ICRC Humanitarian Law and Policy Blog

The universality of international humanitarian law (IHL) assumes that its principles transcend cultural, geographical, and political boundaries. However, this presumption is challenged by the complexities of how IHL is perceived and implemented across different sociocultural contexts. Bridging the gap between theoretical universalism and practical application requires strategies that are sensitive to local cultural and normative particularities. In this post, part of the Emerging Voices series, Ayan Abdirashid Ali explores how Somali literary traditions, particularly Sugaanta Soomaaliyeed, offer a unique and effective means of aligning IHL's ethical framework with local cultural narratives, thereby enhancing its legitimacy and effectiveness. By weaving together legal and cultural perspectives, she highlights how such traditions can serve as powerful tools for fostering peace and reconciliation in conflict-prone regions.

In today's armed conflicts, hospitals are increasingly being attacked or misused for military purposes, undermining one of international humanitarian law's most fundamental protections. These strikes have devastating consequences for the people who rely on hospitals for life-saving care, from patients and medical staff to entire communities. When hospitals are damaged or forced to shut down, critical services like paediatric care or intensive care treatment vanish, often with fatal results. Despite clear legal safeguards granting protection to hospitals, cases indicate that hospitals are at times misused for military purposes and attacks regularly ensue. In many cases, core IHL principles are either deliberately ignored or applied in a permissive manner, threatening the very idea that hospitals must be specifically protected as neutral sanctuaries by all sides to a conflict. In this post, ICRC Legal Advisers Supriya Rao and Alex Breitegger explore how IHL's specific protection of hospitals is both robust and comprehensive, grounded in a presumption of neutrality that can only be lost in narrowly defined cases. Even when misuse occurs, parties are required to issue a warning and give time for it to stop, striking as a last resort only if the hospital meets the definition of a military objective – and even then, the rules of proportionality and precautions apply to limit the harm. Upholding this framework is essential to ensuring that the wounded and sick can access care, and that humanitarian principles endure, even amid the horror of war.

This year marks eight decades since the Holocaust, a defining moment of human suffering and moral failure. The memory of six million murdered Jews, and millions of others persecuted and killed, remains a solemn imperative. It compels not only remembrance, but a reaffirmation of collective responsibility. The 1949 Geneva Conventions were born to serve as a legal and moral bulwark against such atrocities. Yet memory fades, and with it, vigilance. As civilians continue to suffer in today's wars, the legacy of the Holocaust urges both commemoration and action: against dehumanization, against silence, and in defence of the rules meant to protect life and human dignity in conflict. This audio recording captures a discussion recently held at ICRC headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland, as part of an institutional event to mark the 80th anniversary of the Holocaust – a moment of remembrance and reflection. Thirty years ago, the ICRC publicly acknowledged its failure during the Holocaust: silence in the face of mass extermination. While not an exhaustive account of the ICRC's actions and inactions, the conversation confronts a number of difficult truths to inform present and future action. It is not intended to offer comfort, but clarity. By revisiting parts of this painful history, the ICRC reaffirms its commitment to transparency, accountability, honoring victims, and the enduring relevance of international humanitarian law.

The accelerating integration of emerging technologies into armed conflict is transforming not only the tools of war, but its tactics, geography, participants and impact. Technological developments – from commercial drones to artificial intelligence, electronic warfare to the military use of civilian infrastructure – risk undermining boundaries between military and civilian domains. These changes challenge long-held assumptions about the character and conduct of warfare, how wars are fought in practice, while raising legal and humanitarian concerns for the protection of civilians and the preservation of the principle of distinction. In this post, Ruben Stewart, ICRC Adviser on New Technologies of Warfare, explores the drivers and implications of this transformation. He focuses on how evolving technologies and trends are influencing the conduct of hostilities and impacting the protection of civilians. He underscores the urgent need to uphold legal norms amid these shifts, particularly the principle of distinction, ensuring that complexity does not become a pretext for non-compliance. At the heart of his analysis is a call to reckon with the profound humanitarian consequences these changes impose on those caught in conflict.

Large-scale detention operations in international armed conflicts (IACs) pose significant humanitarian, legal, and operational challenges. International humanitarian law (IHL) provides detailed rules governing the treatment and protection of persons deprived of liberty, whether they are prisoners of war, other persons interned for security reasons, or other protected persons. These obligations, enshrined primarily in the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions, require not only compliance once the armed conflict begins, but advance planning during peacetime. Without the appropriate institutions, infrastructures, and trained personnel in place beforehand, states risk falling short of their legal obligations when hostilities erupt, to the detriment of detainees' rights and dignity. In this post, ICRC Legal Advisers Sylvain Vité and Isabelle Gallino explore what it takes to comply with IHL in large-scale detention operations during IACs, focusing on the preparatory measures that states must undertake long before the first capture. Building on the previous post in this series, they highlight the critical need to establish functioning legal and administrative mechanisms, ensure the availability of adequate facilities and resources, and embed IHL training across relevant personnel.

