As soon as the Red Cross was founded, the question of its relationship with war was raised. Indeed, it could be argued that placing the protection of war victims on an institutional basis and creating a reserved area off-limits to violence was tantamount to an official recognition of warfare or a tacit acceptance of the use of force. Some even wondered whether the attempt to regulate warfare without trying to eliminate it was not serving the purposes of the military and political leaders responsible for waging war, who would be able to invoke the notion of “clean warfare” to justify themselves in the eyes of public opinion and before history.

The term “humanitarian law” applies to those rules of international law which aim to protect persons suffering from the evils of armed conflicts as well as, by extension, objects not directly serving military purposes.

There is therefore an essential difference between humanitarian law and “human rights”, for the latter do not apply only in time of armed conflict.

At its second session, which it held in Geneva in May 1972, the Conference of Government Experts on the Reaffirmation and Development of International Humanitarian Law Applicable in Armed Conflicts (Commission I) prepared draft articles on medical air transport and an annex relating to their signalling and identification, which were to be embodied in a future legal instrument. The Commission also recommended that a closer study be made of medical transport at sea and on land. If these suggestions were to lead to a draft instrument, it would be imperative to have a general plan which, in the case of signalling, would extend to all medical personnel and material, whether civilian or military.

“IHL takes a particular male perspective on armed conflict, as a norm against which to measure equality. In a world where women are not equals of men, and armed conflict impacts upon men and women in a fundamentally different way, a general category of rules that is not inclusive of the reality for women cannot respond to their situation.”

Continuous transformation of armed conflict since the adoption in 1864 of the first international humanitarian law treaty compels international humanitarian law to adapt accordingly. These adaptations, through either customary law or new multilateral treaties, always have been towards greater protection, greater reach. As for treaty practice, international humanitarian law historically has been substantially revised every twenty-five to thirty years. This article links those revisions to specific conflicts which laid bare deficiencies in the existing law. What follows is thus a chronicle of conflicts with their most critical humanitarian issues. From this emerges a picture of the changing face of armed conflict since the middle of the nineteenth century. The article also considers recent challenges to international humanitarian law and speculates on possible responses.

While the Security Council's incursion into the protection of individuals or groups could appear necessary – or even praiseworthy – it should be viewed with caution. The author argue that the search for perfect complementarity between the powers of the Security Council and humanitarian action should not overlook the political nature of the Council, the omissions and inconsistencies in its decisions regarding grave offences against human dignity and the effects of coercive action – including armed force – on the provision of neutral and impartial assistance to the victims of an armed conflict.

This article offers a brief review of the forces that have contributed to the contemporary impasse in the formation of new international law and institutions. It identifies areas where development of the law of armed conflict would provide great benefits, yet where current international conditions render formal legal agreements highly unlikely. It then considers how to advance desirable projects nonetheless. In the absence of effective formal international law-making, jurists face a choice. One approach, which I call inspirational, is to propose idealized legal systems based on claims of justice and practicality. Much published work over the last decade seems to take this path. The hope is that the ideas will inspire and thus lead relevant actors to adopt the systems at a time when the obstacles to international agreements recede. The other approach, which I call entrepreneurial and describe here, involves leading States acting as “norm entrepreneurs”. They can propound and in practice adhere to norms with the intention of inducing other States to follow. The entrepreneurial approach entails a State engaging in a practice that it hopes others will emulate, while the inspirational involves an appeal to the international community as a whole, including significant non-State actors.

The very intense international debate that has taken place in recent years on the subject of internally displaced persons has recently undergone a major development — the drafting of the Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement (hereinafter referred to as the “Guiding Principles”). The distinguishing feature of these Guiding Principles is that they incorporate elements of three branches of public international law in a single document: international humanitarian law, human rights law, and refugee law. This combination calls for special comment.

The International Red Cross is an organization of three constituents. The oldest is the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), founded in 1863 by five Geneva citizens following the publication of Henri Dunant's A Souvenir of Solferino. The second is made up of the National Societies of the Red Cross, of the Red Crescent—in the moslem countries—and of the Red Lion and Sun in Iran. There are 114 such societies. There may be only one in each country. (In Israel there is a society similar to a Red Cross Society but it has not yet been admitted into the International Red Cross because its emblem—the Jewish Star—has not been accepted by the International Conferences.) The third constituent is the League of Red Cross Societies which was founded in 1919 and which is the federation of the National Societies. It too has its headquarters in Geneva. Its mission differs from that of the ICRC but the two institutions are linked by an agreement and they co-operate closely in certain cases. The ICRC also co-operates frequently with the National Societies which maintain direct connexion with it.

The problem of protecting the environment in time of armed conflict has given rise to numerous discussions and major studies over the last two years.

In our opinion, there are at least two distinct reasons for the keen interest in this question. In the first place it is quite logically a response to the increasingly energetic efforts to improve, both nationally and internationally, the protection of the environment in peacetime. Secondly, this interest reflects the fears engendered during and after the 1990–1991 Gulf war that set the Middle East ablaze.

The Henry Dunant Institute is inaugurating its collection of scientific works with an important book by F. Kalshoven which is reviewed in this issue. We are pleased to publish below a paper which this writer delivered at the International Congress on Humanitarian Law in San Remo last September. (Ed.)

