International humanitarian law (IHL) does not provide a precise definition of the notion of occupation, nor does it propose clear-cut standards for determining when an occupation starts and when its ends. This article analyses in detail the notion of occupation under IHL and its constitutive elements, and sets out a legal test for identifying when a situation qualifies as an occupation for the purposes of IHL. It concludes by suggesting an adjustment of the legal test to the specific characteristics of occupation by proxy and occupation by multinational forces.

The threat to human rights posed by non-state actors is of increasing concern. The author addresses the international obligations of belligerents, national liberation movements and insurgent entities, looks at the growing demands that such armed groups respect human rights norms and considers some of the options for holding private military companies accountable with regard to human rights abuses. The argument developed throughout this article is that all sorts of non-state actors are increasingly expected to comply with principles of international human rights law.

While it is generally accepted today that international humanitarian law (IHL) is binding on organized armed groups, it is less clear why that is so and how the binding force of IHL on organized armed groups is to be construed. A number of explanations for that binding force have been offered. The present contribution critically examines five such explanations, namely that organized armed groups are bound via the state on whose territory they operate; that organized armed groups are bound because their members are bound by IHL as individuals; that norms of IHL are binding on organized armed groups by virtue of the fact that they exercise de facto governmental functions; that customary IHL is applicable to organized armed groups because of the (limited) international legal personality that they possess; and that organized armed groups are bound by IHL because they have consented thereto.

States across the globe are increasingly involved in violent conflicts with non-state groups both within and across borders. This new situation challenges the classic distinction in international humanitarian law between international and non-international armed conflicts. However, the changing face of warfare does not diminish the importance of IHL. The essence of this body of law – to protect civilians and persons hors de combat and to lessen unnecessary harm during armed conflict – remains the same. The applicability of IHL must therefore be determined according to objective criteria and must not be left to the discretion of the warring parties. This article seeks to conceptualize the notion of armed conflict and examines the extent to which the existing body of humanitarian law applies to the new asymmetrical conflicts. It finds that the definition given by the ICTY Appeals Chamber in its Tadić Decision on Jurisdiction, which was taken up by Article 8(2)(f) of the Rome Statute, is a useful starting point for an analysis of the ‘triggering mechanism’ of international humanitarian law in asymmetrical conflicts.

The authors draw upon the principles of the social identity tradition in order to elaborate a psychological model of mass communication. This centres on the way in which people construe their social identities and the meanings of events for these identities. They then go on to look at the ways in which these principles have been employed both to mobilize collective support for genocide and collective resistance to genocide. They conclude that it is critical to understand these principles and to apply them effectively in order to promote social harmony and the defence of vulnerable groups.

The present document resulted from an expert process initiated and conducted by the ICRC from 2003 to 2008. Dr. Nils Melzer, Legal Adviser at the ICRC, who has been responsible for the expert process since 2004, is the author of the Interpretive Guidance and most background documents and expert meeting reports produced during the process. The ICRC would like to express its gratitude to the experts, all of whom participated in the process in their personal capacity.

La dernière moitié du XXe siècle a été marquée par une augmentation et une codification sans précédent des normes du droit international ayant pour objet la protection de la personne humaine. Il s'agit aujourd'hui de veiller au respect de ces règles. Les réparations pour violations du droit international humanitaire peuvent largement contribuer à mieux le faire respecter et à prévenir toute violation future.

Une branche du droit est renforcée si, en cas d'infraction, des réparations peuvent être obtenues; celles-ci constituent un aspect important de l'application du droit et peuvent avoir un important effet dissuasif. À un niveau plus personnel, les victimes de violations du droit international humanitaire sont extrêmement vulnérables. Des réparations adéquates et reçues au moment opportun peuvent jouer un rôle important pour aider les victimes à reconstruire leur vie. Cet article examine le droit en vigueur et la pratique actuelle en matière de réparations pour viohtions du droit international humanitaire, en insistant plus particulièrement sur la situation juridique des victimes.