When states adapt “total defence” strategies that mobilize entire populations in preparation for armed conflict, the line between civilian and combatant can become dangerously blurred. This raises pressing legal, ethical, and humanitarian questions about the risks to civilians in warfare. In this post, Ruben Stewart, ICRC Adviser on Technology in Warfare, traces the roots of “total defence” to the Napoleonic Wars, when conscription, guerrilla resistance, economic blockades, and propaganda drew civilians into the machinery of war. Through this historical lens, he shows how involving civilians in defence efforts – then and now – can expose them to harm, complicate their legal protection, and increase the burden on states to safeguard those not taking direct part in hostilities.

Amid the complexities of contemporary armed conflicts, damage to water infrastructure and the use of water as a means or method of warfare have devastating consequences for both civilian populations and the environment. Despite existing legal protections, gaps in compliance and enforcement leave water systems vulnerable, exacerbating humanitarian crises and ecological harm. Addressing these challenges requires a renewed focus on legal frameworks, accountability, and practical measures to strengthen the protection of water in conflict settings. In this post, part of the Emerging Voices series, Tadesse Kebebew, Researcher and Project Manager at the Geneva Water Hub, examines the severe consequences of attacks on water systems and the weaponization of water in armed conflicts. He assesses the strengths and limitations of current international legal protections and offers concrete recommendations to enhance safeguards for freshwater resources, emphasizing the need for stronger compliance with international humanitarian law.

Landmines, a persistent threat in post-conflict zones, pose severe risks to both human lives and the environment. These explosive devices, often buried underground, remain dormant for years, contaminating soil and water and causing long-term ecological damage. While robust legal frameworks governing landmines exist under international humanitarian law (IHL), landmine instruments have only recently begun to incorporate more explicit environmental protections. In this post, and as part of the Emerging Voices series, Goran Sandić, Researcher at the University of Belgrade and Coordinator of the Belgrade International Law Circle, argues that the “polluter pays” principle – originally formulated in international environmental law – can serve as an interpretive lens to reinforce the responsibility of states and other actors for environmental harm arising from landmine use. By weaving this principle into existing processes, we can more effectively address the ongoing costs of landmine remediation and underscore the responsibility of parties that violate fundamental obligations under IHL. This approach aims to support environmental justice while enhancing the legal framework for armed conflicts, which could influence post-conflict recovery efforts and mine action globally.

As public opinion is critical in shaping decision-making during armed conflict, engaging with and informing youth and the broader public about international humanitarian law (IHL) is essential for ensuring compliance with the law and promoting accountability. IHL education – both formal and non-formal – is key to this endeavor. Engagement across all generations and audiences – both military and civilian – is important to ensure a broad and enduring understanding of the goals of IHL and ultimately contribute to prevent and reduce suffering in armed conflict through an informed and motivated public. With over 42% of the global population under the age of 25, young people are especially critical to these efforts. In this post, Etienne Kuster, Catherine Gribbin, Jonathan Somer, Thomas Harper and Charlotte Tocchio share insights from IHL educators and IHL experts around the world on how IHL education needs further investment in order to build a universal culture of compliance.

As states increasingly focus on strengthening their defense capabilities, discussions on military preparedness are gaining prominence, particularly in relation to large-scale conflicts. Such conflicts, involving major powers, advanced weaponry, and extensive resources, would unfold with considerable intensity, scale, and tempo. The humanitarian consequences would be far-reaching and severe, potentially causing mass casualties, mass displacement, and the disruption of essential services. The Geneva Conventions, adopted in the aftermath of two world wars, were designed precisely to help mitigate the suffering in armed conflict. Yet ratification alone is not enough: for these rules to be upheld in practice, extensive legal and operational preparations must begin in times of peace. This introductory post sets the stage for a new series examining the steps needed to ensure compliance with international humanitarian law (IHL) in large-scale conflicts. Isabelle Gallino, ICRC Prevention Adviser, and Sylvain Vité, ICRC Senior Legal Adviser, argue that states must do more than recognize their legal obligations. Applicable rules must be understood, internalized, and backed by legal and practical measures today if they are to be effective once an armed conflict erupts. Ultimately, failure to prepare can undermine even the best-intentioned efforts to comply with IHL.

