International Review of the Red Cross.

The International Review of the Red Cross aims to promote debate, reflection and critical analysis on
international humanitarian law, humanitarian action and policy during international armed conflict and other
situations of violence. It appears four times a year

In what situations does humanitarian law apply? For whom is it intended and who does it protect?
Extract from ICRC publication "International humanitarian law: answers to your questions"

International humanitarian law is applicable in two situations; that is to say, it offers two systems of
protection:

a) International armed conflicts In such situations the Geneva Conventions and Additional
Protocol I apply.

Humanitarian law is intended principally for the parties to the conflict and protects every individual or
category of individuals not or no longer actively involved in the conflict, i.e.: wounded or sick military
personnel in land warfare, and

● members of the armed forces' medical services;

● wounded, sick or shipwrecked military personnel in naval warfare, and members of the naval
forces' medical services;
● prisoners of war;

● the civilian population, for example:

▪ foreign civilians on the territory of parties to the conflict, including refugees;

▪ civilians in occupied territories;

▪ civilian detainees and internees;

▪ medical and religious personnel or civil defence units.

Wars of national liberation, as defined in Article 1 of Protocol I, are classified as international armed
conflicts .

b) Non-international armed conflicts

In the event of a non-international conflict, Article 3 common to the four Conventions and Protocol II
apply.

It should be noted that the conditions of application of Protocol II are stricter than those provided for by
Article 3 . In such situations, humanitarian law is intended for the armed forces, whether regular or not,
taking part in the conflict, and protects every individual or category of individuals not or no longer actively
involved in the hostilities, for example:

● wounded or sick fighters;

● people deprived of their freedom as a result of the conflict;

 ● the civilian population;

● medical and religious personnel.

Humanitarian law and non-international armed conflicts.

Article 3 common to the four Geneva Conventions is regarded as a sort of treaty in miniature . Even
including the provisions of Protocol II, the rules on internal armed conflicts remain less complete than
those dealing with international armed conflicts. It has proven difficult to strengthen the system of
protection in non-international armed conflicts in the face of the principle of State sovereignty.

The rules contained in Article 3 are considered as customary law and represent a minimum standard from
which the belligerents should never depart.

What law applies to internal disturbances and other situations of internal violence?

International humanitarian law does not apply to situations of violence not amounting in intensity to an
armed conflict. Cases of this type are governed by the provisions of human rights law and such measures
of domestic legislation as may be invoked

Occupation and international humanitarian law: questions and answers

A series of questions and answers by the ICRC's legal team on what defines occupation, the laws that apply,
how people are protected, and the ICRC's role.

1. What is occupation?

Article 42 of the 1907 Hague Regulations (HR) states that a "territory is considered occupied when it is
actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where
such authority has been established and can be exercised."

According to their common Article 2, the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 apply to any territory
occupied during international hostilities. They also apply in situations where the occupation of state
territory meets with no armed resistance.

The legality of any particular occupation is regulated by the UN Charter and the law known as jus ad
bellum. Once a situation exists which factually amounts to an occupation the law of occupation applies –
whether or not the occupation is considered lawful.

Therefore, for the applicability of the law of occupation, it makes no difference whether an occupation has
received Security Council approval, what its aim is, or indeed whether it is called an “invasion”,
“liberation”, “administration” or “occupation”. As the law of occupation is primarily motivated by
humanitarian considerations, it is solely the facts on the ground that determine its application.

More on Jus ad bellum

2. When does the law of occupation start to apply?

The rules of international humanitarian law relevant to occupied territories become applicable whenever
territory comes under the effective control of hostile foreign armed forces, even if the occupation meets
no armed resistance and there is no fighting.
The question of "control" calls up at least two different interpretations. It could be taken to mean that a
situation of occupation exists whenever a party to a conflict exercises some level of authority or control
within foreign territory. So, for example, advancing troops could be considered bound by the law of
occupation already during the invasion phase of hostilities. This is the approach suggested in the ICRC's
Commentary to the Fourth Geneva Convention (1958).

An alternative and more restrictive approach would be to say that a situation of occupation exists only
once a party to a conflict is in a position to exercise sufficient authority over enemy territory to enable it to
discharge all of the duties imposed by the law of occupation. This approach is adopted by a number of
military manuals.

3. What are the most important principles governing occupation?

The duties of the occupying power are spelled out primarily in the 1907 Hague Regulations (arts 42-56)
and the Fourth Geneva Convention (GC IV, art. 27-34 and 47-78), as well as in certain provisions of
Additional Protocol I and customary international humanitarian law.

Agreements concluded between the occupying power and the local authorities cannot deprive the
population of occupied territory of the protection afforded by international humanitarian law (GC IV, art.
47) and protected persons themselves can in no circumstances renounce their rights (GC IV, art. 8).

The main rules of the law applicable in case of occupation state that:

 The occupant does not acquire sovereignty over the territory.

 Occupation is only a temporary situation, and the rights of the occupant are limited to the extent of that
period.
 The occupying power must respect the laws in force in the occupied territory, unless they constitute a
threat to its security or an obstacle to the application of the international law of occupation.
 The occupying power must take measures to restore and ensure, as far as possible, public order and
safety.
 To the fullest extent of the means available to it, the occupying power must ensure sufficient hygiene
and public health standards, as well as the provision of food and medical care to the population under
occupation.
 The population in occupied territory cannot be forced to enlist in the occupier's armed forces.
 Collective or individual forcible transfers of population from and within the occupied territory are
prohibited.
 Transfers of the civilian population of the occupying power into the occupied territory, regardless
whether forcible or voluntary, are prohibited.
 Collective punishment is prohibited.
 The taking of hostages is prohibited.
 Reprisals against protected persons or their property are prohibited.
 The confiscation of private property by the occupant is prohibited.
 The destruction or seizure of enemy property is prohibited, unless absolutely required by military
necessity during the conduct of hostilities.
 Cultural property must be respected.
 People accused of criminal offences shall be provided with proceedings respecting internationally
recognized judicial guarantees (for example, they must be informed of the reason for their arrest, charged
with a specific offence and given a fair trial as quickly as possible).
 Personnel of the International Red Cross/Red Crescent Movement must be allowed to carry out their
humanitarian activities. The ICRC, in particular, must be given access to all protected persons, wherever
they are, whether or not they are deprived of their liberty.

