Advertisement ::

Enlarge Cartoon

Missing persons, working with families: Peru (image: © 2009 B Heger / ICRC)

Click on images to view larger

Geneva, Switzerland (GenevaLunch) – When the second world war came to an end in 1945 it was clear to witnesses of the more than six years of massive abuses of human rights that the world needed to banish the idea of “total war” and find a way to protect non-combatant victims of war. The four Geneva Conventions were signed 12 August 1949 in Geneva, sixty years ago today, cementing and extending earlier conventions to protect military people, prisoners, and civilian populations in times of war. They became the legal basis of humanitarian protection during war, around the world. Jakob Kellenberger, the president of the ICRC (International Red Cross) in Geneva, an organization whose history is closely intertwined with that of the Conventions, called on governments to better respect the treaties. “The lack of respect for existing rules remains, as ever, the main challenge,” he told a gathering in Geneva. The ICRC is the custodian of the Conventions.

The Geneva Conventions, with additional Protocols to the Conventions, are in fact a series of treaties, ratified by 194 countries, making them the most widely embraced treaties after the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Bosnia, 10 years later: identifying bones (image: © 2009 B Schaeffer / ICRC)

“They aimed to abolish the concept of  ‘total war’ as witnessed during the second world war by establishing a legal framework to place limits on how war is waged. Today, they continue to constitute the bedrock of international humanitarian law, or IHL, and are among the most important treaties governing the protection of victims of armed conflict,” Christine Beerli, vice-president of the ICRC (International Red Cross) told a group in London in July.

The relevance of IHL has been called sharply into question in recent years, with changes in warfare. Kellenberger points out that “The traumatic events of 9/11 and its aftermath set a new test for IHL. The polarization of international relations and the humanitarian consequences of what has been referred to as the ‘global war on terror’ have posed a huge challenge. The proliferation and fragmentation of non-state armed groups, and the fact that some of them reject the premises of IHL, have posed another. These challenges effectively exposed IHL to some rigorous cross-examination by a wide range of actors, including the ICRC, to see if it really does still stand as an adequate legal framework for the protection of victims of armed conflict. In short, the result of this sometimes arduous process was a resounding reaffirmation of the relevance and adequacy of IHL.

Lebanon, after stepping on a landmine (image: © 2009 M Kokic / ICRC)

The ICRC has led much of the debate about how to ensure that IHL remains relevant. Among the issues today that need more clarification, he argues: what does direct participation in hostilities by civilians mean, what is a military objective, the “principle of proportionality” and “precaution”. These new issues have arisen partly because of “the growing number of military operations conducted in densely populated urban areas, often using heavy or highly explosive weapons,” says Kellenberger.

Related:

• The Geneva Conventions, description and history on the ICRC web site
• Geneva Conventions are 60 years old – time to know them better! Quiz, Trial Watch (Ed note: highly recommended!)
• Swissinfo on the Conventions