Cet examen des lois et des mécanismes nationaux et internationaux révèle que, si le droit aux réparations est universellement reconnu, en l'absence de mécanismes spécifiques — qui existent généralement au niveau international — les victimes sont incapables de faire valoir leurs droits sur le plan individuel et, en conséquence, n'obtiennent aucune réparation. L'article conclut par des questions plus politiques que posent les différents mécanismes existants et la façon dont les compensations à accorder aux victimes de violations du droit international humanitaires sont envisagées.

This article is a historical examination of the use of photography in the informational and fundraising strategies of humanitarian organizations. Drawing on archival research and recent scholarship, it shows that the figure of the dead or suffering child has been a centrepiece of humanitarian campaigns for over a century and suggests that in earlier eras too, such photos, under certain conditions, could “go viral” and achieve iconic status. Opening with last year's photo campaign involving the case of 3-year-old Syrian refugee Alan Kurdi, whose body washed up on a Turkish beach near Bodrum in early September 2015, the article draws on select historical examples to explore continuities and ruptures in the narrative framing and emotional address of photos depicting dead or suffering children, and in the ethically and politically charged decisions by NGO actors and the media to publish and distribute such images. We propose that today, as in the past, the relationship between media and humanitarian NGOs remains symbiotic despite contemporary claims about the revolutionary role of new visual technologies and social media.

The decision to respect the law – or not – is far from automatic, regardless of whether it is taken by an armed group or a state. Respect for international humanitarian law (IHL) can only be encouraged, and hence improved, if the reasons used by armed groups to justify respect or lack of it are understood and if the arguments in favour of respect take those reasons into account. Among the reasons for respecting the law, two considerations weigh particularly heavily for armed groups: their self-image and the military advantage. Among the reasons for non-respect, three are uppermost: the group's objective, the military advantage, and what IHL represents according to the group.

The Twentieth International Red Cross Conference, meeting in Vienna in 1965, proclaimed the “fundamental principles upon which Red Cross action is based”. Since that time, at every Conference, the representatives of the Red Cross world rise to their feet to hear the solemn reading of those principles.

The principles, however, have not yet been the subject of any commentary. The fact is that the book “Les principes de la Croix-Rouge”, the source of the Vienna text, antedated the official version which, while being close to the model, was not identical with it. The book referred to was indeed a complete work, of a somewhat scientific character, and not a terse commentary designed to serve the general public.

Deprivation of liberty for security reasons is an exceptional measure of control that may be taken in armed conflict, whether international or non-international. Administrative detention of persons believed to represent a threat to State security is also being more and more widely practised outside of armed conflict situations. This paper argues that both internment and administrative detention are insufficiently elaborated from the point of the view of the protection of the rights of the persons affected. Drawing on international humanitarian law and on human rights law and standards, the paper proposes a set of procedural principles and safeguards that should — as a matter of law and policy — be applied as a minimum to all cases of deprivation of liberty for security reasons.

The 150th anniversary of the birth of Henry Dunant, the 30th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the 25th anniversary of the European Convention on Human Rights were all celebrated in 1978. Also in 1978, both the American Convention on Human Rights (1969) and the Protocols additional to the Geneva Conventions (1977) entered into force. The concurrence of these various notable events, all relating to human rights, constitutes an appropriate occasion for an analysis of the relationship which exists between international humanitarian law and human rights.

The right to the truth has emerged as a legal concept at the national, regional and international levels, and relates to the obligation of the state to provide information to victims or to their families or even society as a whole about the circumstances surrounding serious violations of human rights. This article unpacks the notion of the right to the truth and tests the normative strength of the concept against the practice of states and international bodies. It also considers some of the practical implications of turning “truth” into a legal right, particularly from the criminal law perspective.

Neutrality as a guiding principle of humanitarian action was roundly rejected by most actors in Afghanistan's latest conflict. One party to the conflict commandeered assistance and aid organizations into a counter-insurgency campaign, and the other rejected Western aid organizations as agents of an imperialist West. The murder in 2003 of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) water engineer Ricardo Munguia, because of what he symbolized, cast doubt on whether the ICRC could be perceived as neutral in this highly polarized context. Rather than abandon a neutral stance, however, as so many aid organizations did, the ICRC persevered and, through some innovative and sometimes risky initiatives, managed to show both sides the benefits of having a neutral intermediary in conflict. Today, the ICRC continues to expand its reach to Afghans in dire need of humanitarian assistance.