References to Islamic law made by the delegations of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Syria during the 1974–1977 Diplomatic Conference – which led to the adoption of the two Additional Protocols to the 1949 Geneva Conventions – offer a partial glimpse into the contributions of Islamic law to the development of some modern international humanitarian law (IHL) principles. In this post, ICRC's legal adviser for Islamic law and jurisprudence, Ahmed Al-Dawoody and ICRC Associate Medha Damojipurapu examine some of the contributions of Islamic law to the development of the Additional Protocols, as well as the motivations for ratification by Muslim-majority states. They maintain that studying these perspectives can support humanitarian organizations to effectively communicate and anchor the protection owed to people affected by armed conflict during their dialogue in relevant contexts.

International law recognizes the importance of environmental protection during armed conflict. Additional Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions was the first treaty to formally prohibit warfare methods that cause widespread, long-term, and severe environmental damage. The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) further criminalizes damage to the natural environment as a war crime, though its high threshold has so far prevented its use. The existing initiatives to define “ecocide” aim, among other things, to broaden accountability beyond armed conflict and include corporations. In this post, part of the Emerging Voices series, Iryna Rekrut, Legal Fellow at the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies, proposes an additional potential avenue that could also be used to improve accountability for environmental damage under the Rome Statute. She argues that a more expansive interpretation of existing provisions – particularly refining the definitions of “widespread,” “long-term,” and “severe” damage – could meet the evidentiary burden and make prosecution more viable under current international law.

Earlier this month, Lithuania's unprecedented withdrawal from the Convention on Cluster Munitions (CCM) took effect. Meanwhile, several states are openly questioning their continued adherence to other humanitarian treaties, including the Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention (APMBC). These developments take place amid heightened international tensions and mounting security concerns, both in Europe and globally. They come at a time when respect for fundamental humanitarian norms is shockingly insufficient, as the immense devastation in ongoing conflicts demonstrates. In this post, ICRC Chief Legal Officer Cordula Droege and ICRC Legal Adviser Maya Brehm caution that recent challenges to the APMBC mirror broader threats to the life-saving protections of international humanitarian law (IHL). They argue that justifications for using anti-personnel mines (APM) tend to be divorced from battlefield realities and overlook the appalling impacts of these treacherous weapons. The authors also show how efforts to circumvent or abandon the APMBC challenge fundamental precepts of IHL and undermine the international rule of law. The post concludes with a call to reinforce humanitarian norms as essential safeguards for upholding humanity in war.

Amid the devastation of armed conflict, hospitals stand as fragile sanctuaries, overwhelmed by demand and depleted of essential supplies. Struggling to function under relentless strain, they remain uniquely vulnerable – yet, rather than being protected, they are too often caught in the crosshairs of tactical attacks and political allegations. In this installment of the Emerging Voices series, Khang Phan and Thao Nguyen, recent graduates of Ritsumeikan Asia Pacific University, trace patterns in attacks on hospitals in contemporary conflicts. They examine the legal protections in place and the practical challenges that undermine compliance and enforcement. In doing so, they underscore the need for more effective warning systems and stronger communication among stakeholders to ensure hospitals receive the fullest possible protection.

Contemporary armed conflicts are increasingly complex and, through rapid technological development, increasingly remote. This calls into question the capacity of a machine to apply human emotional traits such as empathy and caution, crucial for effective judgement and evaluation in challenging situations. Despite the precision and reliability that might be achieved through the increased automation of military activities such as target identification, from a humanitarian perspective, outsourcing such high-stakes decisions to machines is highly problematic. In this post, Dr Joanna Wilson, Lecturer in Law at the University of the West of Scotland, calls for the urgent ‘rehumanization' of military decision-making. Emotions play a key role in this. While sometimes blamed for unpredictable, erratic human behaviour, for which a machine might therefore be viewed to be a welcome alternative, emotions are indispensable for effective and flexible moral reasoning, intuition, and self-regulation. The use of artificial intelligence (AI) should thus be exclusively limited to effectively supplementing and facilitating human agency and decision-making: a technological means for strictly human ends.

In today's multilateral disarmament, peace and security, and humanitarian fora, a key responsibility of states – and a challenge for their lawyers and policy makers – is to find common understandings on the international legal limits on information and communication technology (ICT) activities during armed conflicts. Following over two decades of discussions – and gradual progress – in UN General Assembly mandated groups of governmental experts and open-ended working groups on the use of ICTs, multilateral efforts to agree to such limits have reached an important juncture. In this post, the ICRC's Laurent Gisel and Tilman Rodenhäuser highlight the significant progress achieved on the protection of civilian populations against ICT activities through the adoption of ‘the first humanitarian ICT resolution' at the 34th International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement in October 2024. The authors discuss the trajectory that this resolution sets for multilateral work in the UN Open-Ended Working Group that concludes this year, for the ICTs workstream of the Global Initiative on IHL, and the ICRC's project on a digital emblem.

