A la suite des notes techniques qu'elle a publiées précédemment, la Revue internationale de la Croix-Rouge entreprend la publication de textes de synthèse consacrés à divers sujets d'actualité dans le domaine du droit international humanitaire. On trouvera dans les lignes qui suivent un premier résumé intitulé «Puissance protectrice».

Humanitarian organizations are in a privileged position to observe what happens in war. Perhaps with the exception of war correspondents — “embedded” or otherwise — no other individuals from outside the conflict area get to see what goes on in its midst. Medical humanitarian organizations will often be exposed through their work to the detail of violence committed against civilians; but all humanitarian organizations operational in conflict are likely to witness the brutal effects of the fighting.

The Great War was globalized and totalized1 by the inclusion of colonial and newly independent people from all over the world and of civilians, old people, women and children. The European war became a laboratory for all the suffering of the century, from the extermination of the Armenians to the refugee crisis, the internments, and the unending modernization of warfare.

To speak of the Geneva Conventions and medical personnel in the field is truly to return to the very source of international humanitarian law, for the event which led to the birth of that body of law was the tragedy suffered at the battle of Solferino in 1859 by the wretched masses of wounded soldiers on both sides who received no care whatever.

The main purpose of this brief study is to show the importance of international humanitarian law, in particular the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their Additional Protocols of 1977, for internally displaced persons, i.e. persons displaced within their own country, and to refugees, i.e. persons who have fled their country. Not only does this body of international law protect them when they are victims of armed conflict, but its rules — if scrupulously applied — would make it possible to avoid the majority of displacements.

Over the past fifty years, the struggle against torture has become a central concern of human rights law. The first international legal text specifically outlawing “torture” was the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 5). The first treaty prohibiting torture — the European Convention on human rights (Article 3) — was adopted soon afterwards, in 1950. In 1984, the United Nations Convention against torture became the first binding international instrument exclusively dedicated to the struggle against one of the most serious and pervasive human rights violations of our time.

Two thousand years before Grotius, Rachel, or Ayala recalled Europe to humanitarianism, ancient Indians had a body of rules for governing the relations between the States of the sub-continent in the event of armed conflicts. According to Professor A. L. Basham:

“…in no other part of the ancient world were the relations of man and man, and of man and the state, so fair and humane… No other ancient law-giver proclaimed such noble ideals of fair play in battle as did Manu. In all her history of warfare Hindu India has few tales to tell of cities put to the sword or of the massacre of non-combatants. The ghastly sadism of the Kings of Assyria, who flayed their captives alive, is completely without parallel in ancient India. There was sporadic cruelty and oppression no doubt, but in comparison with conditions in other cultures, it was mild. To us the most striking feature of ancient Indian civilization is its humanity.”

The International Red Cross and Red Crescent Museum has a unique collection of prisoners’ objects – items made by conflict-related detainees and given to International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) delegates who, in keeping with the ICRC's mandate under the Geneva Conventions, were visiting the prisons.

Over the past ten years, Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) has provided medical care to almost 118,000 victims of sexual violence. Integrating related care into MSF general assistance to populations affected by crisis and conflicts has presented a considerable institutional struggle and continues to be a challenge. Tensions regarding the role of MSF in providing care to victims of sexual violence and when facing the multiple challenges inherent in dealing with this crime persist. An overview of MSF's experience and related reflection aims to share with the reader, on the one hand, the complexity of the issue, and on the other, the need to continue fighting for the provision of adequate medical care for victims of sexual violence, which despite the limitations is feasible.

Le premier dessein que poursuivit la Croix-Rouge — tant le Comité international de la Croix-Rouge que les Sociétés nationales — fut le secours aux victimes de la guerre. Ensuite, au cours des annees et des expériences, on l'étendit à la lutte contre la souffrance humaine sous tous ses aspects. Mais l'action en faveur de la paix n'est prévue ni dans les statuts du Comité international de la Croix-Rouge ni dans ceux de la Ligue des Sociétés de la Croix-Rouge, non plus que dans ceux de la Croix-Rouge internationale qui furent votés en 1928.

