International Humanitarian Law and the “Norms” of War

The International Committee of the Red Cross, the ICRC, was founded in Geneva, Switzerland in 1863. The organization is now more than 162 years old. A three-time Nobel Peace Prize Laureate — in 1917, 1944, 1963 — it operates in over 100 countries. It is not just a neutral umpire during times of war; it is a nightwatchman, its history more or less synonymous with that of international humanitarian law, or IHL.

- BY UDITHA DEVAPRIYA

The Global Initiative to galvanize political commitment to international humanitarian law, the ICRC’s latest endeavor, saw the light of day in Colombo two weeks ago. On Wednesday, July 9, the ICRC, led by outgoing head Séverine Chappaz, held a briefing and panel discussion on the way forward. Organized under the auspices of the Bandaranaike International Diplomatic Training Institute (BIDTI), the two-hour session, at the BMICH, saw an exchange of views between diplomats, State officials, and civil society.

Ambitious in its scope, the Global Initiative is timely and urgent. But it is also, at one level, problematic, riddled with contradictions that organizations like the ICRC have had to engage with today. This is not at all the fault of the ICRC: as was noted in the opening remarks at the event, it is in times of war that such institutions come to matter.

But the contours and rules of warfare make it difficult for these bodies to act as a mediator, to claim the status of neutral umpire without being sidelined, if not demonized, as being partial to one side over another. This is not a problem specific to a time or place, and it is to the ICRC’s credit that it has, wherever it has confronted it, held strong.

Take a very simple example: the definition of civilian in customary IHL. The ICRC defines a civilian as “persons who are not members of the armed forces”, which presumably includes those who are no longer part of such groups. One of the few exceptions to this is what is known as “levée en masse” — when hitherto unarmed civilians take up arms to resist invading troops. Upon taking arms, they become parties to a conflict — a status that confers automatically on them the duty to abide by the laws of war.