Under international humanitarian law parties to conflicts must protect civilians by OCHA, International Committee of the Red Cross 2:06pm 9th May, 2025   (Speech given by Mirjana Spoljaric, president of the ICRC, on 18 August 2025 in Bangkok, Thailand on International Humanitarian Law. Extract):    "The ICRC currently classifies approximately 130 armed conflicts. This is more than we recorded last year, and far more than in previous decades.    While the number of countries experiencing armed conflict remains relatively stable, the number of simultaneous or newly escalating conflicts within them is growing. Many are protracted and often last for generations.    Today’s wars are also marked by coalition warfare, the fragmentation of armed groups, and millions of civilians living under the control of non-state armed actors.    Above all, this decade is seeing an increase in wars between states, tectonic political shifts, blurring alliances, and rapid technological advancements, which together exacerbate the risk for more high-intensity conflicts with devastating humanitarian consequences.    As wars multiply and geopolitical divisions deepen, respect for international humanitarian law is in crisis, and with it, our shared humanity. Armed conflict is now the single greatest driver of humanitarian needs. Much of this suffering could have been prevented had the rules of war been better respected.    The ICRC works on frontlines across the world. We know war intimately, and bear witness every day to the scars it carves into people, families, and communities.    In Myanmar, the humanitarian situation remains dire after decades of fighting, compounded by a devastating earthquake in March of this year. Hostilities persist and, in some places, have intensified. Meanwhile, restrictions on the movement of people and goods continue to limit access to essential services for many communities such as those in Rakhine.    Nowhere in Gaza is safe anymore. What we see there surpasses any acceptable legal or moral standards. Civilians are being killed and injured in their homes, in hospital beds, and while searching for food and water. Children are dying because they do not have enough to eat. The entire territory has been reduced to rubble.    Warfare conducted indiscriminately as well as extreme restrictions on humanitarian aid have made conditions unliveable and devoid of human dignity. At the same time, hostages remain in captivity, despite the clear prohibition of hostage-taking under international humanitarian law.    Large-scale drone and missile attacks in the Russia-Ukraine international armed conflict are killing and injuring civilians far from the frontlines. Essential infrastructure is being destroyed. More than 146,000 cases of missing people – both military and civilian – have been reported to the ICRC as of the end of July.    In Sudan, civilians face an unrelenting nightmare of death, destruction, and displacement.    And after nearly four decades of war in Afghanistan, civilians continue to be haunted by mines, unexploded ordnances, and abandoned improvised explosive devices.    The situation in Syria illustrates one of the most heartbreaking and enduring consequences of prolonged conflict: the unresolved fate of the missing. The ICRC has registered over 36,000 missing people. This is likely just a fraction of the true number. If the ICRC had sustained access to all places of detention throughout the conflict, many of these cases might have been resolved or even prevented.    Still today, water supply and electricity are at risk of collapse. At the same time, the recent violence along the coast and southern Syria underscores how the country’s path to peace is fragile – and how quickly clashes can erupt.    The scale of human suffering – in Gaza, Myanmar, Ukraine, Sudan, Afghanistan, Syria and dozens of other countries across the world – must never be accepted as inevitable. These are not unfortunate side effects of war, but consequences of a profound failure to uphold international humanitarian law.    They are the results of political failure. When wars are fought with the mentality of “total victory” or “because we can” a dangerous permissiveness takes root – one where the law is bent to justify killing rather than prevent it. The Geneva Conventions were created specifically to prevent senseless suffering and death.    When hostilities are carried out indiscriminately and when violence is left unchecked, the consequences are catastrophic. Death and destruction become the norm, and not the exception.    In a highly interconnected world, unrestrained violence rarely remains confined to a single battlefield. It reverberates. When the world tolerates unbridled aggression in one conflict, it signals to the others – militaries, non-state armed groups, and their allies – that such behaviour is acceptable elsewhere.    As conflicts escalate, so too does the weaponization of information. Wars are fought today not only on the ground, but also in the digital arena, where harmful narratives and incendiary rhetoric are used to inflame tensions and justify violence.    Horrific events throughout history are rooted in a common element: dehumanisation. Stripping the humanity of others away creates an environment where torture, abuse, and killing is rationalised. There is no such thing as a human animal. No people or territory should ever be erased from the face of the Earth.    