Why Nordic governments must uphold the global ban on anti-personnel mines

As security concerns intensify across Europe following the escalation of the international armed conflict between Russia and Ukraine in 2022, several states – including Finland, Poland, and the Baltic countries – have moved to withdraw from the Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention (APMBC), while similar calls have emerged in other Nordic countries. These developments reflect a growing perception that existing humanitarian disarmament commitments may constrain military effectiveness in a deteriorating security environment. Yet they also raise fundamental questions about the continued relevance of these commitments at a time when they are most needed. In this post, the Secretaries-General of the Danish, Finnish, Norwegian and Swedish Red Cross Societies argue that withdrawing from the APMBC would not enhance security but risk weakening civilian protection and eroding long-standing humanitarian norms. Drawing on legal, operational and humanitarian considerations, they show that anti-personnel mines remain inherently indiscriminate and of limited military utility, and that their prohibition is fully compatible with modern military cooperation frameworks. They call on the remaining Nordic governments to remain committed to the Convention even – and especially – in times of heightened insecurity.

When armed conflict ends, education does not always return with it. In many post-conflict settings, schools remain closed long after ceasefires, while children stay at home, enter work, remain displaced or navigate unsafe environments. Education systems remain constrained by destroyed infrastructure, militarization, unexploded ordnance, trauma and fear. Although international humanitarian law (IHL) and international human rights law (IHRL) require the continuity of education even during armed conflict, schooling is frequently disrupted in practice, raising questions about how education can be safely restored after conflict. IHL regulates the conduct of hostilities and contains important protections for children and access to education during armed conflict. Lessons drawn from these protections can help inform recovery decisions as societies transition from conflict to peace, including after the cessation of hostilities, when recovery begins but IHL may still apply. In this post, as part of our Emerging Voices series, Geeta Mahapatra proposes a framework to facilitate children’s safe return to education, centred on child-specific harm assessments, safe access and inclusive recovery. It contends that stronger compliance with IHL rules protecting schools and children during armed conflict helps preserve the conditions necessary for restoring education in post-conflict settings.

Climate change and armed conflict increasingly intersect in humanitarian settings. While the sector is now alert to climate-related risks – particularly in disaster response, resilience programming, and displacement governance – the ways these risks are interpreted and operationalized vary across institutional mandates and operational contexts. In protection practice within conflict-affected settings, climate impacts are still often framed primarily as “conflict multipliers” rather than direct drivers of civilian harm. This narrow lens risks overlooking the very insecurities communities experience most acutely: displacement, restricted movement, isolation, and livelihood collapse. In this post, researcher and former ICRC delegate Lina Aburas argues that our current conflict-centered analysis has a dangerous blind spot. Drawing on her experience in northeast Nigeria, she explores how communities define their own insecurity amid climate and conflict pressures. Practitioner and community perspectives reveal how climate-related hazards reshape mobility, access to livelihoods and assistance, and exposure to protection risks in ways not fully captured by prevailing conflict-centered analyses. Centering these lived experiences reveals that adapting humanitarian action isn’t about mission creep or expanding mandates; it’s about fundamentally shifting how we interpret and prioritize the risks already in front of us.

Artificial intelligence (AI)-based decision-support systems are increasingly embedded upstream of the use of force, shaping how military actors plan attacks, assessing effects, and anticipating harm. In contemporary urban warfare, where civilian infrastructure forms complex and deeply interconnected systems, these tools are increasingly used to guide decisions with far-reaching humanitarian consequences. This raises critical questions for international humanitarian law (IHL), which requires parties to anticipate and mitigate foreseeable civilian harm when applying the principles of proportionality and precaution, including indirect, cumulative and systemic effects on civilian infrastructure. In this post, independent legal researcher Yéelen Marie Geairon argues that while AI-enabled decision-support systems do not alter the legal rules governing attacks, they significantly reshape how foreseeability is operationalized in practice. By structuring what decision-makers are able to anticipate, compare and justify ex ante, AI systems recalibrate the factual basis of legal judgment, while also introducing new risks linked to data gaps, opacity and over-reliance on technical outputs. The protection of civilian infrastructure in AI-enabled warfare therefore depends less on technological performance than on the legal discipline, transparency and human judgment with which these tools are embedded in decision-making processes.

The ICRC continues to witness unacceptable levels of suffering when the law designed to protect families, prevent people from going missing, and ensure the dignified and respectful treatment of the dead is disregarded. At the same time, we have also documented countless, daily efforts by parties to armed conflict to prevent family separation, clarify the fate and whereabouts of missing people, and treat the dead with dignity and respect. This is a humanitarian imperative, a legal obligation that should be a priority of any party to an armed conflict. In this post, ICRC Legal Advisers Tilman Rodenhäuser and Ximena Londoño present key findings of a recent ICRC study, “Non-State Armed Groups and the Separated, Missing and Dead: Obligations Under International Humanitarian Law and Examples of How to Implement Them”. Drawing on the doctrine and practice of 64 non-state armed groups (NSAGs) across the world, the study offers unique insights into practical measures that NSAGs can take to implement IHL and protect missing people and their families. This post provides a snapshot of the study’s main findings and operational relevance.

