You are on page 1of 19

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction 4
What is international humanitarian law? 5
Humanitarian situations and needs 9
Where did international humanitarian law originate? 14
What does international humanitarian law cover? 15
What is “protection”? 16
Where is international humanitarian law to be found? 16
Is international humanitarian law actually complied with? 17
When does international humanitarian law apply? 19
What should be done to implement the law? 20
Conclusion 21
Bibliography 22
Introduction
This chapter will cover international humanitarian law (IHL), the binding rules
and customs that govern armed conflict between nations, civil war combatants, and
conflicts among states and non-state belligerents. Traditionally known jus in bello,
the law of war, or law of armed conflict, the term international humanitarian law
has gained currency since the early 1960s. The two principal branches of IHL are
"Hague Law," involving the regulation of weaponry and the selection of military
targets, and "Geneva Law," covering the treatment of POWs, detainees, civilians,
and humanitarian aid workers. IHL sets limits on the use of force, providing
special rules for land, aerial, and naval warfare. The justification for and legality of
commencing hostilities is governed by jus ad bellum principles, which lie outside
the scope of this chapter. IHL addresses both the conduct of armed forces military
and the protection of non-combatants. Although historically restricted to
international conflicts, since the end of World War II, IHL increasingly applies to
non-international conflicts. Nonetheless, the classification of armed conflicts
remains important because different rules apply to international and non-
international conflicts. Despite being a discreet subject of public international law,
IHL also intersects with human rights law and international criminal law. As the
nature of warfare and weapons change, IHL will develop stronger ties to human
rights law and other branches of international law. The broad nature and long
history of IHL mean that there are many sources and examples which cannot be
covered by this chapter. Researching IHL involves multiple issues and it is
important to keep in mind that the nature of IHL has changed over time and
continues to evolve. This guide covers the basic materials and concepts, but the
researcher is advised to look beyond the basics when researching IHL. Due to the
complex nature of IHL, no one source is likely to provide all the information
needed. For an introduction to IHL. International humanitarian law has its origins
in the customary practices of armies as they developed over the ages and on all
continents. The “laws and customs of war”, as this branch of international law has
traditionally been called, was not applied by all armies, and not necessarily vis-a-
vis all enemies, ` nor were all the rules the same. However, the pattern that could
typically be found was restraint of behavior vis-a-vis combatants and civilians,
primarily ` based on the concept of the soldier’s honor. The content of the rules
generally included the prohibition of behavior that was considered unnecessarily

2|Page
cruel or dishonorable, and was not only developed by the armies themselves, but
was also influenced by the writings of religious leaders. The most significant
landmark from the point of view of cataloguing these customs in one document
was the drafting by Professor Francis Lieber of the Instructions for the
Government of Armies of the United States in the Field, promulgated as General
Order No. 100 by President Lincoln in 1863 during the American Civil War. The
Lieber Code, as it is now known, strongly influenced the further codification of the
laws and customs of war and the adoption of similar regulations by other States.
Together, they formed the basis of the draft of an international convention on the
laws and customs of war presented to the Brussels Conference in 1874. Although
this conference did not adopt a binding treaty, much of its work was later used in
the development of the 1899 and 1907 Hague Conventions and Declarations.
These treaties did not codify all aspects of custom, but its continued importance
was reaffirmed in the so-called “Martens clause”, first inserted in the preamble to
the 1899 Hague Convention (II), which provides that: Until a more complete code
of the laws of war is issued, the High Contracting Parties think it right to declare
that in cases not included in the Regulations adopted by them, populations and
belligerents remain under the protection and empire of the principles of
international law, as they result from the usages established between civilized
nations, from the laws of humanity and the requirements of the public conscience.
The importance attributed to customary law, despite, or because of, its partial
codification, was most clearly seen in the reliance placed on it by the various war
crimes trials after both the First and Second World Wars.1

What is international humanitarian law?

International humanitarian law is a set of rules which seek, for humanitarian


reasons, to limit the effects of armed conflict. It protects persons who are not or are
no longer participating in the hostilities and restricts the means and methods of
warfare. International humanitarian law is also known as the law of war or the law

1
See Knut Dormann, ¨ Elements of War Crimes under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: Sources and Commentary,
Cambridge University Press, 2003.