As the devastating impacts of armed conflicts continue to mount, civilians are enduring unimaginable suffering. Violations of international humanitarian law (IHL) are compounding these crises, while emerging threats such as autonomous weapons and cyber warfare add new dimensions to the challenges facing humanity. Despite the universal ratification of the Geneva Conventions, the erosion of respect for these fundamental rules of war endangers lives, infrastructure, and the fragile prospects for peace. In this post, ICRC President Mirjana Spoljaric outlines the pressing need for states to join the Global Initiative on international humanitarian law. By reaffirming their commitment to this much-needed body of law, states can ensure the protection of civilians, restore dignity to those affected by conflict, and build a pathway toward sustainable peace. The time to act is now, and the Global Initiative offers a platform for collective action to uphold the rules that safeguard humanity.

Canada recently published its first voluntary report on the implementation of international humanitarian law (IHL), highlighting its efforts to comply with IHL rules. However, the report overlooks key challenges and critical issues, leaving gaps that future reports should address. In this post, Professor Tiwa Fomekong examines the achievements described in Canada's report alongside its omissions, arguing that for such reports to reach their full potential as tools for enhancing respect for IHL and accountability, future efforts must be more comprehensive and transparent in addressing shortcomings, detailing corrective actions, and tackling emerging issues.

In an era of rising geopolitical tensions, terms like ‘hybrid threats,' ‘grey zones,' and ‘proxy warfare' are frequently used to describe covert and ambiguous operations, suggesting they blur the lines between peace and armed conflict. From cyberattacks on civilian infrastructure to the damaging of undersea cables, these acts are often labeled as ‘hybrid warfare,' raising questions about their legal and political implications. In this post, and drawing from the ICRC's 2024 report on contemporary challenges to international humanitarian law (IHL), ICRC Legal Advisers Samit D'Cunha, Tristan Ferraro, and Tilman Rodenhäuser clarify how legal criteria – not political narratives – determine whether a situation constitutes an armed conflict, highlighting the importance of accurate classification to uphold the protections afforded by IHL.

Around the world, civilians in cities at war face immense risks. Urban warfare devastates lives and livelihoods, as people are killed and injured, critical infrastructure such as hospitals and water systems are damaged or destroyed, and entire communities are forced to flee. Disruptions to essential services amplifies the suffering of civilians and poses significant humanitarian challenges. As urbanization grows, the impact of conflicts in cities demands urgent and coordinated action to reduce harm and uphold the protections afforded under international humanitarian law (IHL). At the 34th International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent in October 2024, this pressing issue was raised through the adoption of a Solemn Appeal on War in Cities. The resolution, adopted by consensus, reflects a shared recognition of the human cost of urban warfare and a commitment to improving the protection of civilians. To mark this moment, the resolution was read aloud during the conference, underscoring its importance and the collective responsibility it calls for. Today, we share both the transcript and video of the reading as a reminder of the need for action to safeguard human lives and preserve dignity in urban conflict settings.

Members of armed forces receive international humanitarian law (IHL) training as a matter of course, but they are not the only actors who must apply this body of law; lawyers within governments, international organizations, and NGOs all have roles in this regard. Did they have the opportunity to study IHL? And contemporary armed conflicts have made IHL compliance an issue on university campuses around the world. But do students have access to IHL courses? In this post, international law professor Marina Sharpe answers these questions in relation to Canadian law schools, finding that while IHL is not widely offered, student interest in the subject is strong.

During 2024, efforts to address the governance of military artificial intelligence (AI) have gained momentum. Yet in the same year, we have also witnessed the growing use of AI decision support systems during armed conflict, and it is becoming clearer that such systems may pose a significant challenge to peace and stability. These developments raise questions about the current approach toward military AI governance. In this post, Elke Schwarz, Professor of Political Theory at Queen Mary University London, argues that efforts toward governance are complicated by a number of factors intrinsic to contemporary AI systems in targeting decisions. She highlights three in particular: (1) the character of current AI systems, which rests on iteration and impermanence; (2) the dominance of private sector producers in the sector and the financial ethos that grows from this; and (3) the expansive drive implicit in AI systems themselves, especially predictive AI systems in targeting decisions. These realities of AI suggest that the risks are perhaps greater than often acknowledged.