In a world increasingly shaped by algorithms, the speed with which harmful narratives can spread is unprecedented – with dangerous real-world consequences.    We witness how genocidal vocabulary eventually translates into gruesome realities on the ground. The vitriolic hatred embedded in such language strips away empathy, creating fertile ground for atrocities to take place. It renders brutality acceptable, or worse, seemingly inevitable.    We are living in a time when the world is not just at war – it is preparing for more war. Global military spending is at record highs. Across regions, states are investing in weaponry, modernising forces, and rearming with a sense of urgency.    As the president of an organisation responding to the horrific consequences of armed conflict, it is my first responsibility to encourage states to de-escalate and not lead the world towards limitless war.    It is also my duty to remind states that responsible conflict preparedness is not measured solely by firepower. It demands sustained respect for international humanitarian law.    We are witnessing a seismic shift in how wars are fought. As states compete in the 21st-century arms race, it is critical to ask: how does IHL apply to these evolving technologies, and what must states consider as they invest in new weapons systems?    Cheap and scalable, drones are becoming one of the defining weapons of today’s wars. Their widespread use is reshaping frontlines and revolutionising the battlefield. Drones are not prohibited under IHL. But like any weapon, they must be used in full compliance with the rules of war.    Low-resolution, analogue systems and operators’ lack of training – especially when it comes to low-cost first-person view drones – raise serious concerns about the ability to distinguish military from civilian targets. Distance does not absolve responsibility. Drone operators and their commanders remain legally accountable for the effects of their actions, just like any other combatant.    Without stronger regulation and accountability, the drone arms race will escalate. More actors will deploy more drones, with fewer safeguards and humanitarian consequences will multiply.    As drones edge towards greater autonomy, they intersect with another deeply concerning development: autonomous weapons systems.    These weapons can select targets and apply force without any human intervention after their activation, raising serious humanitarian, legal, ethical, and security concerns.    Life-and-death decisions must never be delegated to sensors and algorithms. Human control over the use of force is critical to preserving accountability in warfare. Machines with the power to take lives without human involvement should be banned under international law.    Autonomous weapons systems that function in a way that their effects are unpredictable should be prohibited. For example, allowing autonomous weapons controlled by machine-learning algorithms – where the software writes itself without human oversight – is an unacceptably dangerous proposition.    A new legally binding instrument is critical to establish clear prohibitions and restrictions. Without it, we risk condemning future generations to a world where machines decide who lives and who dies, and accountability is dangerously eroded.    We are also in an era where the battlefield is not only physical but digital. Cyber operations have already been used to disrupt electricity, water systems, hospitals, and other civilian infrastructure – often very far from the frontlines.    IHL applies to cyber operations just as it does to conventional means and methods of warfare. The principles of distinction, proportionality, and precaution are just as binding in cyberspace as they are on land.    Civilian protections must be hardwired into digital warfare. That means belligerents must ensure human oversight, refrain from cyber-attacks against civilian infrastructure, and minimize foreseeable harm to civilians and civilian systems.    International humanitarian law also applies to any military activity in outer space related to armed conflict. Disabling or destroying satellites can have serious humanitarian consequences. Satellites that provide navigation, communications, and remote sensing have become indispensable to the functioning of civilian life.    Humanitarian organisations also depend on satellite services to reach people in need. Without these systems, providing life-saving assistance and helping communities recover becomes even more difficult for us.    Just as states must rigorously ensure that new weapons technologies comply with international humanitarian law, they must not neglect their responsibilities concerning conventional weapons.    Putting IHL into action and protecting civilians doesn’t only happen in active conflict zones. It also happens in the choices states make about the kinds of weapons they produce, stockpile, or prohibit.    Today, the global commitment to ban anti-personnel mines is starting to fracture, with several states that once championed disarmament now taking steps to withdraw from the Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention. This is not just a legal retreat on paper; it risks endangering lives and reversing decades of hard-fought progress.    This month also marks 80 years since the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki – a catastrophe that to this day continues to inflict emotional and physical suffering on survivors.    