3|Page
of armed conflict. International humanitarian law is part of international law,
which is the body of rules governing relations between States. International law is
contained in agreements between States – treaties or conventions –, in customary
rules, which consist of State practice considered by them as legally binding, and in
general principles. International humanitarian law applies to armed conflicts. It
does not regulate whether a State may actually use force; this is governed by an
important, but distinct, part of international law set out in the United Nations
Charter

The driving force behind the development of international humanitarian law has
been the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), founded in 1863. It
initiated the process which led to the conclusion of the Geneva Conventions for the
protection of the victims of war of 1864, 1906, 1929 and 1949. It was at the origin
of the 1899 Hague Convention (III) and 1907 Hague Convention (X), which
adapted, respectively, the 1864 and 1906 Geneva Conventions to maritime warfare
and was the precursors of the Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the
Condition of the Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at
Sea of 1949. It took the initiative to supplement the Geneva Conventions that led to
the adoption in 1977 of two Additional Protocols. The ICRC has both encouraged
the development of and been involved in the negotiation of numerous other
treaties, such as the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, the 1997
Ottawa Convention banning antipersonnel landmines and the 1998 Statute of the
International Criminal Court. Recognition of this role is reflected in the mandate
given to the ICRC by the international community to work for “the faithful
application of international humanitarian law applicable in armed conflicts” and
for “the understanding and dissemination of knowledge of international
humanitarian law applicable in armed conflicts and to prepare any development
thereof”.2 More than 50 years have now passed since the Geneva Conventions of
1949 were adopted and almost 30 years since the adoption of their Additional
Protocols. These years have, unfortunately, been marked by a proliferation of
armed conflicts affecting every continent. Throughout these conflicts, the Geneva
Conventions – and in particular Article 3 common to the four Conventions,
applicable in non-international armed conflicts – together with their Additional

2
Statutes of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, adopted by the 25th International Conference of the Red Cross, Geneva,
23–31 October 1986, Article 5(2)

4|Page
Protocols have provided legal protection to war victims, namely persons who do
not or no longer participate in hostilities (the wounded, sick and shipwrecked,
persons deprived of their liberty for reasons related to the conflict, and civilians).
Nevertheless, there have been countless violations of these treaties and of basic
humanitarian principles, resulting in suffering and death which might have been
avoided had international humanitarian law been respected. The general opinion is
that violations of international humanitarian law are not due to the inadequacy of
its rules, but rather to a lack of willingness to respect them, to a lack of means to
enforce them and to uncertainty as to their application in some circumstances, but
also to ignorance of the rules on the part of political leaders, commanders,
combatants and the general public. The International Conference for the Protection
of War Victims, convened in Geneva from 30 August to 1 September 1993,
discussed, in particular, ways and means to address violations of international
humanitarian law but did not propose the adoption of new treaty provisions.
Instead, in its Final Declaration, adopted by consensus, the Conference reaffirmed
“the necessity to make the implementation of humanitarian law more effective”
and called upon the Swiss government “to convene an open-ended
intergovernmental group of experts to study practical means of promoting full
respect for and compliance with that law, and to prepare a report for submission to
the States and to the next session of the International Conference of the Red Cross
and Red Crescent”.3 To this end, the Intergovernmental Group of Experts for the
Protection of War Victims met in Geneva in January 1995 and adopted a series of
recommendations aimed at enhancing respect for international humanitarian law,
in particular by means of preventive measures that would ensure better knowledge
and more effective implementation of the law. Recommendation II of the
Intergovernmental Group of Experts proposed that: The ICRC be invited to
prepare, with the assistance of experts in IHL [international humanitarian law]
representing various geographical regions and different legal systems, and in
consultation with experts from governments and international organizations, a
report on customary rules of IHL applicable in international and no international
armed conflicts, and to circulate the report to States and competent international

3
International Conference for the Protection of War Victims, Geneva, 30 August–1 September 1993, Final Declaration, International Review of
the Red Cross, No. 296, 1993, p. 381