When discussing the measurement of sexual- and gender-based violence (SGBV) prevention in humanitarian settings, reactions often polarize around two main arguments: that measurement is impossible (“How can we measure what hasn't happened?”), or that prevalence alone signals success (“Do you have data showing decreased perpetration?”). Both perspectives overlook the complexity of SGBV prevention – and the valuable insights gained from measuring it through alternative approaches. In this post, Zuleyka Piniella, ICRC's Global Coordinator for the Prevention of Sexual Violence Programme, and Jessica Lenz, Senior Protection Advisor for InterAction, explore new ways to capture the nuanced impacts of prevention efforts, moving beyond prevalence data to understand what truly drives change.

The development of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies brings significant opportunities, and risks, for principled humanitarian action. While AI innovations advance at a pace that seemingly defies human capabilities to manage them responsibly, humanitarian organizations are chasing ‘AI for Good', and struggling to find effective safeguards. In this post, ICRC Senior Policy Adviser Pierrick Devidal reflects on some of the lessons from the ICRC's experience in building its recently adopted AI Policy, with the hope that it can inform other efforts to build an ethical and responsible approach to the use of AI in the humanitarian sector.

Private businesses that operate in situations of armed conflict, do business with a government or other entity involved in an armed conflict, or may do so in the future, should be aware of relevant rules of international humanitarian law (IHL). In this post, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), Australian Red Cross Society and French Red Cross Society describe a new publication that introduces the most relevant rules of IHL and explains why and how private businesses need to respect them.

Communities in conflict-affected areas are direly impacted by growing climate risks and shocks. Over the last few years, political will to strengthen climate action in these settings has been growing. Commitments need to be urgently translated into tangible outcomes for communities – and avenues to do so exist. In this post, and on the eve of COP29, Catherine-Lune Grayson and Amir Khouzam reflect on pathways to strengthen climate action in conflict settings.

Language matters and the protections of international law are crucial when facing global trends of dehumanization. Dehumanizing narratives strip people of their dignity, making it easier to justify inhumane treatment, torture, and exclusion from legal protections. In this post, Terry Hackett, Head of Division on Persons Deprived of Liberty at the ICRC, emphasizes the urgent need to reject dehumanization, ensure humane treatment, and strengthen compliance with international law to protect the dignity and rights of detainees globally.

In line with its mandate, the ICRC engages with all parties to an armed conflict, including non-state armed groups. The ICRC has a long history of confidential humanitarian engagement with armed groups to alleviate and prevent the suffering of persons living in areas controlled by these groups. However, this engagement has become increasingly complex. Accordingly, the ICRC undertakes an annual internal exercise to evaluate the status of its relationships with armed groups and to identify developments to strengthen its future engagement worldwide. In this post, ICRC Adviser Matthew Bamber-Zryd discusses some of the key findings from this exercise. In 2024, the ICRC estimates that 210 million persons live in areas under the full or contested control of armed groups. There are more than 450 armed groups of humanitarian concern worldwide and the ICRC's engagement with these groups remains stable. Despite the ICRC's successful contact with 60% of armed groups worldwide, engagement with some groups remains challenging. These obstacles stem from a combination of state-imposed barriers, notably counter-terrorism legislation, and the precarious security environment prevailing in certain countries.

Gender can still be a confusing and contested subject for international humanitarian law (IHL) and military practitioners. But just as practitioners keep abreast of astonishing technological advancement, and states continue to dedicate significant – and, in numerous contexts, increasing – national spending on defence and security, it is high time that the equal protection of civilians is invested in, too. Gender inequality remains ingrained across today's conflict-affected contexts, and gender-specific harms shape some of the horrors inflicted on civilians. To encourage parties to armed conflict to take more and better measures to reduce this harm, in 2024 the ICRC, the Swedish Red Cross, and the Nordic Centre for Military Operations published a new report – International Humanitarian Law and a Gender Perspective in the Planning and Conduct of Military Operations – based on an expert meeting with state and military practitioners. In this post, the report's co-authors set out ten legal, policy and operational recommendations to equip armed forces to reduce the gendered risks faced by diverse women, men, girls and boys in armed conflict, and identify good practices from modern militaries. It's time for these to be part-and-parcel of how militaries comply with IHL and related civilian harm reduction measures.

The 34th International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent will take place 28-31 October 2024 in Geneva, Switzerland. At this meeting, states party to the 1949 Geneva Conventions and the components of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement will meet to discuss humanitarian issues under this International Conference's theme “Navigate uncertainty, strengthen humanity”. In the lead-up to this meeting, ICRC Legal Adviser Ellen Policinski looks back at the role of the International Conference in drafting the 1949 Geneva Conventions, in particular the Fourth Geneva Convention, which protects civilians.

