanders. It was a bold provision, for which the Canadian Experts can claim the credit for its introduction, although the idea went through a number of changes both of substance and presentation in the course of debate.

The Martens Clause owes its name to the diplomat and jurist Fyodor Fyodorovich Martens, a representative of the Russian Empire at the First Hague Conference in 1899. Drafted and proposed by Martens during the negotiations, yet as a spontaneous compromise, the Clause has been included in the preamble of the Hague Convention with Respect to the Laws and Customs of War on Land and is still considered an important principle of international humanitarian law today. This article traces the biography and academic path of F. F. Martens and explores the enduring significance of the Martens Clause.

This article poses the question as to whether and why States overlook the prosecution of people for war crimes rather than terrorist offences, where war crimes would be preferred. It looks at whether a diverse range of States (Afghanistan, Australia, Mali, the Netherlands and the Russian Federation) are able through their domestic legislation to prosecute people for war crimes or for terrorist offences. It considers what the value of prosecutions is theoretically and legally, and what the impact of prosecutions is practically in a State. It proposes that prosecutors, police and judges should ask the question whether an alleged offender should be prosecuted for war crimes and/or terrorist offences with war crimes being the preferred option where there is evidence that they have been committed.