Disability inclusion has become a crucial issue for humanitarian action, at least at the international policy level. However, little is known about how humanitarian actors are “doing inclusion” in practice. With a case study on South Sudan, this article examines whether the increase in publications, policy tools and guidelines has made humanitarian action more inclusive for persons with disabilities, and how stakeholders can overcome persisting barriers for persons with disabilities. The article demonstrates noticeable progress in data collection, capacity-building, the removal of barriers and meaningful participation, but humanitarians still lack the skills, confidence and resources to address many persisting barriers. To advance inclusion, donors and humanitarian organizations must invest more time and resources in capacity-building and coordination.

This essay explores how the drafters of international humanitarian law (IHL) incorporated the past into their work between 1860 and 2020, and how they approached time, memory and history as indicators for this view of the past. Its sources consist of the complete series of general conventional and customary IHL instruments as well as the leading commentaries on them. For the IHL view of time, the impact of legal principles on the perception of time is scrutinized. Balancing nonretroactivity against customary international law and the humanity principle broadens the temporal scope towards the past, while balancing legal forgetting against imprescriptibility and State succession broadens it towards the future. For the IHL view of memory, dead persons and cultural heritage are seen as crucial vectors. Attention to the fate of the dead has been a constant hallmark of IHL, while care for cultural heritage has an even longer pedigree. For the IHL view of history, the essay highlights that the International Committee of the Red Cross has consistently advocated State duties to the war dead and has organized an archival infrastructure to satisfy the need – later converted into a right – of families and society to search for the historical truth about them.

Furthermore, the responses of IHL drafters to five major historical challenges are examined. First, while in the realm of war crimes impunity prevailed for most of history, after World War II a system of war crimes trials was mounted, culminating in the International Criminal Court. Second, soul-searching about the atrocities of World War II, including the Holocaust, helped create Geneva Convention IV of 1949, which protects civilians in wartime. Third, the human rights idea was not fully embraced by IHL treaty drafters until 1968. Fourth, the IHL approach to civil wars was slow and incomplete, but its appearance in 1949 and coming of age in 1977 were breakthroughs nevertheless. Fifth, colonial conflicts were not recognized as international wars in 1949, when this could have had considerable impact, but only in 1977, when decolonization was largely over. In all cases, the responses to these historical challenges came after long delays. Clearly, the IHL view of the past has to be assessed on a transgenerational scale.

A la suite des notes techniques qu'elle a publiées précédemment, la Revue internationale de la Croix-Rouge entreprend la publication de textes de synthèse consacrés à divers sujets d'actualité dans le domaine du droit international humanitaire. On trouvera dans les lignes qui suivent un premier résumé intitulé «Puissance protectrice».

Over the past fifty years, the struggle against torture has become a central concern of human rights law. The first international legal text specifically outlawing “torture” was the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 5). The first treaty prohibiting torture — the European Convention on human rights (Article 3) — was adopted soon afterwards, in 1950. In 1984, the United Nations Convention against torture became the first binding international instrument exclusively dedicated to the struggle against one of the most serious and pervasive human rights violations of our time.

Two thousand years before Grotius, Rachel, or Ayala recalled Europe to humanitarianism, ancient Indians had a body of rules for governing the relations between the States of the sub-continent in the event of armed conflicts. According to Professor A. L. Basham:

“…in no other part of the ancient world were the relations of man and man, and of man and the state, so fair and humane… No other ancient law-giver proclaimed such noble ideals of fair play in battle as did Manu. In all her history of warfare Hindu India has few tales to tell of cities put to the sword or of the massacre of non-combatants. The ghastly sadism of the Kings of Assyria, who flayed their captives alive, is completely without parallel in ancient India. There was sporadic cruelty and oppression no doubt, but in comparison with conditions in other cultures, it was mild. To us the most striking feature of ancient Indian civilization is its humanity.”

Humanitarian organizations are in a privileged position to observe what happens in war. Perhaps with the exception of war correspondents — “embedded” or otherwise — no other individuals from outside the conflict area get to see what goes on in its midst. Medical humanitarian organizations will often be exposed through their work to the detail of violence committed against civilians; but all humanitarian organizations operational in conflict are likely to witness the brutal effects of the fighting.

The motivations of armed groups are widely considered to be irrelevant for the applicability of international humanitarian law (IHL). As long as organized violence is of sufficient intensity, and armed groups have sufficient capacity to coordinate and carry out military operations, there is an armed conflict for purposes of international law. It follows that large-scale criminal organizations can, in principle, be treated legally on a par with political insurgent groups. Drug cartels in particular, if sufficiently armed and well organized, can constitute armed opposition groups in the legal sense when their confrontation with State forces is sufficiently intense. This article problematizes this interpretation. It corroborates standing legal doctrine in finding that subjective motives are not a sound basis to exclude the application of IHL, but it argues that a workable distinction can be made between the strategic logic and the organizational goals of criminal groups and those of political insurgents. Drawing on a growing body of empirical studies on the political economy of criminal violence, a strong presumption is defended against qualifying as armed conflict organized violence involving criminal organizations.

