International humanitarian law, whose purpose is to attenuate the evils of war, has been intimately bound from its earliest days to doctors and all others whose mission in life is to heal—the noblest of all professions. The fact is that this law originated from the need to make up for the deficiencies of military medical services and protect those wounded in war. Since then, the law has gone far beyond that framerwork and has extended its protection and solicitude to many other victims of conflicts and also, in peacetime, to victims of day-to-day life—sick people. An essentially medical element was the basis of the law, and continues to be a major element, referred to by some as “medical law”.

La XX Conferencia Internacional de la Cruz Roja, celebrada en Viena el año 1965, proclamó los «principios fundamentales en los que está basada la acción de la Cruz Roja ». Desde entonces, en cada reunión de la Conferencia, la Cruz Roja escucha, en pie, su lectura solemne.

Africa, both on the inter-State level and the academic level, maintains a very low profile in the global debate on international humanitarian law (IHL). IHL issues do not feature prominently in the armed conflict debate within Africa, and African States and people do not significantly participate in the global IHL debate. This contribution is aimed at both identifying the reasons for this lack of regional engagement with IHL and identifying entry points for such engagement. It also ambitiously calls for ongoing and engaged focus on IHL in Africa, and to this end, a number of issues for future consideration can be extrapolated from the issues discussed.

This article discusses contentions voiced by ICRC President Maurer in a speech on ‘Challenges to humanitarian action in contemporary conflicts: Israel, the Middle East and beyond’, developed in the form of the article in this issue of the International Review of the Red Cross.

It discusses challenges to international humanitarian law in situations where one party violates humanitarian norms, and questions some ICRC contentions and assumptions regarding the status of the West Bank territories, the status of Israel-Palestinian agreements, the status of the Gaza Strip, the concept of ‘occupation’, Israel's settlement policy, Israel's separation barrier, East Jerusalem, and concludes with a discussion of ICRC policies of confidentiality, as opposed to public engagement.

Les auteurs des Conventions de La Haye de 1899 et de 1907 se préoccupaient, en reprenant les travaux de Bruxelles de 1874, de donner une forme conventionnelle et précise au droit coutumier réglant la conduite de la guerre, notamment sur terre. Ils se rendaient compte qu'une codification totale n'était pas réalisable à l'époque; mais ils ne voulaient pas admettre qu'en dehors des règles conventionnelles, les belligérants auraient un droit illimité à se prévaloir de ce qu'on a appelé «la raison de guerre » et à accorder partout la prépondérance aux intérêts militaires, réels ou prétendus.

Jusque vers la fin du siècle dernier, le Service de santé de l'armée n'avait guère d'influence sur le potentiel militaire. En nombre insuffisant, son personnel se bornait à relever et à soigner tant bien que mal les soldats qui tombaient et à distribuer quelques médications aux hommes portés malades. A cette époque, la science médicale était presque impuissante devant les maladies qui décimaient les armées et éliminaient deux fois plus d'hommes, sinon davantage, que les combats. Un chirurgien était satisfait si, sur cinq soldats hospitalisés, il en voyait un rentrer dans le rang.

Les réserves aux accords multilatéraux ont fait, au cours des dernières anné, l'objet de nombreuses études théoriques. On se rappelle que les réserves exprimées par plusieurs Etats parties à la Convention sur le génocide ont été examinées par 1'Assemblée générale des Nations Unies, qui a demandé sur ce sujet un avis consultatif à la Cour internationale de Justice. De son côté, la Commission du droit international des Nations Unies a également étudié les problèmes soulevés par les réserves lorsqu'elle a abordé le droit des traités.

Notre propos n'est pas de nous immiscer dans ces discussions, si intéressantes soient-elles, mais d'exposer les différentes réserves exprimees au sujet des Conventions de Genàve et de déterminer le sens exact qu'il convient de leur attribuer.

