The author begins by observing that most conflicts today are non-international in character and do not follow the pattern of classical warfare. Indeed, they are marked by a decline in State monopoly on the use of force and by the proliferation of private players who resort to violence for reasons that more often than not are linked to economic interests. At the same time, many of these conflicts are ethnic in origin and are particularly cruel in that the killing and displacement of civilians are not incidental but are the main object of the violence. The author doubts whether in such situations classical international humanitarian law provides adequate tools for influencing the behaviour of the “fighters” (who have replaced combatants, with their rights and duties under the laws of war). He pleads for an imaginative approach, based on general and universally accepted ethical rules and on action in the field, close to the victims.

La reciente focalización explícita en los «grupos vulnerables» de los organismos intemacionales de asistencia —especialmente los que operan en las situaciones de emergencia en todo el mundo— denota dos importantes preocupaciones. La primera: que quienes prestan ayuda quieren poder identificar a las potenciales víctimas de desasties a fin de prever y mitigar esos acontecimientos. La segunda: que la identificación de los grupos vulnerables sirve para encauzar la asistencia —siempre restringida por la limitación de los recursos— hacia los grupos más necesitados. No obstante, habría que entender la vulnerabilidad como un concepto mucho más fuerte, en la concepción y en la aplicación de las operaciones de socorro, que un simple criterio para encauzar la asistencia. En realidad, los problemas surgen al emplear, exclusiva o preferentemente, la noción de vulnerabilidad para designar a los grupos que deben recibir ayuda.

Au cours des trois années qui viennent de s'écouler, le Bulletin international a tenu ses lecteurs au courant, pour autant que les nouvelles lui en parvenaient, de la mission du Dr George Montandon, en Sibérie. Rentré le 16 juin à Genève, le Dr Montandon a remis le 13 octobre dernier un volumineux rapport au Comité international sur cette mission, la plus longue et la plus importante des nombreuses missions envoyées par lui.

C'est à la demande des gouvernements déjà séparés d'Autriche et de Hongrie que le Comité international de la Croix-Rouge avait décidé l'expédition d'une mission en Sibérie. Le Dr George Montandon reçut ses instructions des membres du Comité et eut des entrevues avec les représentants des Croix-Rouges intéressées, à savoir: pour l'Autriche, le baron Slatin Pacha, secondé par M. Epstein, et pour la Hongrie le consul général Ernest Ludwig, secondé par MM. Racz et Dell’ Adami. Au dernier moment le Croissant-Rouge ottoman se joignit aux Croix-Rouges autrichienne et hongroise et demanda au Comité international que la mission s'occupât aussi des prisonniers turcs en Sibérie.

Le Dr Montandon quitta Genève le 22 mars 1919, en compagnie du Dr Jacot-Guillarmod, de Neuchâtel, de M. Eigenmann, de Saint-Gall et de M. Werner Steiner, de Winterthour.

Les titres des quatre délégués étaient entre autres leur connaissance de la langue russe et de la Russie ou de la Sibérie ellemême.

Armed conflict is often accompanied or followed by the outbreak of famine. The legal foundations of global humanitarian policy for dealing with famine are reviewed in this article, with special attention to conflict situations and their aftermath. The existing law is examined first, and then recent proposals in the form of drafts and expert studies which seek to develop legal instruments or policy relating to international humanitarian assistance are considered.

A number of authors, notably Hardcastle and Chua writing in this issue of the Review, have recently argued the case for either the existence of an international legal right to humanitarian assistance or the need to speedily establish such a right.

The author of the article printed below is Vice–President of the Institute of International Law and had attended the 1949 Diplomatic Conference in Geneva as a delegate. In October 1974 he organized at the Institut d'Etudes politiques d'Aix-en-Provence a colloquium on Las Casas and Human Rights. The article is reproduced, with the author's permission, from a paper presented at the colloquium.

At the close of the Diplomatic Conference on the Reaffirmation and Development of International Humanitarian Law (Geneva, 1974–1977), the representatives of the States party to the 1949 Geneva Conventions adopted, on 8 June 1977, two Protocols additional to those Conventions. Following a preparatory period including intense negotiations that lasted for nearly ten years, the new treaties were accepted, despite considerable obstacles, by the plenipotentiaries without a vote and without opposition. Though the solutions adopted for particularly controversial problems could not always suit everyone concerned, the diplomats, legal advisers and military experts who had taken part nevertheless had every reason to return to their capitals with a feeling of satisfaction.

Only three years after the 1864 Convention — historically the “first” Geneva Convention — was adopted, proposals were made to amend the text by introducing provisions on the National Red Cross Societies. However, the result of this procedure — the 1868 Additional Articles — was never ratified by any of the parties to the original treaty. In the years that followed, no less than five proposals were circulated by the ICRC, none of which led to new treaty provisions until, in 1906, the States adopted a new Convention to replace the original 1864 treaty. Although the proposed texts originated in Geneva — drafted by General Dufour and Gustave Moynier — the ICRC remained sceptical about the wisdom of amending the original Convention. The fear of losing what had been gained in 1864 was stronger than the expectation that new progress would be made in protecting war victims. In an annex to this article the various drafts are published for the first time.

Resolution 1 adopted by the 26th International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent (Geneva, 1995) endorsed the recommendations drawn up by an intergovernmental group of experts charged with translating the Final Declaration of the International Conference for the Protection of War Victims (Geneva, August/September 1993) into proposals for “concrete and effective measures”. These recommendations are addressed primarily to the States party to the Geneva Conventions, including the depositary of those instruments. However, the ICRC, the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies and the National Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies are also urged to contribute to the effort of achieving better implementation of international humanitarian law, the main objective being to prevent violations from occurring.

1. Définition. — On cite les deux dates de 1863 et de 1864 comme celles de la naissance de la Croix-Rouge, pour la première, de la Convention de Genève pour la seconde, et on a raison.

La Croix-Rouge, c'est, en un mot, le secours au malade et au blessé quel qu'il soit et où qu'il se trouve, d'abord le blessé de la guerre, puis, par extension, d'autres blessés ou malades. Assistance volontaire et libre, bien que mise au service des Gouvernements, avant tout en temps de guerre, puis successivement aussi en temps de paix.

La mise en œuvre de la première disposition commune aux Conventions de Genève a récemment connu un développement dans le contexte des violations du droit international humanitaire liées au conflit israélo-palestinien. Ce conflit, qui a donné lieu à de nombreuses résolutions et décisions sur le plan politique, en particulier au sein de l'ONU, a également fait l'objet d'une action multilatérale des États parties en tant que tels, sur la base de l'article premier commun. Entre 1997 et 2001, s'est déroulé dans une certaine discrétion un processus qui, sur le plan juridique, a montré voire ouvert une voie, peut-être nouvelle, sur la manière dont les États parties, compte tenu de leur obligation première en matière de mise en œuvre des Conventions de Genève, comprennent leur rêle, y compris face à l'ONU, aux parties à un conflit et aux acteurs humanitaires (en particulier le CICR).

Advances in the law of Geneva and the law of The Hague did not remain a dead letter during the World War I, but this was essentially with regard to the wounded and prisoners of war. Those categories of persons were better protected than civilians by treaty-based humanitarian law, which was still in its infancy. Although the ideal of humanity was realized on a large scale thanks to the efforts of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and myriad other charitable, denominational, or non-denominational organizations, none of the belligerents hesitated to infringe and violate the law whenever they could. The various occupied populations, on the Western and Eastern fronts and in the Balkans, served as their guinea pigs and were their perfect victims.