Defining armed conflict: some clarity in the fog of war

Can military training in international humanitarian law (IHL) lead to greater adherence to IHL and increased protection for civilians in war? In this post, Andrew Bell, a researcher in the ICRC’s Centre for Operational Research and Experience (CORE), outlines recent findings from his work reviewing results from U.S. Army surveys on the effects of IHL training on combatant views and behaviour in war. He demonstrates that training in IHL and norms of restraint can achieve significant effects in military forces, shaping both combatant attitudes and behaviour and generating more restraint in battlefield operations.

Today, there are over 120 armed conflicts around the world, involving over 60 states and 120 non-state armed groups. The majority of these armed conflicts are of a non-international character, the number of which has tripled since the turn of the millennium. To know what rules regulate an armed conflict, there is one crucial first step to take: its classification. In this post, and in the run-up to the 75th Anniversary of the Geneva Conventions, ICRC Legal Advisers Samit D’Cunha, Tristan Ferraro, and Thomas de Saint Maurice introduce the latest ICRC Opinion Paper, which restates the rules, approaches and interpretations the organization uses to classify and declassify armed conflicts. They argue that, despite the many contemporary challenges, IHL remains today fit-for-purpose for the classification of armed conflicts.

Efforts to address the ethical challenges posed by autonomous weapon systems are growing. In December 2023, the UN General Assembly passed a resolution requesting the Secretary-General to seek states’ views for addressing, among other issues, the ethical challenges posed by these systems, and in April 2024 Austria is hosting the conference ‘Humanity at the Crossroads: Autonomous Weapon Systems and the Challenge of Regulation’, with the aim of bringing ethical challenges to the fore. In this post, Alexander Blanchard, Senior Researcher at the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), argues that while ethics has been a prominent part of international regulatory debate on autonomous weapon systems for years, the promise and potential of ethics for advancing that debate is still far from being realized. He holds that, for progress to happen, new efforts must be coupled with work to clarify the role of ethics for regulation.

The widespread use of heavy explosive weapons has reached alarming levels, exacting a staggering toll on civilian lives. From Gaza to the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Sudan to Syria, and Ukraine to Yemen and Myanmar, the suffering of civilians and destruction is immense, scarring communities long after the bombing stops – but it is also preventable. The Political Declaration on Strengthening the Protection of Civilians from the Humanitarian Consequences Arising from the Use of Explosive Weapons in Populated Areas, endorsed by 86 states worldwide, brings hope of long-term change for civilians caught in conflict. Yet if it is to bring about meaningful impact, it demands resolute action from endorsing states. In this post, a group of experts from organizations gathering alongside the global community of states to assess progress and challenges and discuss future prospects at the first international follow-up conference hosted by the Norwegian government in Oslo urgently call on states to faithfully implement their commitments and broaden the support for the Political Declaration. They argue that the success of the Declaration hinges on translating political will into meaningful action among endorsing states, including comprehensive policy reforms, enhanced training for military personnel, improved operational planning processes, and robust exchanges of experience and best practices to ensure better protection of civilians and compliance with international humanitarian law (IHL).

From frontline female combatants with the People’s Defence Force in Myanmar to queer Syrian refugees living in displacement in Lebanon, from seasonal workers on the factory floor of textile companies in Bangladesh to adolescents vulnerable to early marriage to fighters of armed groups in Somalia, the need of sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) is ubiquitous, stark and often gendered in various humanitarian settings. It concerns a wide range of issues, including fertility, maternal and child health, menstrual health, contraceptive service and safe abortion as well as prevention and treatment of HIV and STIs, and sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV) services. In this post, MSF Humanitarian Affairs Analyst Peixuan Xie examines the gendered nature of SRHR needs and progressive potential of leveraging feminist methods for inclusive SRHR in humanitarian assistance and in post-humanitarian transition, arguing that feminist analysis could help unveil the continuum and power dynamics of SRHR deprivation and that the fulfilment of SRHR by concerted humanitarian efforts aides the realization of human security, inclusion and bodily autonomy.

