Goodbye is the hardest part: why is ending violence so difficult for non-state armed groups?

For groups involved in long-running non-international armed conflicts, the decision to end the use of violence poses significant challenges – even when it is no longer recognized to be an “effective” means of achieving organizational objectives. In this post, independent researcher Dr Thomas Evans argues that exploring the cultural perspectives, influences, and identities within non-state armed groups and their members is vital to understanding the continued usage of, and disengagement from, political violence.

The number of conflicts continues to rise – with the ICRC currently classifying some 130 armed conflicts worldwide – while at the same time, they are rarely brought to an end. The human suffering they cause is devastating and hard to comprehend. But wars are not inevitable – and the best way to end the suffering they cause is to end conflicts or prevent them from breaking out in the first place. In the absence of effective efforts to find sustainable political solutions, humanitarian organizations like the ICRC are often left to manage the suffering caused by these conflicts, which affect civilians most of all. Political will to reinvest in international cooperation, conflict prevention, and resolution is urgently needed. While humanitarian action cannot substitute for political action, humanitarian actors can contribute to the prospects for peace. In this post, ICRC Policy Advisers Ariana Lopes Morey and Avigail Shai outline key reflections on the ICRC’s direct and indirect contributions to an environment conducive to peace. Drawing on case studies and other research, they identify three primary areas of the ICRC’s humanitarian action – its work with communities, in dialogue with parties to conflict and other influential actors, and in building respect for human dignity through laws, norms and institutions – which can strengthen prospects for peace. While focused on the ICRC’s own work, many of these reflections can apply more broadly to other organizations who strive to address the humanitarian impacts of conflict on people.

Across contemporary armed conflicts, the presence of civilian groups who take up arms to defend their communities raises enduring and complex legal challenges. At what point do these groups become parties to an armed conflict or otherwise bound by IHL? Do civilians who participate in hostilities lose protection against attack, and if so, for how long? Who bears responsibility for ensuring that they, and other civilians drawn into conflict, respect IHL? In this post, ICRC Legal Advisers Jelena Nikolic, Tilman Rodenhäuser and Thomas de Saint Maurice examine these questions in the context of non-international armed conflicts, seeking to help in the analysis of determining whether and at what point groups of civilians become parties to armed conflicts, what their legal obligations are, and who is responsible for their conduct.

For as long as humans have existed, stories have been our bridge to one another. Today, in a world shaped by digital networks, synthetic media, and hyperconnected feeds, that bridge is under unprecedented strain. Storytelling remains one of the most powerful ways to counter division and remind us of our shared humanity, yet it is also increasingly manipulated, dismissed, or drowned out in a noisy and polarized information landscape. The risk is not simply losing narratives but losing the very empathy and recognition that underpin humanitarian action. In this post, ICRC Communications Coordinator Najum Ul Saqib Iqbal argues that in an age of competing truths and rising dehumanization, telling stories of dignity and resilience is not a luxury but a moral necessity, an act of resistance against apathy, and a vital means of reconnecting us across divides.

The waters stretching from the Eastern Indian Ocean through Southeast and East Asia to the Western Pacific sustain global trade, host abundant marine resources vital to the livelihoods of many, and power regional economies. They are central to the national security of many states and are also home to major powers, vast archipelagic states, and many smaller states, including small island nations. These waters are also marked by overlapping maritime claims, strategic maritime chokepoints, and a growing military presence, including states from outside the region. Tensions rise when maritime incidents occur and there is an ever-present risk of miscalculations spiraling into broader confrontations. While armed conflict is not inevitable, if it were to occur it would likely unfold with considerable intensity, scale and tempo, with far-reaching and severe humanitarian consequences. Preparing for such a scenario requires not only preventing escalation but also ensuring that humanitarian impacts are mitigated and that impartial humanitarian action can take place, even in complex maritime environments where neutral states would also be called upon to shoulder important responsibilities. In this post, part of the “Complying with IHL in large-scale conflict” series, ICRC Legal Advisers Ansha Krishnan and Eve Massingham explore some of the humanitarian challenges posed by potential large-scale conflict in the Asia-Pacific region. The maritime nature of the region, together with its vast geographical scope and the present geo-political realities means aspects of conflict preparedness bear specific consideration because of the practical measures required to comply with IHL obligations and prepare for likely humanitarian consequences.

As many states, especially those with large and resourceful militaries, are exploring the potential of using artificial intelligence (AI) in targeting decisions, there is an urgent need to understand the risks associated with these systems, one being the risks of bias. However, while concerns about bias are often mentioned in the military AI policy debate, how it manifests as harm and what can be done to address it is rarely discussed in depth. This represents a critical gap in efforts to ensure the lawful use of military AI. To help bridge this gap, Laura Bruun and Marta Bo from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) unpack the humanitarian and legal implications of bias in military AI. They show how bias in military AI is likely to manifest in more complex and subtle ways than portrayed in policy debates, and if unaddressed, it may affect compliance with IHL principles of distinction, proportionality, and, especially, precautions in attack.

Brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) are no longer speculative technologies of future warfare – they are being field-tested by countries such as the United States and China. As BCI technologies transition from the laboratory to the battlefield, they bring both significant risks and potential advantages for future warfare. In this post, Dr. Anna M. Gielas, an affiliated researcher with the Centre for Global Knowledge Studies at the University of Cambridge, explores how BCI may challenge international humanitarian law (IHL) and international human rights law, requiring closer scrutiny and deeper debate on the development of national and international BCI regulations.

How AI learns, and what it misses: why data selection matters in humanitarian action by ICRC Law and Policy

On August 6th and 9th 1945, Hiroshima and Nagasaki became the first – and so far only – targets of nuclear weapons in warfare, killing over 100,000 people instantly and devastating countless lives for decades to come. The humanitarian consequences of such weapons are unmatched in scale and severity. While legal and ethical arguments against the most horrendous weapons have existed since the 19th century, nuclear arsenals remain active and are even expanding, as global discourse shifts away from nuclear disarmament toward renewed reliance on deterrence. In this post, ICRC Policy Adviser Dominique Loye traces the evolution of legal and humanitarian objections to nuclear weapons, from the 1868 Saint Petersburg Declaration to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW). He argues that despite hopeful legal and diplomatic milestones, the world is once again drifting towards catastrophe. With the 2026 Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) Review Conference on the horizon, the time is now to reframe global security around humanity – not annihilation – and to take urgent, collective steps to reduce nuclear risks and prevent their use.

“Without information and telecommunication, people don’t know where to go for safety,” the ICRC reported from an ongoing armed conflict. Another humanitarian worker recalled that when connectivity is down and “a bombing happens, especially in the night, you cannot reach ambulances”. The importance of connectivity for people affected by armed conflict is further exemplified when displaced people ask humanitarian organizations for Wi-Fi or a ‘hot spot’, as connectivity provides the most direct contact to their loved ones. Yet, disruptions of connectivity are frequent in today’s armed conflict, at times part of incidental damage caused by hostilities, at other times presented as a measure necessary to impact an enemy’s operations. In this post, ICRC Legal Adviser Tilman Rodenhäuser discusses some of the limits that international humanitarian law (IHL) imposes on connectivity disruptions in armed conflict. The notion ‘connectivity disruptions’ is used to describe operations by belligerents that make digital connectivity or tele-communications unavailable or otherwise disrupted, temporarily or in the longer term.