To consider the relationship between war and the media is to look at the way in which the media are involved in conflict, either as targets (war on the media) or as an auxiliary (war thanks to the media). On the basis of this distinction, four major developments may be cited that today combine to make war above all a media spectacle: photography, which opened the door to manipulation through stage-management; live technologies, which raise the question of journalists' critical distance vis-à-vis the material they broadcast and which can facilitate the process of using them; pressure on the media and media globalization, which have led to a change in the way the political and military authorities go about making propaganda; and, finally, the fact that censorship has increasingly come into disrepute, which has prompted the authorities to think of novel ways of controlling journalists.

The main purpose of this brief study is to show the importance of international humanitarian law, in particular the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their Additional Protocols of 1977, for internally displaced persons, i.e. persons displaced within their own country, and to refugees, i.e. persons who have fled their country. Not only does this body of international law protect them when they are victims of armed conflict, but its rules — if scrupulously applied — would make it possible to avoid the majority of displacements.

Les milieux économiques exercent depuis longtemps une influence majeure sur l'évolution géopolitique mondiale. Aujourd'hui, la communauté internationale et les médias s'intéressent de plus près aux questions de responsabilité des entreprises privées, et depuis peu au rôle des acteurs économiques dans les conflits armés. En parallèle, de nombreuses compagnies se sont dotées de codes de conduite qui s'inspirent de normes reconnues au plan international, notamment dans le domaine du droit du travail et des droits de l'homme. Sur cette toile de fond, il s'agit de bien cerner les divers objectifs qui motivent le monde des affaires et les organisations humanitaires a établir des ponts entre eux.

Les compagnies privées sont amenées à engager du personnel de sécurité pour protéger leurs installations et leur personnel lorsqu'elles opèrent dans des zones instables. De ce fait se pose la question de la pertinence du droit international humanitaire dans le contexte d'activités économiques privées. Le CICR a décidé de mettre en œuvre une stratégic spécifique envers lesfirmes qui opèrent en zones conflictuelles, et ce dans le but d'améliorer sa capacité à protéger et assister les victimes de conflits armés. Cette stratégie comprend entre autres la promotion des principes humanitaires fondamentaux ainsi que l'établissement d'un dialogue sur le terrain visant à sensibiliser les acteurs économiques sur des préoccupations humanitaires spécifiques.

To speak of the Geneva Conventions and medical personnel in the field is truly to return to the very source of international humanitarian law, for the event which led to the birth of that body of law was the tragedy suffered at the battle of Solferino in 1859 by the wretched masses of wounded soldiers on both sides who received no care whatever.

Over the past five years, various developments in the international aid policy sphere have resurfaced a decades-old discussion about the link between humanitarian action, development and peace efforts – the so-called “triple nexus”. This discussion focuses on protracted conflicts and fragile settings, as these are environments where humanitarian funding and response are overstretched and where development and peace struggle to take hold.

Three important reference points in this policy environment are the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs),1 the Agenda for Humanity2 and the twin United Nations (UN) resolutions on sustaining peace.3 These various commitments have been driving development actors to seek ways to engage earlier and remain present in conflict-affected areas.4 They have mobilized many donors and organizations around a vision in which humanitarian action works to reduce needs, risks and vulnerability, in addition to responding to needs,5 and they have spurred the UN system into organizational reforms to ensure a system-wide coherent effort towards the SDGs, including in places affected by conflict.6 They have also been accompanied by renewed calls for, and efforts towards, greater transparency, efficiency, accountability, collaboration and results across the international aid system.

Efforts to achieve the right synergy between humanitarian action, development and peace efforts have again regained momentum globally. But they have also raised concerns within the humanitarian community about a shrinking space for neutral, impartial and independent humanitarian action during armed conflict.

In this Q&A, Policy Adviser Filipa Schmitz Guinote discusses the International Committee of the Red Cross's (ICRC) policy reflections on the interface between humanitarian action, development and peace, and the so-called “triple nexus” discussion. She unpacks some of the conceptual and practical tensions around humanitarian principles and humanitarian identity in the interaction between humanitarian, development and peace actors. She also outlines the rationale behind the ICRC's work with affected people in protracted conflicts, against the backdrop of an ICRC Institutional Strategy which commits the organization to building sustainable humanitarian impact with affected people and working with others.

With a focus on situations of protracted conflict, this article explores the new horizons offered by the recent explanation by the United Nations Human Rights Committee on the right to life in its General Comment 36. The freshly formulated contours of this right not only present normative clarity but are also valuable for conflict management and resolution. Considering the articulation by the Human Rights Committee, we can now see two dimensions of this right: existence and dignity. Although the existence dimension is not new, one now finds additional insights concerning the legality, transparency and accountability of the use of lethal force that have particular relevance to armed conflict. The new dignity dimension has practical implications for the conditions of life in protracted conflicts, taking us beyond norms to the policy spheres of humanitarian action and development. Tracing the origins of the term “protracted conflict” to the late Lebanese scholar Edward Azar, the article also introduces the reader to some of his work and thinking.

More than seven years have elapsed since the first edition of this work. Seven years which have seen an increase rather than a decline of violence, and often an increasing contempt for life and for fundamental human rights.

The Great War was globalized and totalized1 by the inclusion of colonial and newly independent people from all over the world and of civilians, old people, women and children. The European war became a laboratory for all the suffering of the century, from the extermination of the Armenians to the refugee crisis, the internments, and the unending modernization of warfare.

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.