The draft elements of the resolution ‘Toward a universal culture of compliance with international humanitarian law’ elaborated for the 34th International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent ‘welcome the increasing number of voluntary reports published by states on the domestic implementation of international humanitarian law (IHL)’ (para. 13). This recognizes how voluntary reports are progressively implementing the recommendations made to states by the 2019 Resolution 1 ‘Bringing IHL Home’, ‘to carry out…an analysis of the areas requiring further domestic implementation…(and)…to share examples of and exchange good practices of national implementation measures taken in accordance with IHL obligations’. In this post, and in the run-up to the 75th anniversary of the Geneva Conventions later this year, Giulio Bartolini, professor of international law (Roma Tre University/Geneva Academy IHL and HRs) and President of the IHL Scientific Committee of the Italian Red Cross, analyzes the genesis and characteristics of voluntary reports on IHL, underscoring their potential to play a role in favouring a ‘culture of compliance with IHL’.

Before the Lieber Code and Geneva Conventions came a treaty between the Spanish Empire and Simon Bolivar’s revolutionary forces in Colombia and Venezuela. The 1820 Treaty for the Regularization of War aimed at reducing the unnecessary suffering of both soldiers and civilians affected by armed conflict and occupation across a broader spectrum than any previous international agreements. However, despite the significance of such a development in international law, the treaty fell into relative obscurity after the Colombian War of Independence until being slowly reintroduced throughout the 20th century. In this post, graduate student Jacob Coffelt from the University of Padua explores what can be considered the birth of international humanitarian law in Latin America as well as the effects colonialism has had on its legacy. Using both historical and contemporary sources, he argues that the codification of modern principles of international humanitarian law had occurred decades prior to what is traditionally suggested.

The Asia-Pacific region is diverse in religious, ethnic and historical backgrounds as well as in economic development. However, armed conflict is often not recognized by states in the region, and if it is, there is an expectation that they will address such issues internally. The region is also known for having the fewest ratifications of international humanitarian law (IHL) treaties. The Asia-Pacific region is nonetheless home to an active and growing group of academics and practitioners of IHL, which some refer to as “IHL ambassadors”. This group of people can draw on the historical underpinnings of IHL which derive from many traditions and religions still followed today in the region, as well as the understanding of the huge technological advances that are taking place here. In this post, and in the run-up to the 75th anniversary of the Geneva Conventions later this year, Jonathan Kwik, Ai Kihara-Hunt and Kelisiana Thynne examine the role that academics as “IHL ambassadors” play in the Asia-Pacific region and which they can play elsewhere in promoting, interpreting and developing IHL. They also consider the role that academic journals can play in enhancing the coverage of this important, and often overlooked, task.

As part of the historic 2016 peace agreement, the “Commission for the Clarification of Truth, Coexistence and Non-repetition” (hereafter the Colombian Truth Commission) was established to focus on victims and their right to the truth with an emphasis on the way different people were impacted by the armed conflicts. The findings of the Commission’s subchapter, “The truth is rainbow”, are highly relevant for the humanitarian community. In this post, Elias Dehnen, peace and conflict studies researcher and journalist, argues that drawing lessons from the Colombian Truth Commission’s LGBTIQ-subchapter is not about ideological alignment, but about making humanitarian response truly impartial, considering particular needs of vulnerable groups.

Last week, states parties met for the first session of the Group of Governmental Experts (GGE) on lethal autonomous weapon systems (LAWS) in 2024. This debate featured the GGE’s most substantive discussion to date about bias under the topic “risk mitigation and confidence building”, including around a working paper dedicated to bias by Canada, Costa Rica, Germany, Ireland, Mexico, and Panama. In this post, Dr. Ingvild Bode, Associate Professor at the Center for War Studies (University of Southern Denmark) argues that bias is as much a social as a technical problem and that addressing it therefore requires going beyond technical solutions. She holds that the risks of algorithmic bias need to receive more dedicated attention as the GGE’s work turns towards thinking around operationalisation. These arguments are based on the author’s presentation at the GGE side event “Fixing Gender Glitches in Military AI: Mitigating Unintended Biases and Tackling Risks” organised by UNIDIR on 6 March 2024.