A survey, over a period of time, of what the public thinks of the Red Cross as reflected in the spoken, written and audio-visual media, has led to astonishing conclusions: two diametrically opposite trends have steadily emerged. On the one hand, at national and international level, the Red Cross, whose activities over the past few years have developed to a surprising extent, has received great praise, in fact too much praise. Yet at the same time bitter criticism has constantly been levelled at the Red Cross. A study of the causes of that praise and criticism, however paradoxical this may seem, shows that both stem from the very same facts and events!

Obviously they have been due to the viewpoint held, the hopes pinned on Red Cross action, and one's idea of Red Cross possibilities. While those who are realistic in their appraisal of the Red Cross express their appreciation of the results, however meagre they may be, others show keen disappointment because they have assigned the Red Cross tasks and achievements far beyond its field of activity. In addition, all manner of personal considerations, financial and otherwise, weigh the balance this way and that. Yet by taking a closer look at things we realize that the very factors that make for the strength of the Red Cross and determine its possibilities also set its limits, even though the attempt to exceed those limits may have no untoward effect on practical activities.

It is a truism to say that technical progress is not always beneficial to mankind because it also leads to the development of more sophisticated - i.e. more deadly - weapons. Any attempts to prohibit or restrict their use on the basis of international agreements come up against major obstacles. Even if only to ensure their own national security, States try to equip their armies with the most up-to-date weapons and, if possible, ones more sophisticated than those in a potential enemy's arsenal. But using a certain type of weapon cannot be justified if it runs counter to the general principles of law and humanity.

Our remarks do not refer to particularly devastating and indiscriminate weapons such as atomic, bacteriological and chemical weapons; rather it limits itself to conventional weapons. To date, a ban on such weapons has been accepted only for those which, in view of the disparity between their military effectiveness and the degree of superfluous injury and unnecessary suffering they cause, are without any real interest as means of combat (i.e. dum-dum bullets, non-detectable fragments, exploding booby-traps in the form of harmless-looking objects). As regards militarily effective weapons (incendiary devices and mines), we cannot but hope that their use will be confined as far as possible to the actual combatants so as to avoid indiscriminate harm to civilians, civilian objects and the environment.

Dans sa dernière contribution académique à une matière dont il était un expert reconnu, Konstantin Obradović examine la crise du Kosovo sous l'angle du droit international humanitaire. Se référant d'abord à la situation au Kosovo avant le début des opérations militaires de l'OTAN contre la République fédérate Ae Yugoslavie, il conclut quʼil sʼest agi d'un conflit armé non international au sens du droit humanitaire et non seulement de troubles qui relèvent uniquement du droit interne. L'intervention des forces de l'OTAN en a changé le caractère juridique, et le droit international relatif aux conflits internationaux est devenu applicable. Différents incidents survenus pendant ces opérations sont examinés à la lumière des Conventions de Genève et de ses Protocoles additionnels. L'auteur conclut avec un appel à mieux faire usage des procédures internationales de contrôle de la mise en œuvre du droit international humanitaire.

Cette article a paru d'abord en serbocroate dans Medunarodni Problemi/International Problems, Vol. LI, No. 3–4/1999, pp. 256–294, publie par l'Institut de politique et d'économie internationales, Belgrade. Traduction en anglais par le CICR.

From early history, people have used the sea, lakes and rivers for trade and commerce, for adventure and discovery. Despite these close ties, our survival on water depends on man-made objects such as ships, navigation systems and oxygen tanks. If we get injured or sick on water, or if our ships sink, we are vulnerable and our lives are in immediate danger.

Autonomous weapons systems have been the subject of heated debate since 2010, when Philip Alston, then Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary, or Arbitrary Executions, brought the issue to the international spotlight in his interim report to the United Nations (UN) General Assembly 65th Session. Alston affirmed that “automated technologies are becoming increasingly sophisticated, and artificial intelligence reasoning and decision-making abilities are actively being researched and receive significant funding. States’ militaries and defence industry developers are working to develop ‘fully autonomous capability’, such that technological advances in artificial intelligence will enable unmanned aerial vehicles to make and execute complex decisions, including the identification of human targets and the ability to kill them.”1 Later, in 2013, Christof Heyns, who was Special Rapporteur for Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions at the time, published a report that elaborated further on the issues raised by what he called “lethal autonomous robotics”.2 Following a recommendation by Advisory Board on Disarmament Matters at the UN General Assembly 68th Session, the 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, as amended on 21 December 2021, started discussing autonomous weapons systems in 2014. Then, the Group of Governmental Experts on Emerging Technologies in the Area of Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems (GGE on LAWS)3 was created in 2016 to focus on this issue.4 While the group has kept meeting since then, no clear steps have been taken yet towards a normative framework on autonomous weapons as of September 2022.

In all these years, persons with disabilities – including conflict survivors – have not been included in discussions, nor has the disability perspective been reflected in international debate on autonomous weapons. Only recently has there been any effort to consider the rights of persons with disabilities when examining ethical questions related to artificial intelligence (AI). In this article, we will examine how and why autonomous weapons have a disproportionate impact on persons with disabilities, because of the discrimination that results from a combination of factors such as bias in AI, bias in the military and the police, barriers to justice and humanitarian assistance in situations of armed conflict, and the lack of consultation and participation of persons with disabilities and their representative organizations on issues related to autonomy in weapons systems.

The emblem of the red cross was one of the most remarkable innovations of the Convention of 1864. Ever since then there have been discussions, questions and controversy as to its nature and purpose, the persons it is meant to protect, and the rules that should govern its use.

Editor's note: In this Opinion Note, Tim McCormack highlights the Australian experience of setting up and developing an IHL programme domestically as an example of how IHL can be disseminated and promoted at the national level. The Australian experience is a great success story and can serve as an example for others seeking to do the same.

James Surget made no impact on history. He did, however, make an impression on Washington Ford. The latter sued him in 1866 regarding the destruction of 200 bales of cotton.

In May 1862, Ford owned a plantation in Mississippi, a state then in rebellion against United States authority. The local commander of rebelling forces ordered his troops to burn all cotton along the Mississippi River that was vulnerable to capture by the United States army. Surget assisted in the destruction of Ford's cotton. Ford sued him to recover for its value.

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.

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.

L'action de la Croix-Rouge en faveur des réfugiés est ancienne. Elle remonte en fait à l'origine de l'action du Mouvement international de la Croix-Rouge et du Croissant-Rouge en faveur des victimes des guerres, des révolutions et des troubles. On peut dire également qu'elle mobilise toutes les institutions du Mouvement qui interviennent chacune à l'une ou l'autre étape du parcours des réfugiés, des déportés et des personnes déplacées à l'intérieur de leur pays: protection dans le pays d'origine au moment de l'exil, accueil dans les camps de transit ou de premier asile, secours matériel et médical, recherche et réunion de families, sans oublier le soutien à ceux qui sont engagés dans les procédures, souvent interminables et humiliantes, de requêtes d'asile.