4. What rights does the occupying power have regarding property and natural resources in the occupied
territory?
Private property

Private property cannot be confiscated by the occupier.

Food and medical supplies may be requisitioned exclusively for the use of the occupation forces and
administration personnel themselves (i.e. not for purposes of export outside of the occupied territory and
not for the benefit of anyone beyond the occupying personnel, unless necessary for the benefit of the
population under occupation itself) and only if the needs of the civilian population have been taken into
account (GC IV, art. 55).

Public property

The occupying power may seize any movable property, belonging to the state, which may be used for
military operations (HR, art. 53).

The occupant does not acquire ownership of immovable public property in the occupied territory, since it
is only a temporary administrator. Subject to restrictions regarding their exploitation and use, it can
nevertheless make use of public property, including natural resources, but it must safeguard their capital
value, in accordance with the law of usufruct (H R, art. 55).

5. When does occupation come to an end?

The normal way for an occupation to end is for the occupying power to withdraw from the occupied
territory or be driven out of it. However, the continued presence of foreign troops does not necessarily
mean that occupation continues.

A transfer of authority to a local government re-establishing the full and free exercise of sovereignty will
normally end the state of occupation, if the government agrees to the continued presence of foreign troops
on its territory. However, the law of occupation may become applicable again if the situation on the
ground changes, that is to say, if the territory again becomes "actually placed under the authority of the
hostile army" (H R, art. 42) – in other words, under the control of foreign troops without the consent of
the local authorities.

6. What is the situation of people deprived of their liberty, during and after occupation?

Prisoners of war are captured members of armed forces and associated militias who meet the criteria laid
down in the third Geneva Convention (GC III art. 4 A (2)); they are entitled to the rights granted in the
Convention. All other people held in occupied territory are protected by the Fourth Geneva Convention
(GC IV), apart from very few exceptions, such as the nationals of the occupying power or its allies.
However, in no case can persons deprived of their liberty for reasons related to the situation of occupation
fall outside the customary minimum standards guaranteed in article 75 of Protocol I.

Prisoners of war and civilian internees must be released without delay after the end of hostilities. However,
those who are accused of an indictable offence may remain in captivity until the end of criminal
proceedings or completion of their sentence (GC III, art. 119 (5), GC IV, art. 133 (2)). Until their release,
and as long as they are under the authority of the occupant, all those in custody remain protected by
international humanitarian law (GC III, art. 5 (1) and GC IV, art. 6 (4)).

7. What is the basis for ICRC protection activities for persons deprived of their freedom during
occupation and afterwards?

The ICRC has a legal right to visit anyone captured in relation to an international armed conflict, including
situations of occupation, on the basis of the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols (GC III,
arts 9 and 126, GC IV, arts 10 and 143, AP I, art. 81).
 If violence continues after the end of occupation, the ICRC's protection activities may have the following
legal bases:

In non-international armed conflicts, the ICRC bases its detention activities on article 3 common to the
four Geneva Conventions (and Additional Protocol II, where applicable). Article 3 establishes the ICRC’s
right to offer its services to the parties to the conflict with a view to engaging in relief action and visiting
persons detained for reasons related to the conflict.

In other situations of internal violence, which fall short of armed conflict, the ICRC may offer its services
based on its right of initiative laid down in the Statutes of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent
Movement (articles 5(2)(d) and 5(3))(

International humanitarian law and the Cold War

The 27th International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent is being held in Geneva from 30
October to 6 November 1999 –- halfway between two symbolicdates. On 12 August 1999, we celebrated
the 50th anniversary of the Geneva Conventions. On 1 January 2000, we will be entering a new century
and a new millennium.

These two events should prompt us to cast a retrospective eye over the past, to learn the lessons that it
holds for us. But they should also cause us to turn our gaze ahead, in order to better understand the
opportunities, the dangers, the hopes and the fears for the future.

First, the past.

On 12 August 1949, the governments, meeting at a diplomatic conference convened by the Swiss
government to review the humanitarian conventions in the light of Second World War experience,
adopted the four Geneva Conventions, which are still in force today.

In terms of humanitarian law, the 1949 Conventions brought considerable progress. Two successes in
particular should be highlighted:

● adoption of a new convention protecting civilians in wartime, and

● adoption of a special provision –- Article 3 com-mon to all four Conventions –- protecting the
victims of non-international armed conflicts.

The adoption of these new Conventions may be regarded as a response –- belated, certainly,
but one full of hope –- to the unspeakable suffering endured by civilians during the six years
of carnage that had just ended.

But it must be remembered that it was also a major political success.

For we must not lose sight of the fact that the anti-Axis alliance that had crushed Hitler's
regime fell apart as soon as the common enemy collapsed, leaving two antagonistic blocs
facing one another, two coalitions of States opposed on everything.

Over the four years that followed the war's end, relations between the West and the Soviet
Union deteriorated at a dizzying rate. With the blockade of Berlin and the Chinese civil war,
the world seemed ready to plunge into a Third World War long before it had recovered from
the Second.

And yet, despite this menace-laden environment –- or perhaps even because of the threat of
imminent disaster –- the States managed to rally around the red cross and red crescent
emblems and adopt new rules to protect the victims of war. This political success was all the
more remarkable as it was achieved in the most unfavourable of circumstances.

It must be said, however, that the universality of the new Geneva Conventions was more
apparent than real. In becoming party to them, many States, in particular the Soviet Union
and its allies, made reservations that seriously restricted the extent of their commitment.

