Search results

No one would consider constructing a building without first checking whether its foundations are sound. It is no different with international humanitarian law.It is useful to examine the difficulties and even failures of international humanitarian law encountered in practice. But before beginning work on a renewal or development of the law, one must be sure the undertaking can be withstood by the foundations and that it will not call into question the very principles on which the law is founded. Any examination of international humanitarian law will have to be carried out in a very open-minded manner — one that rules out nothing, not even the possibility of scrapping the law entirely and constructing a new edifice on different foundations, if one were convinced that it was not possible to incorporate the changes needed into the law as it stands. To carry out such an examination, it is essential to analyse not only what works well and what works badly but also the underlying reasons for humanitarian law's successes and failures.To sketch out the way forward, I will begin by recalling the pillars on which international humanitarian law stands. I will then look at various shortcomings in the law and consider from whence they arise, whether they justify its amendment, and whether any such amendment is possible without undermining the law's foundations. I will conclude by setting out what solutions may be found in humanitarian law itself, the limits of that law and the consequences that must be recognised in terms of international law and its institutions.

Examines the consequences of terrorism for humanitarian action, arguing that valid security requirements & prevention efforts must not be allowed to undermine international humanitarian law. Further, the distinction between required political & security action & the mandate & work of humanitarian organizations cannot be blurred. Following a firm condemnation of all forms of terrorism, it is contended that, while international humanitarian law does not treat terrorists explicitly as combatants, its core principles & protections apply in the fight against terrorism & with respect to terrorists. Thus, the basic principles of international humanitarian law should be reaffirmed & respected by the international community. Attention turns to the nature & independence of humanitarian organizations & the need to resist the urge to enlist them in the "war on terrorism." Their rejection & condemnation of terrorism should not lead to a weakening of their mandate. It is viewed as important to continue to demonstrate solidarity with the poor & underprivileged & as urgent to lay the bases of a just & universal peace, hanging on to the idea of permanent peace as not an illusion, but a necessity. Adapted from the source document.

"¿Hay que llorar por ello?, ¿hay que reír?, no tengo corazón para decirlo", cantaba el poeta y esta vacilación nos invade cuando se trata de celebrar el cincuentenario de los Convenios de Ginebra de 1949. No cabe duda de que hay momentos de alegría: la familia reunida, el prisionero repatriado, el mensaje familiar… pero la acción humanitaria parece muy escasa ante los sufrimientos que toda guerra despliega ante nuestros ojos. Entonces, ¿hay que cantar las virtudes de estos Convenios? o ¿hay que llorar por todo lo que no han podido impedir? Este dilema abrumará hasta su fin al derecho internacional humanitario: en realidad, no es posible alegrarse por sus éxitos en la medida en que es cierto que nunca se hará lo suficiente para mejorar la suerte que corren las víctimas de la guerra.

AbstractIt is obvious that adopting the Geneva Conventions of 1949 did not put an end to tragedy in war time. Although there is clearly no reason to rejoice, this anniversary presents an opportunity to reflect on what the Conventionshaveachieved. After a brief discussion of the circumstances under which they were adopted in the following the Second World War, the author points out the great impact of those treaties on the conduct of parties to armed conflict in the last fifty years. Moreover, the 1949 Conventions have provided a solid basis for further development of international humanitarian law, both in the form of treaties (such as the 1977 Additional Protocols) and practice. A number of issues are identified which, today, ought to be examined in the search for fresh solutions. They include the law applicable in non-international armed conflict, the rules on the conduct of hostilities, the question of nuclear weapons and international humanitarian law, simpler procedures for adopting prohibitions or restrictions on the use of new conventional weapons, and the applicability of humanitarian law to armed forces acting under UN auspices. The article concludes with an appeal to respect the fundamental values embodied in international humanitarian law. Appart from anything else, respecting those values in times of armed conflict facilitates a return to peace.

En el derecho internacional humanitario no se aborda directamente el derecho a la información, pero puede ser útil poner de relieve algunos de sus elementos al examinar el derecho a la información en tiempo de conflicto armado.

International humanitarian law does not deal directly with the right to information, but it is useful to highlight some of the law's features in considering people's right to information in wartime.The right to indispensable itemsInternational law stipulates that civilians have a right to items indispensable to their survival. This entails an obligation for the parties to the conflict, both in enemy territory occupied by them and in their own territory, to allow international action to provide these items if they themselves are unable to do so.

Hay cuestiones que es preferible no plantear: la licitud del empleo de armas nucleares en la guerra no es una de ellas.Con la aparición y el desarrollo del arma nuclear, comienza una etapa en la historia de considerable importancia: por primera vez, el hombre dispone de medios que ponen en peligro la supervivencia de la humanidad. Su empleo en Hiroshima y Nagasaki causó un profundo choque moral y modificó la problemática de la guerra. El CICR comprendió inmediatamente el alcance de estos acontecimientos y, con el deseo de compartir las preocupaciones de la Institución, el entonces presidente del CICR, Max Huber, dirigió una circular a las Sociedades Nacionales el 5 de septiembre de 1945, es decir, menos de un mes después de las explosiones de Hiroshima y Nagasaki.