5|Page
bodies.4 In December 1995, the 26th International Conference of the Red Cross
and Red Crescent endorsed this recommendation and officially mandated the ICRC
to prepare a report on customary rules of international humanitarian law applicable
in international and non-international armed conflicts.5 The present study is the
outcome of the research carried out pursuant to this mandate. International
humanitarian law is comprised of international rules, established by treaty or
custom, which are specifically intended to solve humanitarian problems directly
arising from international or non-international armed conflicts. Its principal aims
are to protect persons and property that are, or may be, affected by the conflict -
e.g. civilians and prisoners of war and civilian objects - and to limit the right of the
parties to a conflict to use methods and means of warfare of their choice. 5 It is
primarily the duty of states to respect and ensure respect for international
humanitarian law. Other actors also play a role in IHL implementation - in
particular the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), which has been
mandated by the international community with specific protection and assistance
tasks in times of armed conflict. The United Nations and NGOs are also
increasingly relying on IHL to better advocate on behalf of civilians affected by
armed conflict. IHL, which is applicable only in times of armed conflict, does not
deal with the legality of use of force by states or other actors, but applies whenever
an armed conflict breaks out regardless of the underlying reasons. The legality of
use of force in international relations is regulated by the UN Charter and by
customary international law. Example War is raging between Country Y and
Country X. Humanitarian agency representatives are travelling across the
frontlines to provide aid and protection to the civilian population. The parties to the
conflict are prohibited from attacking or deliberately harming civilians, including
humanitarian personnel. Attacks must be restricted to military objectives only.

International Humanitarian Law (IHL) is a set of rules which seek to limit the
effects of armed conflict on civilians. It protects persons who are not or no longer
participating in hostilities and restricts the means and methods of warfare. IHL is
applicable to humanitarian assistance and protection of civilians and is based on
the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilians in Time

4
Meeting of the Intergovernmental Group of Experts for the Protection of War Victims, Geneva, 23–27 January 1995, Recommendation II,
International Review of the Red Cross, No. 310, 1996, p. 84.
5
26th International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent, Geneva, 3–7 December 1995, Resolution 1, International humanitarian law:
From law to action;

6|Page
of War and the 1977 Additional Protocols. The Fourth Convention sets out the
humanitarian obligations of states in international armed conflict in relation to
evacuation of or access to besieged or encircled areas (article 17) and the
obligations of the parties to allow free passage of medical supplies, as well as of
certain goods to groups of beneficiaries (article 23). It also establishes the rights of
non-citizens in the territory of a party involved in the conflict, including rights to
individual and collective relief (article 38), and prescribes the obligations of an
occupying power as regards relief schemes for the benefit of the population of an
occupied territory (articles 59-62). Article 3 common to all the Geneva
Conventions and applicable to non-international armed conflicts, stipulates that the
wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for, and an impartial humanitarian
body may offer its services to the parties of the conflict. The two 1977 Additional
Protocols contain further provisions relevant to humanitarian assistance in
international and non-international armed conflicts. In addition to treaty law, some
obligations have also developed into customary international law, i.e. are based on
state practice accepted as law. These include rules on the rapid and unimpeded
passage of humanitarian relief and the freedom of movement of humanitarian relief
personnel. Rules of customary law also provide protection applying specifically to
humanitarian relief personnel and objects. It is important to distinguish between
international human rights law and IHL. They are distinct bodies of law and, while
both are principally aimed at protecting individuals, there are important differences
between them. IHL is applicable in time of armed conflict and occupation.
Conversely, human rights law is applicable to everyone within the jurisdiction of
the state concerned in time of peace as well as in armed conflict. Thus, while
distinct, the two sets of rules may both be applicable in the same situation.