In reality, the division of the world into two antagonistic blocs hindered compliance with
humanitarian law in almost all the conflicts spawned by the Cold War, while both the ICRC's
role as a neutral intermediary and the principles underpinning its work were rejected.

We need to remember this and rid ourselves of the mistaken idea that things used to be
easier. The obstacles were different, but they were no less real than those facing us today.

The Second World War also led to the collapse of the old colonial empires and the
emancipation of countries and peoples who were demanding the freedom that was their due.

The new States emerging from decolonization resented being bound by Conventions that
they had not had a hand in drawing up, and demanded a new international humanitarian
order that would take greater account of their legitimate aspirations. This objective was
largely attained with the adoption, on 8 June 1977, of the two Protocols additional to the
Geneva Conventions. These Protocols updated the rules governing the conduct of hostilities
and restored the principle of immunity for the civilian population which underpins all
humanitarian law.

From the collapse of the Berlin Wall to the conflict over Kosovo

The Cold War ended ten years ago with the pulling-down of the Berlin Wall, followed
shortly thereafter by the break-up of the Soviet Union. We have no cause to miss the Cold
War period, with its many horrifying conflicts. It was a time when humankind lived under
the constant threat of its own annihilation.

But we do have to acknowledge that the end of the Cold War did not bring on the
worldwide peace that people everywhere had been hoping for. While political solutions did
put an end to several major conflicts in Central America, Asia and southern Africa, other
conflicts have persisted as home-grown factors have taken the place of the former
ideological confrontation. Above all, the ending of the Cold War gave free rein to tensions
and hatred that had been accumulating over the years. These have produced exceptionally
violent conflicts, particularly in the Balkans, the Caucasus and Central Asia.

Though the world has overcome its old divisions, though the extraordinary development of
transport and communications media has bound it ever more tightly together in a dense
network of exchanges, and though before our very eyes a new world is taking shape in which
interdependence is stronger than ever, we are also seeing a rising tide of identity-driven
claims for group recognition, too often leading to bigotry, to rejection of outsiders, to
exclusion from society, to war, and sometimes to the extreme form of intolerance that we
thought had been banished for good: genocide. The tragic events in Rwanda and the terrible
events in Cambodia are still fresh in everyone's memory.

But while the Cold War imposed a somewhat uniform model on all armed conflicts, both
international and non-international, the international community and humanitarian agencies
today find themselves confronted by situations involving a proliferation of armed groups,
the collapse of all State structures and the ever-closer intertwining of political and criminal
activity. In a number of countries, we are witnessing a return to forms of private war that we
thought had been abolished: warlords carving out for themselves fiefdoms over which they
reign supreme, pillaging the resources of the areas under their control and holding to ransom
their own population and the humanitarian agencies.

And at a time when the plight of war victims is perhaps more desperate than ever before, the
work of the humanitarian agencies is all too often paralyzed by lack of security. In recent
years the International Committee of the Red Cross, like other organizations, has paid a very
high price for its determination to come to the aid of victims of conflict despite an
increasingly chaotic work environment. I would like to pay tribute to our own expatriate and
local staff as well as those from the National Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies whose
humanitarian commitment has cost them their lives in the crime-ridden flash-points of
Europe, the Middle East, Africa, Asia and Latin America in which they were working. I
would also like to express my solidarity with all the other humanitarian agencies that have,
like the ICRC, been the victims of violence.

Kidnappings, assaults, murders –- all these tragic acts unfortunately reflect a growing
contempt for international humanitarian law, for the protective emblem and for the dignity
of the individual.

In too many conflict-ridden places, the ICRC is confronted day after day by serious and
repeated violations of humanitarian law.
Africa remains one of our chief concerns owing to the many wars tearing that continent
apart and the particularly cruel suffering caused by them, especially among civilians who,
even in peace time, are barely able to keep themselves at subsistence level.

To be sure, we must welcome the outcome of the negotiations that have enabled three
African countries –- South Africa, Mozambique and Mali –- to put an end to conflicts that
seemed intractable and to carry through, each in its own way, processes of national
reconciliation that can serve as examples to other countries and other conflicts.

But while three conflicts have come to an end, there are countless new eruptions of violence
on the African continent, and above all the many that seem never-ending, in which the
warring parties appear to be locked into the confrontations in which they are at once
perpetrators and victims: Sudan, Somalia, Congo-Brazzaville, Congo-Kinshasa, Rwanda,
Burundi, Uganda, Angola, Sierra Leone. Nor should we forget the war between Ethiopia and
Eritrea. The list of conflagrations that is keeping the continent plunged in grief is a long one
indeed.
In Sudan, Somalia and Angola, the sheer endlessness of the fighting creates particularly
dreadful circumstances for the civilian population –- all too often the victims of violent
excesses committed by the combatants –- who long ago exhausted the last of their reserves.
The rest of the world grows accustomed to a conflict that goes on and on; it ends up
forgotten. But for those in its grip, for the civilians who are its hostages and its victims, it
means suffering that is renewed every day over again.

In Sudan, the civil war has destroyed the means of subsistence –- and even survival –- of the
population of much of the country. The medical and agricultural infrastructure has been
wiped out, and investment in the civilian economy is virtually non-existent. The famine of
1998 once again demonstrated the need for impartial, neutral humanitarian action, and no
doubt it will continue much the same in the future, until such time as political dialogue
makes it possible to find a way out of the conflict devastating that vast country.

In Somalia, every vestige of State structure, every manner of public service and, especially, all
forms of security other than a system of clan-based protection vanished several years ago.
The entire population is being held to ransom by the warlords who have divided up the
country between them. We must admit that outside intervention, the deployment of United
Nations forces, has not made it possible to rebuild the foundations of the Somali State,
which exists in law but no longer has any concrete reality. The truth is that the solution can
come only from the Somalis themselves, and time is running out as unfavourable climatic
conditions threaten to aggravate even further the appalling plight of the civilian population.

