In recent decades, humanity has experienced profound and diverse changes, but one stark reality remains: wars continue to claim lives and cause immense human suffering. Moreover, the dynamics of armed conflicts are rapidly evolving with technological advances, adding new complexities and increasing the toll on the most vulnerable.
In May, in her address to the United Nations Security Council, the President of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), Mirjana Spoljaric, stressed that the world is witnessing an unprecedented number of armed conflicts, which have increased six-fold over the past 25 years, reaching an alarming figure of more than 120.
Increasingly, as we see in Gaza or Ukraine, wars are being fought in urban environments, with devastating consequences for civilians. Of particular concern is the use of explosive weapons with wide-ranging effects in populated areas, putting at risk not only individuals but also essential infrastructure essential to their survival. The use of these weapons is particularly worrying, given their often indiscriminate effects. How much longer will we have to see widespread civilian deaths and injuries and widespread destruction of civilian infrastructure before armies and their political leaders decide to change course?
This year, as the world marks the 75th anniversary of the Geneva Conventions, which form the basis of the laws of war or international humanitarian law (IHL) – as it is formally known – there is an urgent need to consider what actions the international community can and should take to demand rigorous and effective implementation of this set of rules that ensure that, even in the midst of armed conflict, a minimum of humanity and respect for human life and dignity is maintained.
The 1949 Conventions are notable for being among the few international treaties that have achieved universal ratification. The international community must therefore do everything in its power to fulfil this commitment and combat threats to the fulfilment and application of international humanitarian law.
Today, many more rules have been added to the Geneva Conventions to form IHL, the development of which has always been adapted to changes in contemporary warfare. Thus, this branch of law has stood the test of time, has adapted and continues to do so to cover new weapons and new methods of warfare.
ICRC staff witness the protective effects of IHL every day. Our very ability to work – visiting detainees, repatriating the deceased, supporting hospitals, helping those in need and confidentially discussing allegations of violations with the parties – is due to the effectiveness of IHL. However, for the laws of war to have full effect, parties to armed conflict must consent to and facilitate relief actions, as they are legally obliged to do. Implementation of IHL is uneven, but when parties respect the law, humanity prevails and lives are saved. Fewer people are displaced, and medium- and long-term recovery is less complicated.
Naturally, these milestones are less visible or newsworthy. Damage that never occurs is difficult to quantify, and violations that do not happen go unreported: when hospitals are not bombed, people are not killed, and vital infrastructure is preserved. However, we must never forget that a saved life is invaluable, and that these events serve as a reminder that the law sets limits on war, and that we would be worse off without IHL.
However, there is still a long way to go. The violations of international humanitarian law that we see every day in armed conflicts and increasingly complex and widespread humanitarian crises present the international community with a greater challenge.
In an increasingly complex context, looking back at the Geneva Conventions is useful and enlightening: in the face of these contemporary dilemmas, we must always remember that their objective is none other than to preserve humanity in the context of war. This simple idea, which sadly seems impossible in our days, must guide decision-making in the context of armed conflicts, without excuses or exceptions: respect for IHL is not optional.
It is time for States to redouble their efforts to protect victims of war. When international humanitarian law is violated, it is not the law itself that must change, but the attitude of States towards these violations.
The experience of the International Committee of the Red Cross allows us to affirm that the main cause of suffering during armed conflicts is not the lack of rules, but the insufficient respect for the norms that govern them. In these times of uncertainty and devastation caused by war, we must make respect for IHL a political priority.
#Defending #laws #war #call #humanity