Protecting People in Times of War.

• Author: Sandoz, Yves

Disproportion between the single battle that gave rise to humanitarian law and the all-out warfare that has since engulfed vast territories, affecting virtually entire populations, and between nineteenth-century rifles and modern nuclear weapons, as well as the major changes that have swept the planet in the past fifty years--decolonization, the end of the cold war, the unbridled demographic growth and severe environmental degradation--all raise two important questions: Do the norms contained in the relevant Conventions still measure up? And does humanitarian law remain relevant in today's world order?

This law, as we know it today, first came into being with the signing of the 1864 Geneva Convention. As for the modern Geneva Conventions, which now constitute the backbone of that law, they were adopted 50 years ago in August. The primary aim of humanitarian law has always been to prohibit any form of violence that is not justified by military imperatives, and this certainly remains essential if potential victims--the wounded, prisoners, civilians--are to be protected from wanton attack.

At its inception, humanitarian law had only one purpose: to ensure that wounded and sick soldiers were treated with humanity. Although the idea did not take on tangible form until Henry Dunant witnessed with horror the wounded men lying abandoned on the ground after the bloody battle of Solferino, its seeds had been sown much earlier. Rousseau, for one, affirmed in The Social Contract that "war gives no right, which is not necessary to its ends", and that soldiers who surrender or lay down their weapons "cease to be enemies or instruments of the enemy and become ordinary human beings again".

Despite the proliferation of armed conflicts and the unprecedented technological advances of recent years, humanitarian law has continued to develop, although more in relation to its foundations inspired by Rousseau than in relation to its initial and very specific objective.

In view of the rapid development of modern weaponry, however, States have felt the need to impose further restrictions, in particular the prohibition against bombing, starving or terrorizing the civilian population as a means of forcing the enemy to capitulate, and the principle of proportionality between the anticipated military gains of an attack and the risk of collateral damage to civilians and their property. Protection of the natural environment has also gradually become a part of the philosophy underpinning humanitarian law.

Can it thus be concluded that the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols are still perfectly capable of fulfilling their role? On the whole and given the purpose they are intended to serve, these instruments undoubtedly remain equal to their task, and the few adjustments they may require in light of recent experience would probably not justify the cost and uncertainty of a thorough review of their provisions. There are nevertheless two issues which deserve particular attention.

The first has to do with the rules governing the conduct of hostilities, which were reaffirmed and developed in Additional Protocol I of 1977. Recent world events have shown that the exact scope of these rules and their underlying principles require further thought. What exactly constitutes a military objective? What can be considered an acceptable degree of collateral damage? What limits should be imposed on warfare in order to protect the environment

The second issue to be addressed is the proliferation of violations of humanitarian law, which must be countered...