In Angola, over 30 years of civil war have left an incalculable relief requirement. Although it
possesses an enviable abundance of natural resources, the country is one of the poorest on
the continent. Like other humanitarian organizations, the ICRC now finds itself denied
access to the areas controlled by UNITA, even though all indications are that the situation
there is an appalling one. We are ready to come to the assistance of the civilians living there,
and indeed to all other people who find themselves in need as a result of war, provided that
access routes are opened to us.

In Burundi and Rwanda, the lack of any reconciliation between the communities disputing
rights to the same country makes prospects for a settlement dim indeed. And in Rwanda, the
plight of detainees remains one of the ICRC's main concerns. True, we cannot ignore the
fact that among them are individuals who took part in the genocide and thus have much
blood on their hands. We cannot forget the scale of the massacres that were committed or
the need to identify those responsible, to punish the crimes committed. Humanitarian law
fully recognizes that need, while reminding us that each person must be presumed innocent
until convicted by a regularly constituted court. But humanitarian law also prescribes that
every human being, however serious the wrongs he is accused of, must be treated humanely,
with respect for his physical safety and for his dignity. When people are packed into cells
where they do not even have room to sit down, we are far removed from this principle. No
judicial exigency could possibly lend legitimacy to such conditions of detention.

The situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo is of particular concern because of
its consequences from a humanitarian point of view and the risk of destabilization that could
come from the disintegration of this enormous country at the heart of the continent. Five
years of bloody fighting have led to a de facto division of the State. The ICRC is active there,
it is true. But the huge size of the country and the poverty of a large proportion of its
population make the needs for humanitarian aid so immense that no one humanitarian
organization can cope with them all.

West Africa, finally, has been racked by two particularly cruel conflicts, in Liberia and Sierra
Leone. Though hostilities have officially ended in each of those countries, the atrocities
committed during the conflicts, especially in Sierra Leone, are still fresh in our minds,
including the unbearable images of children who were mutilated –- not accidentally but
deliberately, with an axe or a machete. We need to keep these horrors alive in our memories
and, above all, we need to learn the lessons they hold. They show, yet again, the need for
preventive action, because once violence has free rein, it is too late to stop it.

Although African countries have been shaken by numerous crises following their
independence, and devastated by all too many civil wars, they long managed to spare their
continent the scourge of wars between States. Unfortunately, this is no longer the case. The
intervention by neighbouring countries in the Democratic Republic of the Congo has
involved large stretches of the region, linking up a number of different flash-points and
dimming even further prospects for a settlement.

More than all else, however, for over two years now two African countries have been waging
war relentlessly: position warfare, trench warfare, a war of attrition –- there loom before us
images from a distant past that we thought buried deep in the recesses of history. This
conflict, which is being fought in barely accessible areas, attracts little media attention. And
yet it has already claimed more victims than the events in Kosovo. Recently I had the
opportunity to meet some of them on a mission that brought me not just to the capitals,
Asmara and Addis Ababa, but also near the combat zones, to camps for displaced persons,
aid centres and hospitals. Let us not turn a blind eye to their suffering.

Yet much of this suffering would have been avoided if humanitarian law had been fully
complied with. For this is an international conflict to which most of international
humanitarian law is applicable, even though Eritrea has not yet acceded to the Geneva
Conventions. Those Conventions largely codify rules of customary law that are, as such,
already binding on all the parties to the conflict. The ICRC is particularly anxious about the
situation of the prisoners of war to whom it does not have access, especially the Ethiopian
prisoners in Eritrean hands. I recently voiced this concern to that country's highest
authorities.

Turning now to North Africa, we should remember the victims of the conflict in the
Western Sahara, in particular the plight of the prisoners of war, some of whom have been
held for a quarter of a century now, even though active hostilities ended years ago. No less
tragic is the fate of several thousand refugees, who are eking out a living in makeshift
shelters in the middle of the desert –- a particularly inhospitable environment. The ICRC
makes regular representations on their behalf, and will persistently renew them until the
prisoners of war have finally been repatriated and a definitive solution has been found for
the refugees.

After years of confrontation and violence that have taken tens of thousands of lives, Algeria
is at last glimpsing a ray of hope amid the unspeakable suffering. The ICRC was very pleased
recently to be able to resume its work in conjunction with the Algerian Red Crescent to help
women and children affected by the violence in that country weighed down by so much
grief. In addition, following an agreement with the Algerian authorities, ICRC delegates last
October began visiting persons deprived of their freedom.

For 32 years the ICRC has been working in the countries of the Middle East because for 32
years the aftermath of the June 1967 conflict has continued to torment their populations –-
in Israel, in the territories occupied by that country, in those under the jurisdiction of the
Palestinian Authority and in neighbouring countries. To be sure, the ICRC heartily welcomes
the peace treaties that have been signed between Israel and two of its neighbours as well as
the peace negotiations that recently resumed between Israel and the Palestinian authorities.
Yet serious concerns remain. I am thinking in particular of the plight of detainees and that of
Palestinian refugees, many of whom were uprooted over half a century ago –- some twice in
two successive conflicts, in 1948 and again in 1967 –- and who fear being left out in the cold
by current or future negotiations. We must not lose sight of these long-term victims, and
that goes for other conflicts as well. There can be no peace except that brought about by
people for people. We cannot find a lasting solution to the political problems of our day
unless we manage to remedy the tragedies caused by war. Humanitarian law offers not only a
means of limiting violence in war –- it also points the way forward on the path to peace. And
in the Middle East like everywhere else, that path necessarily leads first to relief from the
suffering that every war leaves in its wake.

The same applies to the aftermath of the 1991 Gulf War, and especially the painful issue of
those who disappeared. Despite periodic meetings, the fate of these people remains a cause
for concern.

In a region riddled with so many tragedies, I am pleased to note the progress made towards
resolving a situation that has caused untold suffering. Following discreet negotiations, Iraq
and Iran have arrived at agreements on the release of prisoners captured during the long
conflict between those two countries. Some of these prisoners had been detained for almost
20 years. Arrangements were made to enable those who so wished to return home, and the
ICRC was happy to be able to offer the assistance of its delegates in bringing this about.