Food insecurity remains a critical issue in modern armed conflicts, exacerbated by the mutually reinforcing effects of conflict, economic shocks, and climate change. In response, the ICRC's 2024 Challenges Report emphasizes how compliance with a broad range of rules of international humanitarian law (IHL) can help avoid acute food crises, and highlights a number of contemporary obstacles to achieving such compliance in practice. In this post, ICRC Legal Adviser Matt Pollard highlights key legal protections under IHL, including the prohibition against using starvation as a method of warfare. He stresses the importance of a much wider range of rules relevant to safeguarding civilian access to essential resources like food and water, and outlines how avoiding unduly narrow interpretations of such IHL rules is essential to reducing food insecurity and its devastating long-term effects during armed conflicts.

Detention by non-state armed groups is a widespread, diverse, and legally complex occurrence in armed conflicts across the globe. In 2023, the ICRC assessed that around 70 non-state armed groups in non-international armed conflicts have detainees. The circumstances of detention can pose serious humanitarian concerns, including ill-treatment and inadequate living conditions for detainees. In this post, part of a series on the Fourth Geneva Convention and the internment of protected persons and drawing upon the 2024 ICRC Challenges Report, ICRC Legal Adviser Tilman Rodenhäuser discusses the prohibition of arbitrary detention under international humanitarian law (IHL) and how this relates to internment by non-state armed groups in the context of non-international armed conflicts.

Water and wastewater pipelines, electricity lines and telecommunication installations permeate contemporary urban landscapes and form complex, interdependent service networks, which populations rely on for their essential needs. Armed conflict can damage or disrupt these networks and the essential services they provide. In recent years, increasing attention has been paid to protecting critical civilian infrastructure, yet addressing the humanitarian impact of essential service disruption requires a broader focus beyond physical infrastructure. In this post, the group of experts behind the newly released report “Keeping the Lights on and the Taps Running”, co-published by the ICRC and the Norwegian Red Cross, highlight the crucial yet often overlooked role of the personnel who operate, maintain, and repair essential service infrastructure during hostilities. They argue that protecting and facilitating safer access for essential service providers during armed conflict should be considered a key component of humanitarian action and review the Movement's experience in doing so.

Since 2003, the ICRC has submitted a report on ‘International Humanitarian Law and the Challenges of Contemporary Armed Conflict' to the International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent, where the High Contracting Parties to the Geneva Conventions come together with the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement to discuss key matters of humanitarian concern and to make joint commitments. In this post and drawing from the 2024 Challenges Report, ICRC Chief Legal Officer Cordula Droege presents the ICRC's analysis of some of the salient legal issues of today's conflicts, animated, first and foremost, by its desire to achieve greater protection of victims of war from the effects of armed conflicts, and informed by its observation of key humanitarian issues on the ground and its dialogue with parties to conflicts in all parts of the world.

In the debate on how artificial intelligence (AI) will impact military strategy and decision-making, a key question is who makes better decisions — humans or machines? Advocates for a better leveraging of artificial intelligence point to heuristics and human error, arguing that new technologies can reduce civilian suffering through more precise targeting and greater legal compliance. The counter argument is that AI-enabled decision-making can be as bad, if not worse, than that done by humans, and that the scope for mistakes creates disproportionate risks. What these debates overlook is that it may not be possible for machines to replicate all dimensions of human decision-making. Moreover, we may not want them to. In this post, Erica Harper, Head of Research and Policy at the Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights, sets out the possible implications of AI-enabled military decision-making as this relates to the initiation of war, the waging of conflict, and peacebuilding. She highlights that while such use of AI may create positive externalities — including in terms of prevention and harm mitigation — the risks are profound. These include the potential for a new era of opportunistic warfare, a mainstreaming of violence desensitization and missed opportunities for peace. Such potential needs to be assessed in terms of the current state of multilateral fragility, and factored into AI policy-making at the regional and international levels.

The military decision-making process is facing a challenge by the increasing number of interconnected sensors capturing information on the battlefield. The abundance of information offers advantages for operational planning – if it can be processed and acted upon rapidly. This is where AI-assisted decision-support systems (DSS) enter the picture. They are meant to empower military commanders to make faster and more informed decisions, thus accelerating and improving the decision-making process. Although they are just meant to assist – and not replace – human decision-makers, they pose several ethical challenges which need to be addressed. In this post, Matthias Klaus, who has a background in AI ethics, risk analysis and international security studies, explores the ethical challenges associated with a military AI application often overshadowed by the largely dominating concern about autonomous weapon systems (AWS). He highlights a number of ethical challenges associated specifically with DSS, which are often portrayed as bringing more objectivity, effectivity and efficiency to military decision-making. However, they could foster forms of bias, infringe upon human autonomy and dignity, and effectively undermine military moral responsibility by resulting in peer pressure and deskilling.