Terrifyingly, the nuclear weapons in today’s arsenals are far stronger. The bombs dropped then would today be classified as a small nuclear weapon.    But there is no such thing as a small nuclear weapon. Any use of nuclear weapons would be a catastrophic event. It would inflict a level of suffering and destruction that no humanitarian response could address. It is extremely doubtful that nuclear weapons could ever be used in accordance with international humanitarian law.    And yet, we continue to see nuclear arsenals expand, and their use be threatened with casualness and frequency. However, the number of states parties to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons continues to grow, with 73 states now parties to the treaty and another 25 that have signed it.    What happens to societies – to the world – if we fall prey to the belief that might alone makes right? When we disregard the rule of law, and pursue victory at any cost?    IHL was not created to prevent war, but to prevent barbarity in war. That distinction is crucial. It recognizes the reality of armed conflict while insisting that even in war, humanity must endure – in how we treat the wounded, in how we protect civilians, and how we treat prisoners.    Protecting hospitals as sanctuaries for the injured is not weakness. Shielding civilians from hostilities is not weakness. Allowing lifesaving aid to reach those in need is not weakness. Treating detainees with dignity is not weakness. It is strength.    It takes strength to act with restraint in the chaos of war. To resist the pull of vengeance and to rise above retribution. To preserve our shared humanity when conflict threatens to erase it.    Parties to conflict that disregard international humanitarian law do so at the cost of legitimacy. The stain of brutality stays long after the guns fall silent. It complicates post-conflict recovery, economic rebuilding, and international cooperation – and lays fertile ground for future violence and security threats to take root.    It is possible, however, to protect civilians in war. When combatants respect the rules of war – when they spare civilians, protect critical infrastructure, and care for the wounded – they reduce the long-term costs of conflict. They make recovery possible. They preserve the social fabric necessary for peace".    http://www.icrc.org/en/statement/ihl-only-as-strong-as-leaders-will-uphold-it    Apr. 2025    UN Security Council: "World getting more dangerous for civilians on your watch"    Briefing to the United Nations Security Council on the humanitarian situation in Ukraine by Tom Fletcher, Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and UN Emergency Relief Coordinator. (Extract)    "My two asks today of the Security Council and, indeed, the wider international community go beyond Ukraine alone.    Firstly, I must reiterate that under the international humanitarian law that this Council is here to defend, parties to conflicts must protect civilians and civilian infrastructure. Indiscriminate attacks on them are strictly prohibited:    There must be limits to how war is waged. At its best, this Council, and the Member States here, have upheld that idea – even wars have rules. Is that not why we are here?    And yet, on my visits from Ukraine to Gaza to Sudan to Lebanon to Myanmar – from where I returned yesterday – I am seeing the opposite: that not only are we not standing robustly for international law, but in some cases we are supporting its debasement.    That's the common thread that links these conflicts. And if your principles apply only to your opponents, they are not humanitarian principles.    The world is getting more dangerous for civilians, on our watch. Please, you can do more to ensure that this era of increasingly belligerent, transactional, self-defeating nationalism is not also remembered as one of callous impunity and brutal indifference, in which the rights of civilians are discarded again and again with a shrug.    If we do not make our stand on this point, consistently and unequivocally, then what do we stand for anymore? And how can we expect anyone to listen to us, or hope that others will make better choices in the future?    My second ask, is the funding to save lives in an increasingly dangerous environment, and this era of savage cuts. If you cannot stop the attacks on civilians – in Ukraine and elsewhere – please, at least give us the security and resources to save as many survivors as we can".    Unprotected: What happens when the laws of war are ignored, by Joyce Msuya - UN Deputy Emergency Relief Coordinator:    “There are more than 120 armed conflicts across the globe, their number steadily rising since the ‘90s. In conflicts around the world, civilians are killed, injured, traumatized and separated from their loved ones.    The vital services they rely on – hospitals, clean water, markets, electricity, schools – are damaged or destroyed; their livelihoods lost. They suffer hunger, disease and homelessness. And these horrors are becoming normalized, with worrying global trends.    Last year alone, at least 36,000 civilian deaths were recorded by the UN in 14 armed conflicts – the actual number likely to be far higher. Not even aid workers are spared – killed and injured in record numbers, impeded in their movements, targeted by disinformation, and impaired by the adverse effects of sanctions and counterterrorism measures.    