Humanitarian situations and needs


There are few conflicts today where civilians are not effectively being held hostage
by the warring parties. International humanitarian law is less and less respected,
there are fewer defenders of the law, and indiscriminate attacks frequently occur.
While the protection of civilians provided by the Geneva Conventions and
Additional Protocols is extensive, States and non-State armed groups are far too
often unwilling to act on this responsibility. As a result civilians continue to suffer
7|Page
excessively in almost every armed conflict. There is also a growing tendency to
close the door to humanitarians, preventing them from helping the victims. In
2014, 190 major attacks against aid operations occurred, affecting 329 aid workers
in 27 countries. This represents a decrease of roughly 30 per cent from 2013's
year’s all-time high but must be seen in the context of growing no-go areas
limiting humanitarian aid delivery6. (aidworkersecurity.org, as of 6 August 2015).
Today, Afghanistan, South Sudan, Syria and more recently Central African
Republic are among the countries where humanitarian workers are most at risk.
Buildings belonging to relief organizations have been attacked, vehicles and
convoys hijacked, and personnel murdered or kidnapped. Violence against these
workers affects civilians and prevents millions of people from receiving lifesaving
assistance. The principles and values on which humanitarian aid are founded are
not acknowledged or are simply ignored. Humanity, independence, neutrality and
impartiality – these principles are the foundations of humanitarian aid and should
protect relief workers, enabling them to operate freely. They should be respected
but the reality can be very different. A key reason for deliberate attacks on
humanitarians may simply be that their role is not fully recognized, understood or
differentiated. It has become increasingly difficult to identify what defines a
genuine "humanitarian". How can humanitarian action be considered neutral if in
the same emergency soldiers are carrying out "humanitarian" actions as well? How
is relief aid to be recognized as independent when armed forces use aid agency
emblems to deceive their opponents? Some links between humanitarians and the
military are essential as military logistics are often needed for large and rapid
humanitarian operations. However, this should not be regarded as the norm and
where links do exist, the respective roles should be clearly defined and in line with
their respective duties. The confusion of roles puts humanitarian workers in
danger. Civilians face a double jeopardy: targeted themselves and unable to obtain
aid because the people trying to help them are denied access or, in extreme cases,
killed in the course of their work. Professional humanitarian workers are in danger
if they are associated in the minds of warring factions with the military, or
political, religious or ideological authorities. It is therefore essential that all
involved respect the distinct and separate roles of the humanitarian agencies and
workers, comply with international rules, abide by the principles of international

6
www.icrc.org

8|Page
humanitarian law and defend humanitarian action. States should avoid integrating
humanitarian activities into their political and military campaigns. This is best left
to the professionals. Authorities must stop blocking humanitarian aid and provide
access to victims when the needs are real and lives are in danger. If neutral and
independent agencies are denied access to victims and intimidation is widespread,
civilians are doubly at risk of suffering.

Purpose of the study


International humanitarian treaty law is well developed and covers a wide variety
of aspects of warfare, offering protection to victims of war and limiting permissible
means and methods of warfare. The four Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their
Additional Protocols of 1977 provide an extensive regime for the protection of
persons who do not or no longer participate in armed conflict. The regulation of the
means and methods of warfare in treaty law goes back to the 1868 St. Petersburg
Declaration, the 1899 and 1907 Hague Conventions and the 1925 Geneva Gas
Protocol and has most recently been addressed in the 1972 Biological Weapons
Convention, the 1977 Additional Protocols, the 1980 Convention on Certain
Conventional Weapons and its five Protocols, the 1993 Chemical Weapons
Convention and the 1997 Ottawa Convention banning anti-personnel landmines.
The protection of cultural property in the event of armed conflict is regulated in
detail in the 1954 Hague Convention and its two Protocols. The 1998 Statute of the
International Criminal Court contains a list of war crimes subject to its jurisdiction.
There are, however, two important impediments to applying these treaties to
current armed conflicts. First, treaties apply only to the States that have ratified
them. This means that different treaties of international humanitarian law apply to
different armed conflicts depending on which treaties the States involved have
ratified. While nearly all States have ratified the four Geneva Conventions of 1949,
Additional Protocol I has not yet gained universal adherence. As the Protocol is
applicable only between parties to a conflict that have ratified it, its efficacy today
is limited because several States that have been involved in international armed
conflicts are not a party to it. Similarly, Additional Protocol II is only applicable in
armed conflicts taking place on the territory of a State that has ratified it. While

