• • 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.

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.

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.

The traditional annual press conference given by the President of the ICRC took place on 10 January 1985 at the headquarters of the Committee. It provided not only an opportunity to make the usual assessment of events in the year which had just gone by but, in particular, was the moment chosen by the ICRC to launch an “Appeal for a Humanitarian Mobilization”.

As the International Review mentioned in its previous number, the International Committee of the Red Cross addressed an appeal to the Governments of the Republic of Viet Nam, of the Democratic Republic of Viet Nam and of the United States of America. This appeal was also sent to the National Front of Liberation. The ICRC reminded these authorities that they are bound by the provisions of the Geneva Conventions giving protection to military personnel placed “hors de combat” and persons not taking part in hostilities.

En el presente artículo se examina el cometido de protección y de asistencia en favor de los refugiados en caso de conflicto armado y de disturbios interiores. Es un modesto intento de elucidar el enmarañado conjunto de cometidos y mandatos de las instituciones humanitarias, en particular del Movimiento Internacional de la Cruz Roja y de la Media Luna Roja (en adelante el Movimiento) y de la Oficina del Alto Comisionado de las Naciones Unidas para los Refugiados (ACNUR). La finalidad es reevaluar la evolución del cometido respectivo y su extensión. Por un lado, es necesario definir principios concretos, basados en las prácticas pasadas y presentes, por lo que atañe a la acción humanitaria y, por el otro, se debe dejar un suficiente margen de flexibilidad y de pragmatismo con respecto a las situaciones que no pueden preverse de manera completa.

Al final del artículo se demuestra la interdependencia y la complementariedad de las organizaciones humanitarias que han de prestar protección y asistencia donde ningún organismo pueda actuar.

In 1981, the Twenty-fourth International Red Cross Conference, in Resolution VI, deplored the fact that in several armed conflicts fundamental provisions of the Geneva Conventions were being violated and that those violations impeded the International Committee of the Red Cross in the discharge of its activities. In spite of the Conference's solemn appeal to remedy the situation, there are still signs of reluctance to fully respect those fundamental rules, and even of ill-will towards them. Under the pretext that it requires reciprocity, the application of Convention provisions is at times made conditional on the outcome of bargaining and the prisoners themselves are treated as hostages, even as instruments of blackmail. Such attitudes are inadmissible. The following text discusses the matter in detail. (Editor.)

La confrontation des deux attitudes différentes de la conscience humaine, en temps de paix et en temps de guerre — il faut bien l'avouer — est singulièrement troublante. Si, en temps de paix, la solidarité universelle est devenue, non seulement quant aux considérations économiques, mais spécialement au point de vue de la charité, une des grandes préoccupations de la politique mondiale, la barbarie des hommes, en temps de guerre, connaît de jour en jour des cruautés inattendues qui se traduisent dans les formes de la tactique et de la stratégie militaires, avec une évidence déconcertante.

Rarement les débats provoqués par ce que certains ont qualifié de droit ou de devoir d'ingérence, en liaison ensuite avec le concept de droit à l'assistance, n'ont donné aux questions humanitaires une telle publicité. A différents niveaux d'appréhension du problème, le gran public, les médias et les juristes spécialisés se sont passionnés, voire querellés.

Since some years, concern has been expressed on the part of various press associations on the dangers attending reporters who, in order to collect news material in the exercice of their profession, move into territories where hostilities are in progress.

The definitive text of the draft Additional Protocols to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, drawn up by the ICRC as a sequel to the two sessions of the Conference of Government Experts on the Reaffirmation and Development of International Humanitarian Law Applicable in Armed Conflicts, in 1971 and 1972, have just come off the press. The text has been drafted in English, French and Spanish and may be obtained at 10 Swiss francs a copy from the ICRC Documents and Dissemination Division, 7, Avenue de la Paix, CH—1211 Geneva.

It is easy to heap scorn on the Advisory Opinion handed down by the International Court of Justice on 8 July 1996 on the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons. No great cerebral effort is required; one need only choose any of the numerous and often harsh criticisms to be found in the declarations and the separate or dissenting opinions that all fourteen judges present took care to formulate, whether they agreed with the whole of the decision or voted against any of its paragraphs.

The International Committee of the Red Cross has first-hand experience of the real consequences of the many armed conflicts now taking place and of the actual use and effects of weapons. It therefore has a particular interest in ensuring that the law takes into account the realities of the use of weapons in order to effectively reduce the amount of suffering caused in armed conflicts.

The marking of ambulances and hospitals is a practice which goes back a long time, but until the middle of the nineteenth century different colours were used by different countries: Austria a white flag, France a red one, Spain and the United States yellow, to mention a few examples. The devices displayed were not generally well known, so that they were seldom respected: it frequently happened that artillery shelled ambulances, that grapeshot riddled the waggons bearing the wounded but displaying no outward sign that their mission was one of mercy.

Human rights, particularly civil and political, have influenced the latest developments in international humanitarian law, especially 1977 Protocol II relating to non-international armed conflicts. At the Teheran Conference in 1968 the United Nations began to reconcile these two branches of international law; it was at this Conference that international humanitarian law was first called “human rights in periods of armed conflict”. This rapprochement was helped further by the adoption in the 1977 Protocols of some basic rules identical to those in the Human Rights Conventions; it helps strengthen the protection of human beings in situations of armed conflict.

The current situation in Iraq could be described as a “war on civilians”, for it mainly affects the livelihood and well-being of the civilian population, while serious security problems prevent the Iraqi people from leading a normal life. Going beyond the direct victims of the conflict, this article deals with the daily problems faced by Iraqi society, namely the lack of security in terms of housing, education and health care, as well as protection for the more vulnerable such as women and children. The forcible eviction of many Iraqis is, however, the main problem threatening the basic cohesion of Iraqi society.

In this issue, the Review has chosen to feature the voices of hibakusha, those who survived the nuclear bombings in Japan.* These three hibakusha have shared their experiences with the hope that our readers will understand the horrors of nuclear weapons use. They have each suffered and witnessed the horrific suffering of others caused by nuclear weapons, and their families may continue to suffer medical problems for generations to come. Each calls for assurances that nuclear weapons will never be used again. These are their stories.

This paper examines whether the interpretation of Article 30 of Geneva Convention III that allows the use of solitary confinement for prisoners of war with psychosocial disabilities is still valid in light of the new standards of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. It proposes two alternative interpretations of Article 30 to demonstrate why isolation based on disability is unlawful and concludes that the use of solitary confinement on prisoners of war with psychosocial disabilities should be prohibited.

That is what Henry Dunant wrote in his notebooks, most of which were never published, and we are pleased to publish a study shedding light on Dunant's role as promoter of protection for prisoners of war.

In Belgium's capital, ceremonies were recently held to mark the centenary of the Brussels Declaration. At the formal commemorative sitting, Mr. J. Pictet, Vice-President of the ICRC, drew attention to the parallel development of the law of Geneva and the law of The Hague, to which the Brussels Declaration gave a decisive impetus. The study is therefore well-timed. As usual, the, views expressed are those of the authors alone. It may be added that the original is in French and that the English version is a translation by the ICRC.