Si l'on désire étudier ce que la Croix-Rouge peut accomplir en faveur de la paix, il faut tout d'abord écarter un reproche qu'on lui adresse périodiquement et qu'on a répété encore lorsque la Conférence diplomatique de 1949 a établi le texte aes nouvelles Conventions de Genève. Bien que ces critiques soient dépourvues de tout fondement, elles reviennent avec une telle persistance qu'il nous a paru utile de les réfuter. Sous des formes diverses, elles peuvent se ramener à la m^me idée: l'œuvre de la Croix-Rouge, sur le plan pratique comme sur le plan juridique, nuit aux efforts qui tendent à proscrire la guerre.

The ‘war on terror’ has led to grave human rights violations and, in response, to a growing volume of human rights litigation. This article provides an overview of litigation that has unfolded in recent years in relation to issues such as arbitrary detention, torture and ill-treatment, extraordinary rendition, extraterritorial application of human rights norms and the creeping reach of the ‘terrorism’ label. These cases provide a prism through which are displayed key characteristics of the war on terror as it affects human rights, and enables us to begin to ask questions regarding the role of the courts and the impact of human rights litigation in this area.

In situations of national crisis, it is not uncommon to see community members join together to provide security services to their communities, gap-filling or supplementing the security services of the State. These “community defence groups” perform many roles, from operating checkpoints and conducting surveillance missions to patrolling roads and even participating in combined combat operations with the State. Unfortunately, while many community defence groups perform an important service for their community, some have been accused of serious human rights abuses or even war crimes. This article examines the circumstances in which a State might be responsible in relation to wrongful acts of community defence groups operating within their territory.

Each community defence group differs in its structure, its activities and its relationship with the State. As such, any assessment of the potential responsibility of the State will depend upon the particulars of each group and its operations. The contribution of this article is to provide a framework for assessing State responsibility in relation to community defence groups. It does so by examining the potential attribution of acts of the community defence group to the State, applying secondary rules of State responsibility. In addition, it also considers the potential responsibilities of the State under primary rules of international law, namely international humanitarian law and international human rights law, in circumstances where the primary wrongful act is not attributable to the State.

Ambitions to fulfil accountability demands in humanitarian action are high, including for protection activities in armed conflict settings. However, from a Dunantist position, meeting accountability demands is often not only unsatisfactory for practical reasons, but is also inappropriate in view of humanitarian principles and flawed from related ethical perspectives. Regarding accountability primarily as a technical exercise, rather than as being linked to ethical perspectives on humanitarianism and its principles, may thus inadvertently contribute to reduced acceptability of, and ultimately reduced access for, humanitarian actors. Dunantist actors wishing to stay true to their ethical approach need new ways of thinking about accountability, a reflection which can serve as an example for an ongoing need to consider differences between actors within the humanitarian–development nexus.

Neither the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May be Deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to have Indiscriminate Effects, adopted in Geneva on 10 October 1980, nor the Protocols annexed to it specify in their operative parts the principles on which the prohibitions and restrictions rest. Such principles are, however, found in the preamble to the Convention.

Four of the twelve preambular paragraphs are relevant here. They list: the “general principle of the protection of the civilian population against the effects of hostilities”; the principle “that the right of the parties to an armed conflict to choose methods or means of warfare is not unlimited”; the ban on “the employment in armed conflicts of weapons, projectiles and material and methods of warfare of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering”; and the fact that it is prohibited “to employ methods or means of warfare which are intended, or may be expected, to cause widespread, longterm and severe damage to the natural environment.” The fifth paragraph reiterates the well-known Martens clause, in the formulation accepted for Article 1, paragraph 2, of Additional Protocol I of 1977.

The International Committee of the Red Cross is aware that international law gives inadequate protection to aircraft used for medical evacuation. It considers that the subject is one which calls for further study and therefore takes pleasure in reproducing in the following pages a translation of important extracts of a recent article on legal protection for aircraft used as air-ambulances in time of war. This article is of particular interest, coming from Dr. Evrard who, being a flyer, can look at the problem from a practical as well as a legal point of view.

