In this edition of the Review's “Beyond the Literature” series, we have invited George Dvaladze to introduce his recent book Equality and Non-Discrimination in Armed Conflict, before then posing a series of questions to Nelly Kamunde, Mona Rishmawi, Vanessa Murphy and Alexander Breitegger.

Nelly Kamunde is a lawyer in Kenya and has been working as an independent researcher, lecturer, and trainer with various institutions in international humanitarian law (IHL). Mona Rishmawi is the former Chief of the Rule of Law, Equality and Non-Discrimination Branch of the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. Vanessa Murphy is the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) Legal Adviser responsible for conflict-related legal issues regarding gender, the protection of children and the protection of the environment. Alexander Breitegger is a Senior Legal Adviser at the ICRC's Thematic Legal Advice Unit; he focuses on IHL and persons with disabilities as part of his thematic files and provides support for the implementation of the ICRC Vision 2030 on Disability.

The Review team is grateful to all four discussants, and to George, for taking part in this engaging conversation.

Despite progress in recent years, including UN Security Council Resolution 2475 of 2019, there remains a significant gap in our awareness of the disability dynamics of armed conflict and the barriers that persons with disabilities experience in accessing the protections of international humanitarian law (IHL). This brief article will consider the protective purpose of IHL and the diversity of civilian populations, and, focussing on the principle of proportionality as an example, demonstrate how IHL must be interpreted, implemented and monitored in a manner that is inclusive and reflects the reality that civilian populations are diverse.

Discrimination and sexual and gender-based violence committed against lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer and intersex (LGBTQI) detainees remains one of the most pressing contemporary humanitarian challenges. This article focuses on the interpretation of the phrase “or any other similar criteria” as contained in Article 3 common to the four Geneva Conventions, upon which adverse distinction is prohibited, in order to qualify sexual orientation and gender identity as prohibited grounds of adverse distinction. The interpretation of “or any other similar criteria” will be embarked upon by employing the general rule of treaty interpretation provided for in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, so as to qualify sexual orientation and gender identity as “any other similar criteria” and ultimately to realize the protection of LGBTQI detainees against discrimination and sexual and gender-based violence during non-international armed conflict.