At the same time, we should remember the situation inside Iraq. For over nine years that
country has been subjected to an economic embargo whose effects are growing steadily
more serious. It is not for the ICRC, of course, to pronounce on sanctions decreed by the
United Nations Security Council, nor is it my intention to do so. And we should mention the
measures that have been proposed, in particular in Security Council Resolution 986, to
relieve the effects of the embargo on the civilian population. The ICRC is duty-bound,
however, to draw attention to the embargo's consequences in humanitarian terms, which are
disastrous. Agricultural production has slumped for lack of fertilizer, the availability of
drinking-water has fallen sharply for lack of means of maintaining the distribution networks,
public services are paralyzed, and hospitals and dispensaries are short of medicines. A large
country with almost 20 million inhabitants is in the process of sinking into the abyss before
our very eyes. We urgently need to show imagination, to devise new solutions if we are to
find a way out of the present impasse; for there is no shortage of examples to prove that
once a situation becomes unmanageable, it is extremely difficult to contain. The ICRC has
significantly stepped up its relief work in Iraq, in particular in the medical sphere, and will
continue to do so while fully respecting United Nations resolutions. But the real problems
are political ones, and call for political solutions.

I should also mention the situation in south-eastern Turkey. However one describes the
events there –- and the ICRC is careful to avoid a legalistic wrangle on this question –-
fighting is taking place. That fighting involves armed forces and military means and is leaving
many victims in its wake. The ICRC is prepared, as it has always been, to come to the aid of
the people affected by these events, impartially and on the sole basis of their needs.

In Abkhazia, Nagorny Karabakh and Tajikistan, hostilities have been suspended by cease-fire
agreements signed two, three or even four years ago, and the ICRC is very pleased to see
that blood has ceased to be spilt. We are concerned, however, at the lack of a political
settlement to any of these conflicts, and the dearth of any significant progress in the
negotiating process. Hostilities have ended, but the negotiations are making no headway.
And the problems from a humanitarian point of view caused by these conflicts remain
unsolved: refugees and displaced persons do not dare to return home, it is impossible to
throw light on what has happened to those who have disappeared, economic networks have
broken down, and some areas remain under blockade, whether de jure or de facto. As we
well know, destructive forces are at work. In the absence of fruitful negotiations, the
incidents multiply, frustration grows and the risk of resumed hostilities grows with it. As
everywhere else, building peace in the former Soviet Union means alleviating the suffering
caused by war. The terrorist attacks carried out recently in Moscow and Volgodonsk and the
bloody clashes taking place at the moment in Chechnya show how very real the risk of
resumed hostilities is when there is no political progress. War is once again ravaging the
northern Caucasus, and no one can predict the course it will take.

For almost 20 years now, Afghanistan has been put to fire and sword, and it is still
impossible to see even the slightest hope of peace. Twenty years! An entire generation has
been born into war and has never known anything else. The international community has
long despaired at the way this interminable conflict flares up again and again. And yet the
needs of the victims are immense. The ICRC is determined to carry on its work, but alone it
does not have sufficient resources to meet those needs. The fact that there seems no
prospect of a political settlement, however, is no excuse for abandoning Afghanistan.

Despite the limited stakes in territorial terms, the Kashmir conflict recently brought two
major Asian countries –- two nuclear powers –- to within a hair's breadth of fresh
confrontation, with all the horrors, all the destruction that any war leaves in its path. The
worst was avoided, fortunately, but this does not mean that the threat of further clashes has
been removed. Humanitarian law offers solutions to the human problems caused by war,
thereby making it possible to relieve tension. The tools are available. We should try to use
them.
The interminable conflict bedevilling Sri Lanka stands out from most modern-day wars in
that the fighting is mainly between combatants and the civilian losses are less numerous than
those in the opposing forces. It is nevertheless a merciless war. Virtually no prisoners are
taken on either side. Let us not mince our words: an ancient rule applies to this concept of
war. It is found in all countries and all civilizations, and codified in Article 23 of the 1907
Hague Convention (IV): ''It is ... forbidden to declare that no quarter will be given'' or to kill
an enemy who surrenders.

After a war –- or rather a succession of wars –- stretching over almost half a century, peace
has finally come to South-East Asia thanks to the political settlement of the civil war that
was tearing Cambodia apart. This fact deserves to be emphasized, even though wounds still
run deep. It is to be hoped that, now that peace has been restored, the peoples of this region
will find the path to reconciliation and prosperity.

The situation in Indonesia, on the other hand, calls for special vigilance as that vast country,
made up of over 13,000 islands, is riddled with flash-points threatening its stability. Aceh,
Irian Jaya, Ambon and Kalimantan are all simmering, while economic and social tensions
reveal the threat of fresh violence lurking beneath the surface.

The conflict in East Timor was foreseeable –- and occur it did. This too was a war directed
against civilians. All the warning signs were there, the humanitarian agencies on the ground
had sounded the alarm in good time –- why did we have to wait until we actually saw
pictures of the outrages committed by the militias, and tens of thousands of innocent
civilians fleeing, before the international community decided to react? The measures finally
taken did halt the excesses and enabled thousands of refugees to return home. But the
question remains: Why, when there was no shortage of warning signs, did action come so
late? Thousands of lives would have been spared if the measures taken in the end had been
taken earlier.

Most of the conflicts that afflicted Latin America were terminated through political
settlement, mainly thanks to the ending of the Cold War. Nevertheless, two situations
remain of concern to the ICRC.

In Peru, while the armed clashes that burdened the country for so long have, mercifully,
ended, the situation of the people arrested in connection with the conflict remains a matter
of concern. But above all the situation in Colombia, ravaged as it is by interminable conflict,
merits our attention. Not only has war taken firm hold over the past 50 years or more,
virtually becoming a part of national life in a society that has gradually forgotten what it is to
live in peace, but worst of all there is a growing infiltration of organized crime into the
paramilitary forces in the service of the government on one side, and the opposition
movements on the other.