International humanitarian law is designed to minimize suffering in war. It imposes rules of conduct on all parties to conflict – whether State armed forces or non-state armed groups: They must treat all persons humanely, and they are limited in the tactics and weapons they can use. In other words, international humanitarian law is designed to protect civilians. We cannot allow it to unravel.    Parties and all States with influence must take concrete steps to protect civilians now, without delays or excuses. The international community has committed to limiting human suffering in armed conflict through international humanitarian law – an imperative for all parties to conflict. It will take strict adherence to international law and the adoption of good-faith policies and practices to do that.    Fighting impunity is essential, as impunity only breeds more impunity. We must also acknowledge that not all civilian harm stems from violations of the law. Even when parties comply, the scale of civilian harm can still be devastating. Only a more comprehensive and people-centred approach to the protection of civilians can reduce the overwhelming scale of civilian harm”.    http://www.unocha.org/news/un-relief-chief-warns-security-council-protection-civilians-unraveling-amid-global-inaction http://interagencystandingcommittee.org/statements-iasc-principals    NGO Statement Ahead of the Open Debate on Protection of Civilians:    One year after the UN Secretary-General outlined the “resoundingly grim” state of civilian protection, the situation continues to deteriorate. 21 NGOs call for urgent action by the UN Security Council and UN Member States to strengthen accountability and ensure robust implementation of protection mandates.    Civilians living in conflict zones today are in more danger than ever before. The UN recorded a 72% increase in civilian deaths in armed conflict between 2022 and 2023, with the proportion of women and children killed doubling and tripling respectively. Over 473 million children — more than 1 in 6 globally — now live in areas affected by conflict. In 2023, UN-verified cases of conflict-related sexual violence, the majority against women and girls, increased by 50 per cent compared with 2022.    Intersecting and multidimensional vulnerabilities are also compounded for marginalised groups. Those who survive are often injured, displaced, and frequently cut off from their communities and support networks. As a result they can become reliant on humanitarian aid for services such as healthcare, water, electricity, and education for years or even decades.    The use of explosive weapons in populated areas continues to have a devastating effect on civilians, causing both immediate harm and long-lasting cumulative and reverberating impacts. These attacks are often fuelled by third party arms transfers. The resultant patterns of harm not only deepen humanitarian need, but also undermine the foundations for sustainable peace.    When civilian infrastructure and the natural environment are destroyed and social cohesion fractured, the road to recovery is steeper and longer, impeding justice and increasing the risk of renewed violence.    Parties to conflict are, in many cases, intentionally undermining the international norms and standards designed to protect civilians from the conduct of war and are deliberately violating International Humanitarian Law (IHL), eroding even the bare minimum of protections owed to civilians.    Of particular concern is the speed with which States are backsliding on their commitments to protect — and ensure the protection of — civilians. Consequently, the deliberate targeting of civilians is becoming a tool of warfare, further fuelling a culture of impunity.    The humanitarian consequences are staggering. 305.1 million people are in humanitarian need, a number that has quadrupled in the past decade, primarily driven by conflict. 123 million people are forcibly displaced worldwide, double the figure from 2015, and 281.6 million people are experiencing crisis or worse of food insecurity (IPC 3+).    While these statistics are unfathomably high, each number represents an individual — a farmer who has lost access to their livelihood and is struggling to feed their family, an elderly person displaced multiple times and living in a camp, a child not able to go to school.    Across the world, humanitarian actors and civil society are working relentlessly to respond to the escalating needs of conflict-affected populations, while facing growing risk of harm and operational constraints. Local actors, including women-led organisations, face the greatest risk.    Across the board, resources are being slashed or politicized, further intensifying the level of risk borne by local actors. Amid this dire reality, civilians themselves are seeking to hold their communities together under immense strain and standing firm in their calls for peace and justice. They need the international community to not just bear witness, but to act.    The 2025 UNSC Open Debate must confront this truth: there is no shortage of tools to protect civilians, but there is a shortage of political will to use them equally and follow through with practical implementation and accountability.    