More than seven decades after their adoption, the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 remain foundational to contemporary international humanitarian law (IHL). Efforts to update their Commentaries testify to both the resilience of the Geneva Conventions and their enduring relevance in modern armed conflicts. Yet the story of their making is inseparable from the longer history of the law of armed conflict, which developed in the late nineteenth century within a deeply hierarchical international legal order. From the perspective of colonized states and territories, that history reveals a persistent divide between European and non-European worlds, a divide that shaped not only general international law but also key features of the Geneva Conventions themselves. In this post, part of a joint symposium on the updated Commentary on the Fourth Geneva Convention with EJIL:Talk! and Just Security, Associate Professor Srinivas Burra revisits the adoption of the 1949 Geneva Conventions against the backdrop of the Second World War, the creation of the United Nations, and the onset of decolonization. Focusing on the Fourth Convention’s regime of occupation and on Common Article 3, he examines these developments from a Third World Approaches to International Law (TWAIL) perspective, accounting for the structural legacies of empire in international law. He argues that while these provisions marked important advances, they also carried forward earlier exclusions embedded in colonial conceptions of sovereignty. Read in this light, the Conventions represent both a decisive break in humanitarian protection and a continuation of hierarchies inherited from the nineteenth century.

Islamic legal traditions and the modern framework of international humanitarian law (IHL) emerged from different contexts and traditions, but they share many underlying values – such as restraint, humanity, and the protection of those not (or no longer) participating in hostilities. Islamic law therefore offers a distinct but complementary perspective to IHL on the sanctity of life (ḥurmat al-nafs), particularly in contexts where international legal frameworks lack traction, understanding, or perceived legitimacy. In this post, and as part of our Emerging Voices series, legal researcher Alannah Travers explores how Islamic law, as its own coherent and longstanding legal tradition, offers a parallel framework of moral constraint during armed conflict. She argues that better understanding these Islamic legal norms can provide stronger grounds for compliance with protective norms, deepening our collective understanding of the right to life in war.

The updated ICRC Commentary on the Fourth Geneva Convention (GC IV) includes a number of important updates to its treatment of Common Article 3 (CA3). These relate primarily to three areas: the treatment of coalitions in non-international armed conflict (NIAC); the provision of support by one party to another; and questions of gender and the treatment of other marginalized groups. In this post – part of a joint blog symposium on the updated GC IV Commentary with EJIL: Talk! and Just Security – Associate Professor Katharine Fortin examines these developments, highlighting their significance and strengths while also pointing to areas that may warrant further reflection or study.

Following five years of research and consultations, the ICRC published a new, updated Commentary on the Fourth Geneva Convention (GC IV) of 1949 in October 2025. GC IV is the cornerstone of protection for civilians in international armed conflict and occupation – protections that remain urgently relevant amid patterns of urban warfare, strikes on essential services, and persistent harm to people who are not, or are no longer, taking part in hostilities. The 2025 Commentary, following the interpretive methodology outlined in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, consolidates seven decades of practice, jurisprudence, and operational experience into a practical guide to applying GC IV’s safeguards effectively today. Over the coming weeks, we are delighted to co-host a joint symposium with the editors of Just Security and EJIL:Talk!, sharing expert contributions on selected topics addressed in the updated ICRC Commentary on the Fourth Geneva Convention. We hope this analysis will help shed light on important aspects of the Fourth Convention that are explored in depth in the updated Commentary, outline developments in law, technology and language since 1949, and give readers an idea of what has changed since the initial ICRC Commentary on this Convention was published in 1958. As Jean-Marie Henckaerts highlights below, a good faith interpretation and application of the Fourth Convention is indispensable: “it keeps interpretation anchored in the Conventions’ object and purpose, ensuring that their protective spirit prevails over technical evasions.” His following post, initially published on 21 October 2025, serves as an introduction both to the updated Commentary and to this symposium.

Naval warfare has undergone dramatic transformation, expanding across multiple domains and exposing civilian seafarers, infrastructure, and global supply chains to new and evolving risks. As modern maritime operations become faster, more complex, and more interconnected, long-standing legal frameworks face growing pressure to keep pace. In this post, ICRC Legal Adviser Abby Zeith examines the changing character of naval warfare and questions whether the maritime domain should still be treated as exceptional. She explores how technological, operational, and geopolitical shifts intersect with existing international humanitarian law (IHL), and why renewed clarity from states is essential to protect civilian shipping, seafarers, and populations ashore.