The Fourth Geneva Convention was the first humanitarian law convention dedicated to protections for civilians during armed conflict. Amongst its numerous protective rules, it also provides the main rules of international humanitarian law (IHL) governing the exceptional practice of internment of protected persons – detention of such persons for security reasons during international armed conflict. In this post, and in commemoration of the 75th anniversary of the Geneva Conventions this year, Group Captain Tim Wood, Provost Marshal of the New Zealand Defence Force, shares his views and practical insights with regards to procedures for internment review of civilians. Drawing on operational experience, he considers some of the characteristics of review bodies which are essential for them to properly fulfil their role.

When the very first Geneva Convention was adopted in 1864, it was the culmination of several interwoven humanitarian projects of the ICRC's principal founder, Henry Dunant. One of those ambitions was the conception, standardization, and integration into what would become known as international humanitarian law (IHL) of the distinctive emblem of the Convention. Designed to signal the specific protections IHL accords to the medical services and certain humanitarian operations, the emblem – today the red cross, red crescent, and red crystal – is displayed on different persons and objects in the physical world, including on buildings, transports, units, equipment, and personnel that are accorded these protections. Over its 160-year history, the distinctive emblem has saved countless lives. Today, the ICRC is again engaged in a project to conceive, standardize, and integrate into IHL a means to identify those very same specific protections, but in a way the drafters of the original 1864 Geneva Convention could not have imagined: a digital emblem specifically designed to identify the digital assets of the medical services and certain humanitarian operations. In this post, building on previous work on this topic, ICRC Legal Adviser Samit D'Cunha summarizes some of the key milestones of the history and development of the distinctive emblem and explores how these milestones serve as a lodestone – or compass – for the Digital Emblem Project's path forward.

During armed conflict and other situations of violence, timely access to reliable information can save lives. Affected people need to know where danger and risks come from, how and where they can find assistance, and how to protect themselves and access needed services. At the same time, the information dimensions of conflict have become part of the digital frontlines, where harmful information can spread at greater scale, speed, and reach than ever before. The information space can be riddled with narratives that distort facts that are essential for people to make decisions regarding shelter or their security, that undermine humanitarian operations, or that influence people's behavior, fueling polarization and hate speech or triggering or inciting violence against civilian populations. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) is concerned that the spread of misleading or hateful narratives may undermine the protection and safety of people affected by armed conflict and other situations of violence. The ICRC focuses on the potential for harmful effects resulting from the distortion of information or the absence of reliable information. In this post, ICRC Digital Risks Adviser Joelle Rizk presents four risks associated with the spread of harmful information in situations of armed conflict and elaborates on the ICRC approach that focuses on addressing its harmful effects on people.

Over the past decade, discussions surrounding artificial intelligence (AI) in the military domain have largely focused on autonomous weapon systems. This is partially due to the ongoing debates of the Group of Governmental Experts on Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons. While autonomous weapon systems are indeed a pressing concern, the critical reality is that AI is hastily deployed to gather intelligence and, even more worrisome, to support militaries to select and engage targets. As AI-based decision support systems (AI DSS) are increasingly used in contemporary battlefields, Jimena Sofía Viveros Álvarez, member of the United Nations Secretary General's High-Level Advisory Body on AI, REAIM Commissioner and OECD.AI Expert, advocates against the reliance on these technologies in supporting the target identification, selection and engagement cycle as their risks and inefficacies are a permanent fact which cannot be ignored, for they actually risk exacerbating civilian suffering.

Algorithmic bias has long been recognized as a key problem affecting decision-making processes that integrate artificial intelligence (AI) technologies. The increased use of AI in making military decisions relevant to the use of force has sustained such questions about biases in these technologies and in how human users programme with and rely on data based on hierarchized socio-cultural norms, knowledges, and modes of attention. In this post, Dr Ingvild Bode, Professor at the Center for War Studies, University of Southern Denmark, and Ishmael Bhila, PhD researcher at the “Meaningful Human Control: Between Regulation and Reflexion” project, Paderborn University, unpack the problem of algorithmic bias with reference to AI-based decision support systems (AI DSS). They examine three categories of algorithmic bias – preexisting bias, technical bias, and emergent bias – across four lifecycle stages of an AI DSS, concluding that stakeholders in the ongoing discussion about AI in the military domain should consider the impact of algorithmic bias on AI DSS more seriously.