From legal instruments and policies, early warning mechanisms, civilian harm tracking, and civilian-military dialogues to sanctions, independent investigations, and accountability and remedy mechanisms — these tools are too often sidelined and ignored rather than being leveraged, supported, prioritised, and fully integrated.    Diplomacy is failing. At the United Nations Security Council the most powerful countries in the world are making ineffective the body charged with ensuring international peace and security. In the past 10 years, the permanent members used their powers to veto resolutions at least 36 times. 2024 saw the fewest UNSC resolutions adopted since 1991 and the highest number of draft resolutions failed due to veto since 1986.    The UN turns 80 this year. Instead of retreat there must be renewed urgency in support of — and commitment to — multilateralism, the UN Charter, and the international rules-based order, with the protection of civilians at its core.    Impunity feeds on itself. In the absence of real accountability for harm caused and the just and equitable application of international law and standards at all times and in all places, this dangerous cycle characterized by compounding harms and prolonged suffering will continue.    http://www.unocha.org/news/world-getting-more-dangerous-civilians-your-watch-un-relief-chief-tells-security-council http://reliefweb.int/report/world/2025-ngo-statement-ahead-open-debate-protection-civilians http://www.unwomen.org/en/news-stories/speech/2025/05/speech-there-is-no-pathway-to-peace-that-does-not-begin-with-the-protection-of-women-and-girls http://www.unicef.org/press-releases/unicef-deputy-executive-director-ted-chaibans-remarks-united-nations-security http://www.unicef.org/topics/armed-conflict http://www.unicef.org/children-under-attack http://data.stopwaronchildren.org    http://ukraine.ohchr.org/en/UN-Human-Rights-Monitors-Deplore-Deadly-New-Wave-of-Russian-Attacks-Across-Ukraine http://reliefweb.int/report/occupied-palestinian-territory/un-human-rights-office-opt-more-fifty-cent-people-killed-gaza-week-were-shelters-and-residential-buildings http://www.ohchr.org/en/statements-and-speeches/2025/04/hundreds-killed-rsf-attacks-sudans-north-darfur http://news.un.org/en/story/2025/04/1162196 http://www.globalr2p.org/publications/atrocity-alert-no-440/ http://www.globalr2p.org/publications/atrocity-alert-no-435/ http://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/04/comment-un-human-rights-office-spokesperson-ravina-shamdasani-continued    http://reliefweb.int/report/world/tools-protection-upholding-object-and-purpose-international-humanitarian-law-protecting-civilian-infrastructure-and-hospitals-side-event-during-poc-week-2025-friday-23-may-830-1000 http://reliefweb.int/report/world/epidemic-violence-violence-against-health-care-conflict-2024 http://www.unocha.org/publications/report/south-sudan/un-deplores-air-strike-hospital-south-sudan http://www.msf.org/msf-condemns-bombing-our-hospital-south-sudan http://www.msf.org/attacks-medical-care http://www.who.int/activities/stopping-attacks-on-health-care http://interagencystandingcommittee.org/open-letter-member-states-un-general-assembly-behalf-iasc-principals http://www.hhrjournal.org/2024/06/07/drone-attacks-on-health-in-2023-international-humanitarian-law-and-the-right-to-health/ http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(23)01115-7/fulltext    http://www.securitycouncilreport.org/monthly-forecast/2025-05/protection-of-civilians-8.php http://www.securitycouncilreport.org/protection-of-civilians/ http://civiliansinconflict.org/press-releases/civic-launches-first-protection-of-civilians-trends-report-and-civilian-protection-index/ http://www.civilianprotectiontrends.org/index.html http://civiliansinconflict.org/blog/there-is-no-safe-place-for-civilians-in-conflict-qa-with-hichem-khadhraoui/ http://civiliansinconflict.org/remarks/civic-executive-director-addresses-unsc-open-debate-on-protection-of-civilians-in-armed-conflict http://www.hrw.org/news/2025/05/14/un-security-council-should-commit-people-disabilities http://www.unocha.org/publications/report/world/ocha-message-international-humanitarian-law http://www.unocha.org/humanitarian-access http://www.unocha.org/protection-civilians    * Protection of civilians in armed conflict - Report of the Secretary-General (May 2025): http://docs.un.org/en/S/2025/271    * New report finds alarming levels of civilian harm from the use of explosive weapons in 2024 - International Network on Explosive Weapons    Civilians continued to bear the brunt of bombing and shelling in towns and cities across the globe in 2024. Worldwide, civilians and civilian infrastructure were harmed by explosive weapons used by state and non-state actors in 74 countries and territories, a new report by the Explosive Weapons Monitor has revealed.    According to the Explosive Weapons Monitor 2024, continued heavy bombardment in Gaza, as well as extensive use of explosive weapons in Lebanon, Myanmar, Sudan, Syria, Ukraine and elsewhere, has resulted in thousands of civilian deaths and the reverberating, long-term effects of people losing safe access to healthcare, education, aid and food security.    “Civilians are paying the ultimate price when explosive weapons are used in populated towns and cities. We see a worrying pattern of harm caused by the use of explosive weapons in ongoing conflicts that extends well beyond the area of attack,ˮ said Katherine Young, Research and Monitoring Manager of the Explosive Weapons Monitor.    “Not only do explosive weapons kill and injure civilians, they also cause damage to schools, health facilities, power lines, water supplies and other essential infrastructure which can last long after conflicts have ended. This inflicts further, long-term suffering on populations whose lives have been made unbearable while under bombardment,ˮ she said.    The report also shares that attacks with explosive weapons on civilian infrastructure and essential services rose sharply in 2024. The use of explosive weapons in attacks on healthcare increased by 64 percent from the previous year, damaging and destroying health facilities and ambulances and killing health workers.    Likewise, the use of explosive weapons in attacks on education more than doubled, and attacks on humanitarian aid occurred nearly five times more frequently in 2024.    Given the scale of harm to civilians in 2024, the report shows that it is critically important for states to reduce harm to civilians and the infrastructure they depend on. To do so, states should endorse and implement the 2022 Political Declaration on Strengthening the Protection of Civilians from the Humanitarian Consequences of the Use of Explosive Weapons in Populated Areas.    This international agreement to protect civilians from the devastating effects of explosive weapons in urban areas has been endorsed by 88 countries so far.    “States must refuse to normalise the devastating toll of explosive weapons on civilians. By signing the political declaration, states are sending a clear message that harm to civilians, and destruction of the infrastructure they need to survive, will not be tolerated,ˮ said Alma Taslidzan, Disarmament and Protection of Civilians Advocacy Manager at Humanity & Inclusion.    http://explosiveweaponsmonitor.org/reports/5/explosive-weapons-monitor-2024/ http://reliefweb.int/report/world/explosive-weapons-monitor-2024    Mar. 2025    Speech given by Mirjana Spoljaric, President of the International Committee of the Red Cross, at the 58th session of the UN Human Rights Council. (Extract)    "Today violations that were once considered abhorrent have, disturbingly, become normalized in conflicts around the world.    I stand before you to remind us of an undeniable truth: Every patient killed in a hospital bed, Every family buried under the rubble of their home, Every hostage stolen from their loved ones, Every prisoner tortured and deprived of basic dignity, Every city levelled, and every village destroyed – These are not unfortunate realities of war. They are a betrayal.    We must not become numb to that fact, or we risk sleepwalking into a world where the barriers that once restrained brutality in war are removed. The scale of the suffering we witness is not inevitable. It is the direct result of dismissive interpretations of international humanitarian law.    People have the power to change course, but it will require courage and leadership to move past divisions and recommit to the fundamental belief that human life must transcend political divides – both in war and in peacetime.    Together, international humanitarian law and international human rights law share a common goal: to protect human life, health, and dignity, no matter what country you were born in or what side of the front line you live on.    These bodies of law are mutually reinforcing. They need one another. The erosion of respect for one contributes to the erosion of the other.    In war, how can the right to health be fulfilled if hospitals are bombed? How can the right to food prevent hunger if crops are destroyed? How can children see their right to education come true if schools are attacked?    There is no right to life when civilians, and the infrastructure they rely on for survival, are systematically targeted. International humanitarian law exists to protect them in times of war.    The way wars are fought today will inform the way they are fought tomorrow. Where basic humanitarian rules are violated, rebuilding costs skyrocket, and new security threats fester.    We can choose a different path, one that promotes life, stability, and prosperity. This starts with committing to international humanitarian law and making it a political priority."    International humanitarian law (IHL) is a set of rules that seeks, for humanitarian reasons, to limit the effects of armed conflict. It protects persons (civilians) who are not participating in hostilities, and imposes limits on the means and methods of warfare.    IHL is also known as “the law of armed conflict”. IHL is part of public international law, which is made up primarily of treaties, customary international law and general principles of law. The four Geneva Conventions of 1949 (GC I, II, III and IV), which have been universally acceded to or ratified, constitute the core treaties of IHL.    IHL applies equally to all sides, regardless of who started the fighting and regardless of motives.    Persons (civilians) protected by IHL are entitled to respect for their lives, their dignity, and their physical and mental integrity. They are also afforded various legal guarantees. They must be treated humanely in all circumstances, with no adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion, faith, sex, birth, wealth, or any other similar criteria.    