On the European continent, finally, the endless Yugoslav conflict persists. The deep wounds
left by previous confrontations still gape, and recent events in Kosovo must not blind us to
the need for solutions to the problems caused by the conflicts that devastated first Croatia
and then Bosnia-Herzegovina. Here too, there are many refugees and displaced persons who
have been unable to return to their homes, but who have found no lasting places in host
countries. There are many families of missing people still waiting to find out what has
happened to their loved ones and who, in the absence of certainty, are unable to resign
themselves to the cruel fact of death in order to mourn them.

The tragic events in Kosovo are still fresh in all our memories. For the ICRC, the conflict
began with a painful setback as, a few days after the airstrikes started, we had to withdraw
our delegates from the province, where their safety was no longer guaranteed. The ICRC
nevertheless managed to renew contact with the authorities concerned and was even able to
resume its field operations, which meant that our delegates were on the spot as the fighting
ended and the refugees began flowing back into Kosovo.

Visits to Kosovar refugee camps in Macedonia and Albania made clear to me the scale of the
disaster caused by the events of last spring, and shortly thereafter I raised the plight of these
refugees with the highest authorities in Belgrade. I also made personal representations to
NATO officials in order to voice my concerns about the consequences of the airstrikes.

It is too soon yet to draw all the lessons from this conflict, whose exceptional nature the
ICRC was quick to grasp, both in terms of the military resources available to the NATO
countries and the underlying factors linked to the organization's intervention.

The reasons put forward by the 19 NATO countries included not just the determination to
impose a political settlement, which the Rambouillet negotiations had not succeeded in
bringing about, but also to halt the excesses committed against the Albanian-speaking
population of the province. War to restore the rule of law, war as a sanction for massive
violations of human rights and of the laws and customs of war –- this was indeed one of the
objectives of NATO's action.

It is not for me to express an opinion on the grounds cited to justify resorting to armed
force, and I will strictly confine myself to the standpoint of humanitarian law.

Insofar as it ended the violence that caused the exodus of nearly a million of Kosovo's
inhabitants and thus allowed those refugees to return home, the NATO intervention no
doubt attained one of its objectives. From the viewpoint of humanitarian law, however, it
raises questions to which it would be presumptuous to attempt answers without the benefit
of hindsight.

Despite the precautions taken and the precision of the weapons used, the NATO operation
left victims among the civilian population. It destroyed large swathes of the Yugoslav
economy; nor did it spare the economic infrastructure of Kosovo itself. We thus have to ask
ourselves how much suffering it prevented and set that against the suffering it caused.

One thing NATO's action did not do was restore coexistence between two communities
laying claim to the same territory but separated by a bottomless chasm of mistrust, which the
events of recent months have widened even further. Serb and Roma refugees have now
replaced the Kosovo Albanians on the road to exile.

Finally, the use of the term ''humanitarian'' to describe and even justify resorting to armed
force cannot but cause concern to all humanitarian organizations –- and in particular the
ICRC –- who base their work on the consent of the parties to conflict. The fact that a war
has as its principal goal to put a stop to serious violations of human rights and international
humanitarian law is not enough to qualify it as ''humanitarian''. As we know only too well, all
war means bloodshed, and every war claims victims. Whatever the grounds cited, strictly
speaking there can be no such thing as a ''humanitarian war''.

Conversely, it is obvious that inaction in the face of grave breaches of humanitarian law, of
contempt for human rights, of ''ethnic cleansing'' or genocide –- wherever these crimes are
committed –- can only sap the obligatory force of the rules protecting human dignity and
lead to fresh violence. The mass graves discovered in Kosovo show that this risk cannot be
taken lightly.

There is no doubt but that, like the setting up of international tribunals for the repression of
war crimes, NATO's initiative opens up new perspectives on compliance with international
humanitarian law and respect for human rights. On the other hand, it would be a mistake to
think that this model for intervention can be applied easily to other conflicts or other
continents.

Finally, the needs for humanitarian action that resulted from the Kosovo crisis (a very real
need to which the ICRC did its best to respond as the last international humanitarian
organization to leave the province after bombing started and the first to return as soon as
security conditions permitted) must not be allowed to overshadow the needs of the victims
of other conflicts. Refugees and displaced persons in Africa, Asia and Latin America require
our help, and the Kosovo crisis must not deprive them of the necessary assistance.

I have mentioned the main conflicts of which the ICRC is endeavouring, in one way or
another, to protect and assist the victims. But this litany of war and other tragic situations
casting a pall over our planet has by no means been exhausted. As we know, there are still
many other instances of confrontation, violence and tension within countries which are very
often the warning signs of conflicts to come, or the aftermath of inadequately resolved
conflicts.

After this rapid review of today's conflicts, I would like to stress five issues of concern that
they present in common.

The first is the plight of the civilian population. There was a time when war decimated only
the armed forces: soldiers were easy to recognize from their uniforms; they fought against
one another and would have regarded it as the height of cowardice to attack defenceless
civilians. Today we increasingly see civilians themselves deliberately targeted. The aim of war
is no longer merely to achieve military victory but rather to alter the ethnic make-up of a
coveted territory by deliberately attacking civilians, either to force them to flee, or to
eliminate them. ''Ethnic cleansing'' and genocide are extreme forms of these criminal
policies. Recent events in Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Rwanda, Kosovo and East Timor
are fresh in our memories.

This development undermines the very foundations of humanitarian law, for the immunity
of the civilian population is one of its cardinal principles. But the threat goes far deeper. It is
the very basis on which we humans live together –- our very civilization –- that is being
threatened by policies of ''ethnic cleansing'' or genocide. The international community has
been duty-bound to react. And it has done so –- with varying degrees of success, it is true.