In recent years, the international community has worked to confront the large and growing threat of terrorism, including by introducing new counterterrorism (CT) measures and tightening existing ones. These measures take many forms, including international, regional and domestic sanctions against individuals, groups and other entities. Such efforts pursue the legitimate aims of security and international peace – things that terrorism undermines and goes against – but they have, at the same time, implicated a degree of overlap and confusion between international humanitarian law (IHL), on the one hand, and the law and policy framework underwriting CT measures and sanctions regimes, on the other, particularly as both apply to and affect principled humanitarian action. This article addresses this area of overlap and confusion. First, it examines the applicability of IHL to CT measures and operations. Next, it addresses the co-application of IHL, CT regulations and sanctions regimes, from the mindset of preserving IHL without impeding CT measures and their objectives. The article then examines the legal questions that arise when sanctions regimes and CT measures affect IHL-mandated and IHL-protected activities undertaken by impartial humanitarian organizations. Finally, the article analyzes recent developments and makes proposals aimed at preserving an effective humanitarian space in contexts where IHL, CT legal frameworks and sanctions apply simultaneously.

Plusieurs millions de personnes sont actuellement internées dans les camps de prisonniers de guerre ou de civils des différents pays belligérants. Le statut de cette « population » est-il régi par des règies de droit international uniformes et, si tel est le cas, comment et quand ces règies ont-elles été fixées? Bien que nous ne prétendions pas apporter ici des éléments d'information nouveaux, il nous paraît intéressant de retracer, pour les lecteurs de la Revue Internationale, l'évolution du droit international en ce qui concerne le statut du prisonnier de guerre et la situation juridique des civils, qui, ressortissant à un pays belligérant, se trouvent en territoire ennemi.

There is great concern that terrorists could obtain nuclear or radiological weapons and detonate them in a large city. The authors analyse the technical requirements for and obstacles to obtaining such weapons. What difficulties would have to be surmounted? Could these problems be solved by a terrorist organization without direct support from a State possessing nuclear weapons? The authors conclude that nuclear weapons are most likely out of reach for terrorists. However, radiological weapons may well be used by terrorists in the future. The possible consequences of such an attack are discussed.

The adoption of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) represents an important and (potentially) progressive development in the protection framework under international humanitarian law (IHL). Article 11 of the CRPD specifically obliges States to protect persons with disabilities from harm in situations of risk, including armed conflict, consistent with IHL and human rights law. The CRPD framework signals the need to address the traditional framing of disability under IHL and to draw from human rights concepts in the CRPD in order to inform the protection accorded to persons with disabilities in armed conflict.

This article is divided into four main parts: the first three address three main lines of inquiry, while the fourth is forward-looking. The first part analyzes the framing and construction of disability in IHL and the implications of such framing for the protection of persons with disabilities. The second part analyzes fundamental IHL rules in an effort to demonstrate how the framing of disability and the protection framework of the CRPD can be used in the application of IHL. The third part identifies some specific problem areas ripe for further disability scoping and harmonization of the CRPD and IHL. Looking forward, the fourth part identifies entry points for focused action and research aimed at bringing about the kind of dynamic treaty practice envisioned by Article 11 of the CRPD.

Much has been written about the “deterrent” role of international courts and tribunals in preventing potential atrocities. Since the establishment of the ad hoc tribunals and the International Criminal Court, the international community has sought to anchor the legitimacy of international justice in the “fight against impunity”. Yet recent studies have suggested that an overly broad characterization of international courts and tribunals as “actors of deterrence” might misplace expectations and fail to adequately capture how deterrence works – namely, at different stages, within a net of institutions, and affecting different actors at different times.1

The Review invited two practitioners to share their perspectives on the concrete effects of international criminal justice on fostering compliance with international humanitarian law. Chris Jenks questions the “general deterrence” role of international criminal justice, contending that the influence of complicated and often prolonged judicial proceedings on the ultimate behaviour of military commanders and soldiers is limited. Guido Acquaviva agrees that “general deterrence”, if interpreted narrowly, is the wrong lens through which to be looking at international criminal justice. However, he disagrees that judicial decisions are not considered by military commanders, and argues that it is not the individual role of each court or tribunal that matters; rather, it is their overall contribution to an ever more comprehensive system of accountability that can ultimately foster better compliance with international humanitarian law.

In his article ‘Challenges to international humanitarian law: Israel's occupation policy’, the president of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), Mr Peter Maurer, addresses the challenges that the application of international humanitarian law (IHL) faces in the Middle East in general and in the context of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in particular. Mr Maurer focuses on three main issues in relation to Israel's military occupation of the Palestinian territory: East Jerusalem, settlements and the Annexation Wall. Furthermore, he touches on the ICRC's confidentiality policy and suggests that the ICRC engage in public dialogue with parties to the conflict, especially when confidential dialogue fails to improve the lives of the affected people.

This article shows that between the drafting of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 and the Tehran conference in 1968, international human rights law and international humanitarian law and their respective guardian institutions, the United Nations (UN) and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), were not so conceptually far apart as is sometimes suggested. Its purpose is to give further legitimacy to the role of human rights law in armed conflict and show that cooperation between the UN and the ICRC has a long history.

This article provides insight into how, during the First World War, the ICRC handled the oversight of the respect of the 1906 Convention on the Wounded and Sick and the 1907 Hague Convention on Maritime Warfare, steadfastly working to uphold the law. It examines the ICRC's view on the applicability of the Conventions, describes its handling of accusations of violations of international humanitarian law and, finally, shows how the ICRC engaged in a legal dialogue with States on the interpretation of various provisions in the 1906 Convention.