It is forbidden to murder them, or to subject them to torture. The wounded and the sick must be collected and cared for. In order to ensure the performance of these medical activities, medical personnel, units and transports must be respected and protected.    Access to humanitarian assistance for the civilian population affected by the conflict must be allowed and facilitated. Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare is specifically prohibited under IHL.    Under IHL, humanitarian personnel and objects must be respected and protected. Prioritized measures must be afforded to certain groups of people, including children, women or persons with disabilities, this means they must be afforded specific respect and protection.    Restrictions on the means of warfare and the methods of warfare.    The right of parties to a conflict to choose means or methods of warfare is not unlimited. Restrictions apply to the type of weapons used, the way they are used and the general conduct of all those engaged in the armed conflict. In addition, IHL prohibits the use of means and methods of warfare that are of a nature to cause injury or unnecessary suffering.    IHL regulates the conduct of hostilities on the basis of three core principles: distinction, proportionality and precaution.    The principle of distinction requires that the parties to an armed conflict distinguish at all times between civilians and civilian objects on the one hand, and combatants and military objectives on the other, and that attacks may only be directed against combatants and military objectives.    The purpose of this is to protect civilians, civilian property and the civilian population as a whole. Direct attacks against civilians or civilian objects and indiscriminate attacks – that is, attacks that strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction – are prohibited.    The principle of proportionality, a corollary to the principle of distinction, dictates that, when attacking a military objective, loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, must not be excessive in relation to the military advantage anticipated. This principle requires parties to anticipate the harm that might be caused directly by an attack and the indirect (i.e. reverberating) effects.    The principle of precaution requires parties to an armed conflict to take constant care to spare the civilian population, civilians and civilian objects in the conduct of all military operations. The principle also requires parties to a conflict to take a range of precautions in attack and a range of precautions against the effects of attacks to protect civilians and civilian objects.    With respect to precautions in attack, all feasible precautions must be taken to avoid or at least minimize civilian harm. Among others, this includes measures to verify that targets are military objectives and to give the civilian population an effective warning before the attack.    It can also entail restrictions on the location of an attack, as well as the weapons or tactics employed. At the same time, parties to an armed conflict must, to the maximum extent feasible, take necessary precautions to protect the civilian population and civilian objects against the effects of attacks. For example, it may include evacuating civilians from, or at least allowing them to leave, a besieged area where hostilities are taking place.    The rules on the conduct of hostilities also grant specific protection to objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population (including agricultural areas for the production of foodstuffs, crops or drinking water installations), and works and installations containing dangerous forces (dams, nuclear electrical generating stations..). The use of means and methods of warfare that are intended, or may be expected, to cause widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment are also prohibited.    The implementation of IHL is primarily the responsibility of states. They must respect and ensure respect for these rules in all circumstances (Article 1 common to the four Geneva Conventions). States must adopt legislation and regulations aimed at ensuring full compliance with IHL.    They must enact laws to provide effective penal sanctions for the most serious violations of the Geneva Conventions – the so-called “grave breaches” – violations that amount to war crimes.    The 1998 Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) established the Court’s jurisdiction to prosecute the most serious crimes of international concern, including war crimes (Article 8). By virtue of the principle of complementarity, its jurisdiction is intended to come into play only when a state is genuinely unable or unwilling to prosecute alleged war criminals over which that state has jurisdiction.    http://www.icrc.org/en/statement/icrc-president-un-security-council-protection-civilians-armed-conflict http://www.icrc.org/en/statement/icrc-president-mirjana-spoljaric-58th-session-human-rights-council http://www.icrc.org/en/rulesofwar http://www.icrc.org/en/law-and-policy/respect-ihl http://blogs.icrc.org/law-and-policy/2025/02/06/a-call-to-make-international-humanitarian-law-a-political-priority/ http://www.icrc.org/en/global-initiative-international-humanitarian-law http://webtv.un.org/en/asset/k12/k12ajz5mw5 http://www.globalr2p.org/publications/populations-at-risk-march-2025/ Visit the related web page
	Next (more recent) news item
	Next (older) news item