The second issue is the matter of anti-personnel mines, and though we have discussed this at
length in recent years, I must once again speak out against any weapon that strikes
indiscriminately, that mutilates without offering any hope of healing, and that continues to
maim and kill long after the hostilities have ended. In fact, it is in the very nature of these
weapons to claim more victims among civilians, who are obliged to till the land, than among
combatants. And in many countries the number of victims of these hateful weapons actually
increases after the fighting has ended since farmers are anxious to return to their pre-war
way of life.

The ICRC does not pretend to know the number of anti-personnel mines infesting the earth
of our planet. We do, however, know the number of people who have been fitted with
artificial limbs in our prosthetic workshops over the past 20 years: more than one hundred
thousand people fitted with prostheses by the ICRC alone! And at least half of them were
victims of anti-personnel mines.
The adoption of the Ottawa treaty represented a great victory in the struggle against these
cowardly weapons, and it gives me tremendous pleasure to express my personal thanks and
that of the ICRC to the governments, National Societies and non-governmental
organizations who campaigned for this treaty's acceptance. But it still has to be universally
ratified; as of today, only 89 States are bound by its provisions. And effective compliance
with those provisions has yet to be achieved. A fresh mobilization is needed to bring this
about.

The third issue is the trade in light weapons, which cause unspeakable suffering and
destabilize the countries into which they flow without any control. It is up to the
international community to find ways to control trafficking in arms of all kinds, and to curb
a business that is all too often immoral, as a blind eye is turned to the real destination of the
weapons exported. Here the States have a definite duty, and this applies most particularly to
the five permanent members of the Security Council, who are also the main weapons
producers. The States and the companies that export weapons need to remember that they
share with the combatants who wield those weapons the responsibility for the use to which
they are put.

Finally, I would like to mention the plight of those particularly innocent victims: children
caught up in the turmoil of war. I am thinking first and foremost of child soldiers, of all
those children who are recruited, sometimes by force, and often assigned the most perilous
missions as they fail to grasp the danger involved. Many are killed or maimed; all are
deprived of their childhood as it is wrecked amid the thunder of gunfire and the horror of
combat.

Nor must we forget the actual assaults on children: the murders, the rapes and other forms
of violence. Sadly, there have been too many examples in recent years for it to be possible to
mention all of them here, and it would be unfair to stigmatize any particular country. We
must condemn all attacks on children. No reasoning can possibly justify such crimes.

The suffering of women concerns us as much as that of children, and the ICRC recently
undertook to devote in future greater attention in all its activities to the plight of the women
affected by armed conflict. In its programmes to promote knowledge of humanitarian law
the ICRC will remind people that women enjoy special protection under humanitarian law. It
will also stress their situation in its protection work and relief operations. This is a solemn
commitment that the ICRC has decided to announce at the 27th International Conference
of the Red Cross and Red Crescent.
International humanitarian law on the threshold of the new millennium

As we look to the future on this threshold of the new millennium, we must acknowledge
that there has emerged no new international order capable of replacing the order forged in
Yalta, which fell apart with the collapse of the Berlin Wall.

Ten years ago the world entered a period of transition and instability, a period of new
conflicts that do not fit the models to which we were accustomed and whose main feature is
their unpredictability.

Unfortunately, there is every reason to believe that in the future these conflicts will claim
victims even more numerous than in the past, if only because populations are expanding and
have been made more vulnerable by growing urbanization and a deteriorating natural
environment; and above all because of the proliferation of weapons of all kinds.

All analysts agree that internal conflicts will in future be far more numerous than wars
between States. As a result of the disappearance of the Cold-War-driven bipolarity that used
to prevail within States as well as at the international level, these new conflicts will no doubt
be characterized by a proliferation of the perpetrators of violence, leading in some cases to
the collapse of all State structures and a resurgence of things we had thought over and done
with, as each warlord carves out his own fiefdom over which he reigns supreme.

We would therefore be seriously deluding ourselves if we imagined that we could expect the
future to be easier than the past. And yet, whatever the outlook, we must not allow ourselves
to be overwhelmed by pessimism. The difficulties the future appears to hold in store for us
must not cause us to surrender to passivity or resignation. On the contrary, we must act.

That is why, at its 27th International Conference, the International Red Cross and Red
Crescent Movement is proposing a plan of action designed chiefly to strengthen respect for
humanitarian law and thereby to reinforce protection of war victims. This plan rests on the
conviction –- born of the ICRC's experience in arenas of conflict –- that if we wish to do
useful work, we must try to contain violence in the first place rather than reacting when we
are confronted with unrestrained violence.

The first step is, obviously, to ensure the universality of the treaties of international
humanitarian law, in particular the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols, the
Ottawa treaty outlawing anti-personnel mines, the Hague Convention for the protection of
cultural property and the Statute of the International Criminal Court, adopted in Rome on
17 July 1998.

The universality of these treaties will serve as an additional guarantee of compliance.

Combatants will see that they reflect the will of the entire international community, and the
warring parties will refer to the same set of rules on both sides of the front.

This being the case, we call on those States that made reservations when they became party
to the Geneva Conventions or their Additional Protocols to re-examine the relevance of
those reservations in the light of present-day circumstances. Any reservation to a multilateral
treaty weakens both its binding nature and its universality since it entails the coexistence of
two different rules on the same subject. Many of the reservations to the Geneva
Conventions date from the Cold War and bear its stamp. Re-examining them now that
passions have cooled would no doubt prompt States to withdraw them.

To ensure that humanitarian law is fully complied with, States must bring their national
legislation into line with their international obligations. In particular, they must introduce
provisions into their military and civilian penal codes that make it possible to repress
violations of those obligations. Thus, those who might be tempted to violate international
humanitarian law will know that they are also violating the internal law of their own State,
and thereby leaving themselves open to punishment.