This article argues that the growing involvement of civilians in activities on the digital battlefield during armed conflicts puts individuals at risk of harm and contributes to the erosion of the principle of distinction, a cornerstone of international humanitarian law (IHL). The article begins by outlining the ongoing trend of civilianization of the digital battlefield and puts forward brief scenarios to illustrate it. It then examines the narrow circumstances under which such forms of civilian involvement may qualify as direct participation in hostilities under IHL, and discusses what this means for the individuals concerned, particularly from the perspective of their loss of protection under the law. The analysis shows that certain types of State conduct which put civilians in harm's way by inducing them to directly participate in hostilities may constitute standalone violations of IHL and human rights law obligations. Beyond these specific prescriptions, the encouragement of civilian involvement undermines the principle of distinction, with dangerous ripple effects on the interpretation of those rules of IHL that flow from it. Accordingly, the article concludes that States should act to reverse the trend of civilianization of the digital battlefield and refrain as much as possible from involving civilians in the conduct of cyber hostilities.

This note discusses the challenges of water service delivery before, during and after protracted armed conflict, focusing on barriers that may impede successful transition from emergency to development interventions. The barriers are grouped according to three major contributing factors (three “C”s): culture (organizational goals and procedures), cash (financing practices) and capacity (know-how). By way of examples, the note explores ways in which development agencies can overcome these barriers during the three phases of a protracted armed conflict, using examples of World Bank projects and experiences in the Middle East and Sub-Saharan Africa. Before the crisis, development agencies need to work to prevent armed conflict. In a situation of active armed conflict or when conflict escalates, development agencies need to remain engaged as much as possible, as this will speed up post-conflict recovery. When conflict subsides, development agencies need to balance the relative effort placed on providing urgently needed emergency relief and water supply and sanitation services with the effort placed on re-establishing sector oversight roles and capacity of local institutions to oversee and manage service delivery in the long term.

• • Cyber operations have become a reality in contemporary armed conflict. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) is concerned by the potential human cost arising from the increasing use of cyber operations during armed conflicts.

• • In the ICRC's view, international humanitarian law (IHL) limits cyber operations during armed conflicts just as it limits the use of any other weapon, means or method of warfare in an armed conflict, whether new or old.

• • Affirming the applicability of IHL does not legitimize cyber warfare, just as it does not legitimize any other form of warfare. Any use of force by States – cyber or kinetic – remains governed by the Charter of the United Nations and the relevant rules of customary international law, in particular the prohibition against the use of force. International disputes must be settled by peaceful means, in cyberspace as in all other domains.

• • It is now critical for the international community to affirm the applicability of international humanitarian law to the use of cyber operations during armed conflicts. The ICRC also calls for discussions among governmental and other experts on how existing IHL rules apply and whether the existing law is adequate and sufficient. In this respect, the ICRC welcomes the intergovernmental discussions currently taking place in the framework of two United Nations General Assembly mandated processes.

• • Events of recent years have shown that cyber operations, whether during or outside armed conflict, can disrupt the operation of critical civilian infrastructure and hamper the delivery of essential services to the population. In the context of armed conflicts, civilian infrastructure is protected against cyber attacks by existing IHL principles and rules, in particular the principles of distinction, proportionality and precautions in attack. IHL also affords special protection to hospitals and objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population, among others.

• • During armed conflicts, the employment of cyber tools that spread and cause damage indiscriminately is prohibited. From a technological perspective, some cyber tools can be designed and used to target and harm only specific objects and to not spread or cause harm indiscriminately. However, the interconnectivity that characterizes cyberspace means that whatever has an interface with the Internet can be targeted from anywhere in the world and that a cyber attack on a specific system may have repercussions on various other systems. As a result, there is a real risk that cyber tools are not designed or used – either deliberately or by mistake – in compliance with IHL.

• • States’ interpretation of existing IHL rules will determine the extent to which IHL protects against the effects of cyber operations. In particular, States should take clear positions about their commitment to interpret IHL so as to preserve civilian infrastructure from significant disruption and to protect civilian data. The availability of such positions will also influence the assessment of whether the existing rules are adequate or whether new rules may be needed. If States see a need to develop new rules, they should build on and strengthen the existing legal framework – including IHL.