The desire to develop technological solutions to help militaries in their decision-making processes is not new. However, more recently, we have witnessed militaries incorporating increasingly complex forms of artificial intelligence-based decision support systems (AI DSS) in their decision-making process, including decisions on the use of force. The novelty of this development is that the process by which these AI DSS function challenges the human's ability to exercise judgement in military decision-making processes. This potential erosion of human judgement raises several legal, humanitarian and ethical challenges and risks, especially in relation to military decisions that have a significant impact on people's lives, their dignity, and their communities. It is in light of this development that we must urgently and in earnest discuss how these systems are used and their impact on people affected by armed conflict. With this post, Wen Zhou, Legal Adviser with the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), and Anna Rosalie Greipl, Researcher at the Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights, launch a new series on artificial intelligence (AI) in military decision-making. To start the discussion, they outline some of the challenges and risks, as well as the potential, that pertain to the use of AI DSS in preserving human judgement in legal determinations on the use of force. They also propose some measures and constraints regarding the design and use of AI DSS in these decision-making processes that can inform current and future debates on military AI governance, in order to ensure compliance with international humanitarian law (IHL) and support mitigating the risk of harm to people affected by those decisions.

In cities from Gaza to those in Sudan and Ukraine, childhoods are irrevocably changed by urban warfare. Yet despite the number of children affected and the increasingly urbanized nature of conflict, the detail of the child-specific nature of the harm caused remains poorly understood by practitioners and decision-makers. To address this gap, in 2023 the ICRC published a new report – Childhood in Rubble: The Humanitarian Consequences of Urban Warfare for Children – drawing from existing literature, 52 interviews with experts, and the organization's firsthand experience. In this post, three of the report's contributors set out eight overlooked ways that children are affected by urban warfare and outline a set of legal, policy and operational recommendations that states, non-state armed groups and humanitarians could implement to elevate the protection of children from media rallying cry to political priority.

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.

Around two thirds of ICRC operations are in Muslim countries where armed conflicts are in progress. Our ability to understand the connections and differences between international humanitarian law (IHL) and Islamic law can make a crucial difference in our operational work and in our ability to build trust and respect with local communities. But how can we do this in the most effective way? As part of commemorating the 75th anniversary of the Geneva Conventions this year, ICRC's legal adviser for Islamic law and jurisprudence, Ahmed Al-Dawoody, looks at some of the parallels between IHL and Islamic law, and considers the critical importance of engagement between the two in today's world.

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.

Recent conflicts have brought to light the jarring personal dilemmas humanitarian workers confront and provoked legitimate questions about the validity of the principles of humanity, impartiality, neutrality, and independence as a framework to navigate them. In this post, Olivier Ray, the ICRC's Director of Mobilization, Movement, and Partnerships, reaffirms the principles' enduring relevance precisely because of the sometimes-excruciating trade-offs and dilemmas humanitarian workers must face.

Over the last decade, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and its Red Cross/Red Crescent Movement partners, as well as other humanitarian actors responding to sexual violence, have increasingly raised concerns about mandatory reporting policies and whether they may, in fact, be harming rather than helping victims/survivors of sexual- and gender-based violence. Following its 2020 multi-country study on the unintended humanitarian consequences of mandatory reporting, the ICRC and the British Red Cross (BRC) have continuously advocated for a more cohesive survivor-centered approach that harmonizes the legitimate aims of such laws with victims/survivors' rights to safe and confidential care. To help practitioners and policymakers navigate these complexities, the ICRC and BRC hosted a half-day hybrid conference on 19 June 2024, during which expert panelists provided insights into the research, lived experiences, legal and law enforcement frameworks, as well as operational impact of mandatory reporting. In this post, the ICRC's Adviser for Humanitarian Diplomacy and Policy Maria Carolina Aissa de Figueredo analyzes some of the key outcomes of these discussions while proposing concrete recommendations for how states, humanitarian actors, and communities can start to reconcile some of the existing challenges around mandatory reporting.

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.

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.

For more than a decade, states have met at the UN in Geneva to discuss the governance of autonomous weapon systems (AWS). One pandemic, several real-world cases of artificial intelligence (AI) being used in targeting decisions, and numerous meetings later, there is a growing consensus among states that the challenges posed by AWS should be addressed through both prohibitions and restrictions, a so-called ‘two-tier' approach. But while there is progress on the basic structure (i.e. two tiers), the actual content of these tiers is debated. To help states elaborate on possible elements of a two-tiered approach to the governance of AWS, Laura Bruun from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) points to three lessons from past arms control negotiations that can be applied to the AWS debate: First, a prohibition does not need to be grounded in a clearly defined class of weapons, second, restrictions can be used to clarify what international humanitarian law (IHL) requires in the specific context of AWS, and third, if there is will (and a need), two-tiered instruments can be grounded in concerns beyond IHL.