Before the Lieber Code and Geneva Conventions came a treaty between the Spanish Empire and Simon Bolivar’s revolutionary forces in Colombia and Venezuela. The 1820 Treaty for the Regularization of War aimed at reducing the unnecessary suffering of both soldiers and civilians affected by armed conflict and occupation across a broader spectrum than any previous international agreements. However, despite the significance of such a development in international law, the treaty fell into relative obscurity after the Colombian War of Independence until being slowly reintroduced throughout the 20th century.

In this post, graduate student Jacob Coffelt from the University of Padua explores what can be considered the birth of international humanitarian law in Latin America as well as the effects colonialism has had on its legacy. Using both historical and contemporary sources, he argues that the codification of modern principles of international humanitarian law had occurred decades prior to what is traditionally suggested.

Codifying IHL before Lieber and Dunant: The 1820 treaty for the regularization of war

The draft elements of the resolution ‘Toward a universal culture of compliance with international humanitarian law’ elaborated for the 34th International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent ‘welcome the increasing number of voluntary reports published by states on the domestic implementation of international humanitarian law (IHL)’ (para. 13). This recognizes how voluntary reports are progressively implementing the recommendations made to states by the 2019 Resolution 1 ‘Bringing IHL Home’, ‘to carry out…an analysis of the areas requiring further domestic implementation…(and)…to share examples of and exchange good practices of national implementation measures taken in accordance with IHL obligations’.

In this post, and in the run-up to the 75th anniversary of the Geneva Conventions later this year, Giulio Bartolini, professor of international law (Roma Tre University/Geneva Academy IHL and HRs) and President of the IHL Scientific Committee of the Italian Red Cross, analyzes the genesis and characteristics of voluntary reports on IHL, underscoring their potential to play a role in favouring a ‘culture of compliance with IHL’.

Voluntary reports: a new tool ‘toward a universal culture of compliance with IHL’

The widespread use of heavy explosive weapons has reached alarming levels, exacting a staggering toll on civilian lives. From Gaza to the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Sudan to Syria, and Ukraine to Yemen and Myanmar, the suffering of civilians and destruction is immense, scarring communities long after the bombing stops – but it is also preventable. The Political Declaration on Strengthening the Protection of Civilians from the Humanitarian Consequences Arising from the Use of Explosive Weapons in Populated Areas, endorsed by 86 states worldwide, brings hope of long-term change for civilians caught in conflict. Yet if it is to bring about meaningful impact, it demands resolute action from endorsing states.

In this post, a group of experts from organizations gathering alongside the global community of states to assess progress and challenges and discuss future prospects at the first international follow-up conference hosted by the Norwegian government in Oslo urgently call on states to faithfully implement their commitments and broaden the support for the Political Declaration. They argue that the success of the Declaration hinges on translating political will into meaningful action among endorsing states, including comprehensive policy reforms, enhanced training for military personnel, improved operational planning processes, and robust exchanges of experience and best practices to ensure better protection of civilians and compliance with international humanitarian law (IHL).

Protecting civilians in conflict: the urgency of implementing the Political Declaration on EWIPA

Today, there are over 120 armed conflicts around the world, involving over 60 states and 120 non-state armed groups. The majority of these armed conflicts are of a non-international character, the number of which has tripled since the turn of the millennium. To know what rules regulate an armed conflict, there is one crucial first step to take: its classification.

In this post, and in the run-up to the 75th Anniversary of the Geneva Conventions, ICRC Legal Advisers Samit D’Cunha, Tristan Ferraro, and Thomas de Saint Maurice introduce the latest ICRC Opinion Paper, which restates the rules, approaches and interpretations the organization uses to classify and declassify armed conflicts.  They argue that, despite the many contemporary challenges, IHL remains today fit-for-purpose for the classification of armed conflicts.

Defining armed conflict: some clarity in the fog of war

Based on the ICRC’s firsthand observations in and around cities in conflict across the globe, an evolved form of one of the oldest methods of warfare – siege and encirclement – remains a persistent feature of today’s urban battles. Civilians trapped within besieged areas or those displaced from them endure some of the most horrific humanitarian conditions.

In this post, ICRC Legal Adviser Abby Zeith takes a closer look at contemporary urban siege and encirclement and the civilian harm that they cause, how international humanitarian law (IHL) regulates such methods of warfare, and why states and their policymakers and militaries need to do more to understand, prepare for, and mitigate civilian harm caused by such operations in the future.

Trapped in conflict: urban sieges and encirclement

There is today an idea of a single humanity, with each member equally valued, and a global legal framework exists to prevent needless human suffering, including in war. Dehumanization arises as the negation of a common, positive, and mutually supportive humanity, though there is no single definition, and it certainly predates its opposite. Research indicates that dehumanization increases the risk of conflict and violence, increases the risk of abuses therein, and makes it harder to resolve conflict.

In this post – an overview of a forthcoming article written in her personal capacity – Natalie Deffenbaugh posits mirror definitions of humanity and dehumanization and what they mean, especially in relation to conflict and violence. She looks at why and how dehumanization happens and the real-world harm that can result when espoused or tacitly condoned by those holding power. She closes with an overview of how humanity, in global legal frameworks and as a Fundamental Principle, can curb and push back against some of the worst that dehumanization can do.

De-dehumanization: practicing humanity

Preventing the catastrophic human cost of war is a central purpose of modern international law. Some norms, like those found in the UN Charter, set out to eliminate war altogether, requiring the peaceful resolution of disputes instead. Other rules, like those found in the Geneva Conventions, step in to protect us when all else has failed. The Conventions, which every country has joined, are at the heart of the law of armed conflict: a set of rules that constrain the behavior of warring parties during a conflict, no matter how it might have started, and no matter who is at fault.

In this post, ICRC’s chief legal officer and head of the legal division Cordula Droege asserts that it is time to remember that the purpose of international humanitarian law is to protect lives, not legitimize large-scale devastation.

War and what we make of the law

Next week marks the 75th anniversary of the four Geneva Conventions of 1949. Against a backdrop of over 120 armed conflicts worldwide, this should prompt us not to celebrate, but to reflect: how were these now universally accepted humanitarian norms drafted, and are they still fit for purpose today?

In this post, ICRC Legal Adviser Ellen Policinski examines how the Geneva Conventions are interpreted and applied today, providing concrete examples from the ICRC’s updated Commentaries. She goes on to investigate the recurring critique that international humanitarian law (IHL) is somehow outdated, examining who benefits from the narrative that the Geneva Conventions and IHL more generally are not appropriate legal tools to govern armed conflicts today.

War’s long legacy: the continued importance of the Geneva Conventions 75 years later

The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) Humanitarian Law & Policy blog is a unique space for timely analysis and debate on international humanitarian law (IHL) issues and the policies that shape humanitarian action.

New tracks tagged #WarHasRules