But for humanitarian law to be respected, it must be sufficiently familiar to those who are
required to implement it, in particular all members of the armed forces. The States party to
the Geneva Conventions have undertaken to incorporate the teaching of this law into their
military training programmes and to make its principles known to the civilian population.
But rare, unfortunately, are the States that take this obligation as seriously as it deserves to be
taken. Rare are those that take practical steps to fulfil it. And yet it is obvious that this
teaching must already be provided in peacetime, that it must be included in military training,
because it is a part of military training in the same way as is the handling of weapons and
other devices. In addition, the law of armed conflict must become an integral part of the
forces' doctrine of engagement. Respecting humanitarian law is also –- perhaps even
primarily –- a question of military command and discipline.

Finally, the political and military authorities are responsible for preventing and repressing
violations of humanitarian law. Prevention means giving clear instructions to officers and
troops, and maintaining strict discipline. Prevention means setting the example by brooking
no concessions. But it also means being firm in repressing any violations that have been
committed. It does not matter that those violations have been committed against an enemy
–- murder is murder, whoever the victim, and murdering a defenceless person is particularly
heinous. Turning a blind eye to such crimes means letting the rot develop, permitting a lack
of discipline that will pervade all facets of military life.

It is the duty first and foremost of the States to organize this repression and I must point out
that each of the States party to the Geneva Conventions is under an obligation to prosecute
and punish any person responsible for serious breaches of those Conventions, whatever
their nationality and wherever the breaches have been committed.

The international community recently gave itself the means to ensure such repression at the
international level too, by setting up the International Criminal Tribunals for the former
Yugoslavia and Rwanda. But it was above all the adoption, in Rome on 17 July 1998, of the
Statute of the International Criminal Court that marked a decisive step forward in this
respect. These will no doubt contribute in exemplary fashion to strengthening respect for
humanitarian law, when all those who might be tempted to violate its rules know that they
may have to answer for their crimes.

As Blaise Pascal wrote, ''Justice without strength is helpless; strength without justice is
tyrannical ...''. Will our era finally succeed in reconciling these two imperatives, which have
for too long seemed mutually exclusive?
The International Committee of the Red Cross unreservedly saluted the setting up of the
International Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, and even more so the
adoption of the Statute of the International Criminal Court. It was pleased to have been able
to contribute to the completion of the work that led to the Statute's adoption, even though,
owing to the particular nature of its mandate, it cannot consent to its delegates appearing as
witnesses before an international tribunal. The very possibility of such testimony would
destroy the trust that the ICRC has to build with all parties to conflict, with all its contacts,
as a means of providing protection and assistance to the victims of war in accordance with
the mandate it has received from the international community.

Finally, we must bear in mind that, in becoming bound by the Geneva Conventions, the
States have undertaken not only to respect the Conventions themselves but also to ensure
respect for them in all circumstances. Thus, each member of the international community
has committed itself to ensuring that these treaties are universally respected, and to employ
to this end all the means at its disposal: diplomatic influence, leverage from within
international organizations, and economic pressure too, insofar as the provisions stipulating
special dispensations for the most vulnerable population groups are respected.

Can this obligation go so far as to authorize the use of force? International humanitarian law
does not provide for this, but neither does it rule it out. The fact is that this question can be
resolved only in the light of the provisions of the United Nations Charter.

The consultation of over 20,000 victims of war carried out by the ICRC this past year has
shown that everyone –- and I do mean every one –- is aware of the need for rules that limit
violence in war. Ideas differ as to what those rules should prescribe, and not everyone is
ready to respect them, but all the women and men we have consulted recognize the absolute
necessity for humanitarian rules, and the necessity for humanitarian protection.

What war victims and humanitarian organizations alike expect from governments is not that
they should act as substitutes for humanitarian agencies by conducting their own relief
operations, but that they should see to it that the rules which they have accepted are
respected. It is up to the States to ensure that the treaties by which they are bound are
univer-sally respected, and it is by doing this that they can contribute –- decisively –- to
protection for the victims of war.

These victims have placed their trust in us. Let us send the world a clear message about the
need to restore respect for humanitarian law. This is what it will take to protect human
dignity and fundamental human rights, for there can be no respect for human rights in time
of war unless humanitarian law is also respected.

Let us put the individual and respect for human dignity back at the heart of political
thinking, back at the heart of political decision-making; for it remains the individual who is
the ultimate concern of both the State and the international community.
For the victims of war and similar violence, the Geneva Conventions represent hope, a form
of protection –- a light in the blackness of war.

Let us open our hearts to the appeals of war victims. Let us listen to them and bring them
the assistance they need. Let us afford them the protection demanded by their situation,
basing our actions wherever we can on the Geneva Conventions, and going beyond them
when necessary.

''No matter what their intrinsic value and significance, texts rely for their application on the
action of men'', wrote DrMarcel Junod, an ICRC delegate, at the end of a journey that took
him to all four corners of the world. ''Again and again on the missions which took me to
many theatres of war, I had the lively impression that I too was a combatant engaged in
battle.''

''A battle must be waged against all those who violate, or neglect, or know nothing of, the
provisions of these Conventions. A battle must be waged for their proper application and
for their extension. And if the texts should prove imperfect then a battle must be waged to
secure recognition for their spirit.''

''Whoever accepts such a mission is in no way exempt from the risks of battle, but he must
become blind and deaf to the reasons why it is being waged.''
''There are never more than two adversaries engaged in battle. But these adversaries are apt
to find that suddenly in their midst is a third combatant –- a warrior without weapons.''

This warrior without weapons is the ICRC delegate who ventures out between the lines to
organize an exchange of prisoners or to deliver relief supplies. It is the Red Cross or Red
Crescent first-aid worker who, in Africa, in Asia, in America, in Europe or in the Middle
East, agrees to put his life in danger to come to the assistance of those who are suffering.
But it is also each woman and each man of goodwill who is concerned about the plight of
the victims of war and feel solidarity with them in their suffering.
The victims of war have pinned their hopes on us. Let us live up to their expectations.