9|Page
some 150 States have ratified this Protocol, several States in which non-
international armed conflicts are taking place have not. In these non-international
armed conflicts, common Article 3 of the four Geneva Conventions often remains
the only applicable treaty provision. Secondly, this wealth of treaty law does not
regulate a large proportion of today’s armed conflicts in sufficient detail. The
primary reason for this is that the majority of current armed conflicts are non-
international, which are subject to far fewer treaty rules than international conflicts,
although their number is increasing. In fact, only a limited number of treaties apply
to non-international armed conflicts, namely the Convention on Certain
Conventional Weapons, as amended, the Statute of the International Criminal
Court, the Ottawa Convention banning anti-personnel landmines, the Chemical
Weapons Convention, the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural
Property and its Second Protocol and, as already mentioned, Additional Protocol II
and Article 3 common to the four Geneva Conventions. While common Article 3 is
of fundamental importance, it only provides a rudimentary framework of minimum
standards and does not contain much detail. Additional Protocol II usefully
supplements common Article 3, but it is still less detailed than the rules governing
international armed conflicts contained in Additional Protocol I. Additional
Protocol II contains a mere 15 substantive articles, whereas Additional Protocol I
has more than 80. These figures may not be all important, but they nonetheless
show that there is a significant difference in terms of regulation between
international and non-international armed conflicts, with the latter suffering from a
lack of rules, definitions, details and requirements in treaty law. This is the
prevailing situation, even though the majority of armed conflicts today are non-
international. Specifically, Additional Protocol II contains only a very rudimentary
regulation of the conduct of hostilities. Article 13 provides that “the civilian
population as such, as well as individual civilians, shall not be the object of attack .
. . unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities”. Unlike
Additional Protocol I, Additional Protocol II does not contain, however, specific
rules and definitions with respect to the principles of distinction and
proportionality. Common sense would suggest that such rules, and the limits they
impose on the way war is waged, should be equally applicable in international and
no international armed conflicts. The fact that in 2001 the Convention on Certain
Conventional Weapons was amended to extend its scope to non-international
armed conflicts is an indication that this notion is gaining currency within the
10 | P a g e
international community. This study provides evidence that many rules of
customary international law apply in both international and non-international
armed conflicts and shows the extent to which State practice has gone beyond
existing treaty law and expanded the rules applicable to non-international armed
conflicts. In particular, the gaps in the regulation of the conduct of hostilities in
Additional Protocol II have largely been filled through State practice, which has
led to the creation of rules parallel to those in Additional Protocol I, but applicable
as customary law to non-international armed conflicts. Knowledge of the rules of
customary international law is therefore of use to the many actors involved in the
application, dissemination and enforcement of international humanitarian law, such
as governmental authorities, arms bearers, and international organizations,
components of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement and non-
governmental organizations. A study on customary international humanitarian law
may also be helpful in reducing the uncertainties and the scope for argument
inherent in the concept of customary international law. Knowledge of the rules of
customary international law may also be of service in a number of situations where
reliance on customary international law is required. This is especially relevant for
the work of courts and international organizations. Indeed, courts are frequently
required to apply customary international law. This is the case, for example, for the
International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia which, pursuant to
Article 3 of its Statute, has jurisdiction over violations of the laws and customs of
war. As a result, the Tribunal has had to determine whether certain violations of
international humanitarian law were violations under customary international law
over which the Tribunal has jurisdiction. In addition, in many countries, customary
international law is a source of domestic law and can be invoked before and
adjudicated by national courts. Customary international law is also relevant to the
work of international organizations in that it generally represents the law binding
upon all member States.

11 | P a g e
Where did international humanitarian law originate?

International humanitarian law is rooted in the rules of ancient civilizations and


religions – warfare has always been subject to certain principles and customs.
Universal codification of international humanitarian law began in the nineteenth
century. Since then, States have agreed to a series of practical rules, based on the
bitter experience of modern warfare. These rules strike a careful some of their rules
are similar; these two bodies of law have developed separately and are contained in
different treaties. In particular, human rights law – unlike international
humanitarian law – applies in peacetime, and many of its provisions may be
suspended during an armed conflict. The main subject of this course will be the
study of contemporary international humanitarian law. Nevertheless, it is necessary
to briefly examine the evolution of that body of law. One can say that the laws of
war are almost as old as war itself. Even in ancient times, there were interesting —
although rudimentary — customs that today would be classified as humanitarian. It
is interesting to note that the content and aim of these customs were the same for
almost every civilization around the world. This spontaneous generation of
humanitarian standards, at different times and among peoples or states that
possessed limited means of communication with each other, is also an important
phenomenon. This phenomenon lends credence to the historical argument
regarding:

• The necessity of having rules that applies to armed conflicts;

• The existence of a feeling in many civilizations that, under certain circumstances,


human beings, friend or foe, must be protected and respected. 1 Definition
elaborated by the International Committee of the Red Cross and generally
accepted. Source: Commentary on the Additional Protocols of 8 June 1977, ICRC,
Geneva, 1987, p. XXVII. Although scholars generally agree that the birth of
modern IHL was in 1864, with the adoption of the First Geneva Convention, it is
also clear that the rules contained in that Convention were not entirely new. In
reality, a large amount of the First Geneva Convention was derived from existing
international customary law. In fact, there were rules protecting certain categories
of victims in armed conflicts and customs concerning the means and methods of

12 | P a g e
authorized or prohibited combat during hostilities as early as 1000 BC. Although
these ancient and often very rudimentary rules were not established for
humanitarian reasons, but rather for purely economical purposes, their effect was
humanitarian. For example:

• The prohibition against poisoning wells (reaffirmed in 1899 in The Hague) was
originally made in order to permit the exploitation of conquered areas;

• The first reasons for the prohibition against killing prisoners (reaffirmed and
developed in the Third Geneva Convention of 1949) were to safeguard the lives of
future slaves or to facilitate the exchange of prisoners. Such prohibitions can be
found in many different civilizations, throughout the world and throughout history.
For example, in many parts of Africa there were specific rules regarding the
commencement of hostilities between different peoples that correspond, to a large
extent, to the classical European traditional obligation of declaring war. Moreover,
in a treatise called “The Arts of the War”, written in 500 BC, the Chinese writer
Sun Tzu, expressed the idea that wars must be limited to military necessity, and
that prisoners of war, the wounded, the sick, and civilians should be spared.
Likewise, in the Indian subcontinent, similar rules can be found. For example, in
the Code of Manu written in 200 BC, one finds rules relating to behavior in
combat. The Code declared that barbed or poisoned weapons were prohibited, that
wounded soldiers had to be cared for, and that surrendering combatants must be
spared7.

What does international humanitarian law cover?


International humanitarian law covers two areas: The protection of those who are
not, or no longer, taking part in fighting; ! Restrictions on the means of warfare –
in particular weapons – and the methods of warfare, such as military tactics.

7
http://cdn.peaceopstraining.org/

13 | P a g e
What is “protection”?

International humanitarian law protects those who do not take part in the fighting,
such as civilians and medical and religious military personnel. It also protects those
who have ceased to take part, such as wounded, shipwrecked and sick combatants,
and prisoners of war. These categories of person are entitled to respect for their
lives and for their physical and mental integrity. They also enjoy legal guarantees.
They must be protected and treated humanely in all circumstances, with no adverse
distinction. More specifically: it is forbidden to kill or wound an enemy who
surrenders or is unable to fight; the sick and wounded must be collected and cared
for by the party in whose power they find themselves. Medical personnel, supplies,
hospitals and ambulances must all be protected. There are also detailed rules
governing the conditions of detention for prisoners of war and balance between
humanitarian concerns and the military requirements of States. As the international
community has grown, an increasing number of States have contributed to the
development of those rules. International humanitarian law forms today a universal
body of law.

Where is international humanitarian law to be found?

A major part of international humanitarian law is contained in the four Geneva


Conventions of 1949. Nearly every State in the world has agreed to be bound by
them. The Conventions have been developed and supplemented by two further
agreements: the Additional Protocols of 1977 relating to the protection of victims
of armed conflicts.

Other agreements prohibit the use of certain weapons and military tactics and
protect certain categories of people and goods. These agreements include:

 the 1954 Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of
Armed Conflict, plus its two protocols;

14 | P a g e
 The 1972 Biological Weapons Convention; ! the 1980 Conventional
Weapons Convention and its five protocols;
 the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention;
 The 1997 Ottawa Convention on anti-personnel mines; the way in which
civilians are to be treated when under the authority of an enemy power.
 This includes the provision of food, shelter and medical care, and the right to
exchange messages with their families. The law sets out a number of clearly
recognizable symbols which can be used to identify protected people, places
and objects. The main emblems are the red cross, the red crescent and the
symbols identifying cultural property and civil defence facilities8.

