This paper sets out to explain the challenges of aligning sanctions compliance efforts with the delivery of humanitarian aid into highly sanctioned environments. It highlights that while the policy of sanctioning authorities is to encourage and permit humanitarian activity, there remain significant obstacles to achieving this objective. The paper offers insights into the key areas of complexity and the most urgent aspects requiring clarification. It expressly illustrates that striking the correct balance between the delivery of critical humanitarian responses and the application of United Nations and unilateral sanctions will necessitate some realignment. The paper concludes by highlighting the need for governments and sanctioning authorities to adopt a forward-leaning approach, and by stressing the necessity of collective and coordinated international action.

Protocol I additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 is a product of the mid-1970s. It reflects the then-prevailing Zeitgeist: the confrontational mentality of the Cold War; the defiance of the West by a suddenly assertive and temporarily united “Third World”; the tendencies on the part of an entrenched majority in international organizations and forums to show no tolerance for the dissenting voices of a large and influential minority; and the cynical sacrifice of good sense (and good law) on the altar of political expediency.

This article examines the legal problems associated with human shields. The author begins by discussing the absolute nature of the prohibition on their use and goes on to consider the precautions to be observed by the party being attacked. A violation of the ban on use of human shields by the attacked party is not an act of perfidy and does not release the attacker from his obligations. Because human shields are civilians, they are not legitimate objects of attack, even where they are acting in a voluntary capacity, as they are not taking direct part in hostilities. Among the attacker's obligations to take precautions, the proportionality principle applies in the classic way, even in the case of voluntary human shields.

The International Committee of the Red Cross, associated with four Nobel Peace Prizes, is a unique and widely respected humanitarian actor. There were times in its past, however, when it was not as independent, neutral and impartial as is sometimes pictured. Since about 1970 it has made important changes in its structure and functioning so as to improve on the past. In contemporary times the ICRC has carved out an enduring place for neutral humanitarianism in conflicts, but one that is not free from controversies and challenges.

This article clarifies the ongoing confusion in doctrine and practice about both the actual and optimal interaction between international counterterrorism law (CTL) and international humanitarian law (IHL) in armed conflict. It discusses the advantages and disadvantages of the co-application of CTL with IHL, before considering a variety of techniques for mutually accommodating the interests of both regimes, particularly through partial exclusion clauses in counterterrorism instruments or laws. It concludes by identifying the optimal approach to the relationship between CTL and IHL, which recognizes the legitimate interests of both fields of law while minimizing the adverse impacts of each on the other.

In August 1994, at the third session of the group of governmental experts to prepare the 1995 Review Conference of the 1980 United Nations 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, Switzerland introduced a proposal for a new protocol to the Convention. The Swiss draft Protocol on Small-Calibre Weapon Systems would prohibit the use of small-calibre arms and ammunition which, at ranges of 25 metres or more, transfer more than 20 Joules of energy per centimetre to the human tissues during the first 15 centimetres of passage in the body.

Le droit international humanitaire, dont le but est d'atténuer les maux de la guerre, a été, dès son origine, étroitement lié aux médecins et à tous ceux dont la mission est de guérir — la plus noble des professions. En effet, ce droit a pris naissance pour parer aux insuffisances des services de santé des armées et protéger les blessés de guerre. Depuis lors, il a débordé largement ce cadre et a étendu sa sauvegarde et sa sollicitude aux diverses victimes des conflits et aussi, en temps de paix, aux victimes de la vie: les malades. Mais il y avait à sa base un élément essentiellement sanitaire, qui a subsisté dans une partie importante de ce droit, que certains appellent «droit médical».

Although much has been said and written about the creation of the international criminal tribunals and their contribution to the development of international humanitarian law, there have been very few studies of the international prosecutor per se. In this article the author briefly surveys recent developments in the international criminal justice institutions, focusing particularly on the limits recently imposed on the discretionary powers of international prosecutors.

From the very first, the founding members of what was to become the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement realized that it was necessary to comply with a number of essential principles. The work of the Red Cross and Red Crescent is based on the fundamental idea of impartial assistance to anyone who is suffering, whether friend or foe.

A Shiite resurgence in Iraq has generated a region-wide Sunni backlash, raising fears of an emerging sectarian rift that is colouring and aggravating local conflicts. After discussing the schism's origins, manifestations and implications, the author concludes that the primary battle in the region is not between Sunnis and Shiites but between the United States and Iran. A US–Iranian rapprochement would do much to reduce sectarian tensions, while the most effective long-term response to sectarianism itself will likely come from systemic restraints that exist in the form of countervailing loyalties that prevent any single allegiance, such as religious adherence, from becoming paramount.