Les événements qui, durant la seconde quinzaine du mois d'octobre, amenèrent en Hongrie de graves bouleversements sur le plan intérieur, provoquèrent, on le sait, à partir du 4 novembre, un vaste exode de population. Des réfugiés de tout âge, de toutes conditions, hommes, femmes et enfants quittèrent leur patrie, leur famille et leurs biens en vue de gagner le territoire autrichien.

I am glad to have the opportunity to address such a gathering of eminent personalities concerned with the increasingly grave humanitarian problems of our time.

The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) has, for the last 120 years, served the cause of humanity in a world torn by conflicts.

In 1864, a year after the ICRC was founded, the Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded in Armies in the Field, the first multilateral humanitarian law treaty, established a legal basis for ICRC activities and brought about the recognition of the Red Cross movement by the States.

The Belgian Interdepartmental Commission for Humanitarian Law (ICHL) was established by a decision of the Council of Ministers on 20 February 1987. Its main task consists in studying national measures to implement the Protocols additional to the Geneva Conventions, and, if need be, the Conventions themselves.

Despite the existence of a comprehensive international legal framework protecting children in armed conflict, ensuring its respect by armed non-State actors (ANSAs) still remains an important challenge. This can be linked to several circumstances, such as their lack of knowledge of the law, the absence of an incentive to abide by the applicable rules, their fragmented structure and their lack of capacity to implement the applicable framework. Certain practical cases, however, show that ANSAs’ behaviours may vary throughout armed conflicts. While certain groups have, at a given moment, breached some of their international obligations, others have shown some degree of commitment to respecting children's safeguards. When addressing the prohibition of recruiting and using children in hostilities, the reasons behind these variations have remained insufficiently explored. This article reviews some of the lessons learned from Geneva Call's experience when engaging ANSAs towards their compliance with child protection norms.

Amidst the violent upheavals of the end of empire and the Cold War, international organizations developed a basic framework for holding State and non-State armed groups to account for their actions when taking prisoners. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) placed itself at the very centre of these developments, making detention visiting a cornerstone of its work. Nowhere was this growing preoccupation with the problem of protecting detainees more evident than apartheid South Africa, where the ICRC undertook more detention visits than in almost any other African country. During these visits the ICRC was drawn into an internationalized human rights dispute that severely tested its leadership and demonstrated the troubled rapport between humanitarianism and human rights. The problems seen in apartheid South Africa reflect today's dilemmas of how to protect political detainees in situations of extreme violence. We can look to the past to find solutions for today's political detainees − or “security detainees” as they are now more commonly called.

The conduct of multinational corporations, particularly those operating in conflict areas, is increasingly becoming subject to public scrutiny. More and more companies profess a commitment to live up to their human rights responsibilities in fragile contexts. In situations of armed conflict, international humanitarian law also applies. The business sector is, however, relatively less aware of this body of law.

In June 2011, the United Nations Human Rights Council adopted unanimously the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, which spell out what measures companies and states could take to strengthen the human rights performance of the business sector around the world.1 The Review wanted to hear from the person who spearheaded this initiative, Professor John G. Ruggie, and have his views on any emerging good practices amongst governments and companies in implementing the Guiding Principles, on the importance of due diligence criteria and grievance mechanisms, and on the role of regional organisations and civil society in promoting the Principles.

Trained as a political scientist, Professor Ruggie has made significant contributions to the study of international relations, focusing on the impact of economic and other forms of globalisation on global rule-making and the emergence of new rule-makers. In addition to his academic pursuits, Professor Ruggie has long been involved in practical policy work. From 1997–2001, he served as UN Assistant Secretary-General for Strategic Planning, assisting the Secretary-General in establishing and overseeing the UN Global Compact, and proposing and gaining General Assembly approval for the Millennium Development Goals. In 2005, Professor Ruggie was appointed as the UN Secretary-General's Special Representative for Business and Human Rights. Over the course of six years and after extensive research, consultations, and work on pilot projects, Professor Ruggie developed the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. Today, he chairs the boards of two non-profits, the Institute for Human Rights and Business and Shift: Putting Principles into Practice, and serves as Senior Advisor to the corporate social responsibility practice of the law firm Foley Hoag LLP.