What restrictions are there on weapons and tactics?

International humanitarian law prohibits all means and methods of warfare which:

 fail to discriminate between those taking part in the fighting and those, such
as civilians, who are not, the purpose being to protect the civilian population,
individual civilians and civilian property;
 cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering;
 Cause severe or long-term damage to the environment.

Humanitarian law has therefore banned the use of many weapons, including
exploding bullets, chemical and biological weapons, blinding laser weapons and
anti-personnel mines.

Is international humanitarian law actually complied with?

Sadly, there are countless examples of violation of international humanitarian law.


Increasingly, the victims of war are civilians. However, there are important cases

8
www.icrc.org

15 | P a g e
where international humanitarian law has made a difference in protecting civilians,
prisoners, the

 The 2000 Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on
the involvement of children in armed conflict.

Many provisions of international humanitarian law are now accepted as customary


law – that is, as general rules by which all States are bound.

When does international humanitarian law apply?

International humanitarian law applies only to armed conflict; it does not cover
internal tensions or disturbances such as isolated acts of violence. The law applies
only once a conflict has begun, and then equally to all sides regardless of who
started the fighting. International humanitarian law distinguishes between
international and non-international armed conflict. International armed conflicts
are those in which at least two States are involved. They are subject to a wide
range of rules, including those set out in the four Geneva Conventions and
Additional Protocol I. Non-international armed conflicts are those restricted to the
territory of a single State, involving either regular armed forces fighting groups of
armed dissidents, or armed groups fighting each other. A more limited range of
rules apply to internal armed conflicts and are laid down in Article 3 common to
the four Geneva Conventions as well as in Additional Protocol II. It is important to
differentiate between international humanitarian law and human rights law. While
sick and the wounded, and in restricting the use of barbaric weapons. Given that
this body of law applies during times of extreme violence, implementing the law
will always be a matter of great difficulty. That said, striving for effective
compliance remains as urgent as ever.

16 | P a g e
What should be done to implement the law?

Measures must be taken to ensure respect for international humanitarian law.


States have an obligation to teach its rules to their armed forces and the general
public. They must prevent violations or punish them if these nevertheless occur. In
particular, they must enact laws to punish the most serious violations of the
Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocols, which are regarded as war crimes.
The States must also pass laws protecting the Red Cross and Red Crescent
emblems. Measures have also been taken at an international level: tribunals have
been created to punish acts committed in two recent conflicts (the former
Yugoslavia and Rwanda). An international criminal court, with the responsibility
of repressing inter alia war crimes, was created by the 1998 Rome Statute. Whether
as individuals or through governments and various organizations, we can all make
an important contribution to compliance with international humanitarian law.

17 | P a g e
Conclusion

Armed conflict-internal and international-is the cruelest reality of the twentieth


century. In spite of all the efforts that have been made to put peaceful negotiation
on a permanent basis in the place of the resort to arms, the toll of human suffering,
death and destruction, which wars inevitably bring, continues to grow. The
prevention of armed conflict is, and must remain, the first purpose of international
cooperation. The second is to preserve humanity in the face of the reality of war.
That is the intention of international humanitarian law. In a little more than 100
years, an impressive body of international humanitarian treaty law has been
established. There are today clear limits to the types of action that will be tolerated
in armed conflict. However, treaties and conventions-even when solemnly ratified-
cannot save lives, prevent ill-treatment, or protect the property of innocent people
unless the will exists to apply these agreements in all conditions. Nor will they be
effective unless everyone directly involved combatants and civilians alike-realizes
that the basic issue is one of respecting fundamental human rights.

18 | P a g e
Bibliography

 Human Rights law: Dr. H.O Aggarawl


 Dr U CHANDRA-Human rights law

Website

 www.icrc.org
 http://cdn.peaceopstraining.org/

19 | P a g e

You might also like