This article examines the legal nature of the principles of impartiality and neutrality of humanitarian action, focusing on States as humanitarian actors. It argues that international law does not provide a general legal basis for the universal applicability of these principles, contrary to a common interpretation of the International Court of Justice's 1986 judgment in the Nicaragua case. Nevertheless, impartiality and neutrality may have a significant legal effect on the conduct of States. They may be directly binding on States through the operation of Security Council resolutions drafted in mandatory language. In addition, they may have indirect effect due to the States’ obligation to respect humanitarian organizations’ adherence to the principles. On the basis of this argument, the article pleads for increased conceptual clarity and, in turn, effectiveness of humanitarian action.

Over the last few decades, an extraordinary amount has changed in our understanding of the history of international humanitarian law (IHL). This article addresses the latest findings in this new historiography, placing contemporary IHL issues in a broader historical context and sharing the author's own experiences as a researcher exploring the discipline's practice from a historical perspective. Ultimately, he makes a passionate case for history – by showing why this discipline has a lot to offer for practitioners of international law.

At its latest meeting on 26 and 27 June 1991, the Assembly of the International Committee of the Red Cross appointed a new member, Ms. Francesca Pometta. Her appointment brings the membership of the Committee, which is composed exclusively of Swiss citizens, to 22.

Side by side with aspirations for universal peace, efforts to limit the effects of war have been made throughout all of history and in all of the world's great civilizations. Such efforts, however, have primarily taken the form of religious or moral precepts; although treaties were in fact concluded, they were limited in scope.

International humanitarian law and international human rights law seek to prevent people from going missing, and to clarify the fate and whereabouts of those who do go missing while upholding the right to know of their relatives. When implementing international law at the domestic level, national authorities should plan carefully before engaging in any policy or legal reform that will address the issue of missing persons and the response to the needs of their families. This article seeks to present a general overview of the provisions of international law that are relevant to understanding the role of national implementation vis-à-vis the clarification of the fate and whereabouts of missing persons and the response to the needs of their relatives. It also presents the role that the ICRC has played in this regard and highlights three challenges that may arise at the national level when working on legal and policy reforms.

Although long hidden from the public gaze of international humanitarian law, military entrepreneurialism has played a key role in the global organization of legitimate violence. By examining historical changes in the role and legal treatment of military entrepreneurs, the author sheds light on the contemporary “resurfacing” of privately organized violence in the form of private military companies, and its broader implications for international humanitarian law.

This article examines the presence of 605 armed groups in today's conflict environment by bringing new evidence based on internal research. It looks in particular at the way these non-State entities provide varying degrees of services to the population in the spaces that they control, and how this might impact the way a humanitarian organization like the ICRC engages with them in a dialogue over time. This model of analysis is then used to situate and better explain armed groups’ positions on the COVID crisis.

After reviewing the provisions of international humanitarian law relating to water, the author offers some thoughts on the nature of the legal protection accorded this resource in time of war. The lack of a proper and autonomous legal framework for protecting water would appear to be explained, on the one hand, by the many roles that water can play — for example, as a weapon, target or victim — and, on the other, by the very manner in which it is treated in international humanitarian law. Water is taken into account only in connection with that body of law's basic objectives of protecting victims of war and regulating the conduct of hostilities — and even then only in its capacity as one of man's basic needs, or as a danger, or as part of the natural environment. Water as such is not given legal protection. This arrangement may be inadequate, but it is enough to serve as a firm basis for improvement. In view of research carried out recently on international rules on the use of water in peacetime, a fresh look should be taken at the status of water in the law of armed conflict. A better understanding of the issue's complexities will mean better protection for “blue gold”.

By adopting on 8 June 1977 the two Protocols additional to the 1949 Conventions, the States meeting in Geneva brought to a successful conclusion four years of arduous negotiations. The Protocols took four years, the Conventions only four months. Why such a huge difference?

In 1949, once the initial period of instinctive rejection of anything related to war had passed, a natural consensus emerged regarding the main evils which needed to be banned by law. Besides, the delicate subject of the rules governing the conduct of hostilities — the law of The Hague, as it is called, also part of humanitarian law — was left out of the discussions. It was also a time when the political map of the world was fairly monolithic, in the sense that the North still dominated the South, and East-West tensions had not yet escalated.