¹ Statutes of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement (1986), Preamble and Article 1. Handbook of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, ICRC and Federation, Geneva, 1994, p. 417.Google Scholar

² For examples, see Resolutions 2 and 4 of the 26th International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent, Geneva, 1995, in IRRC, No. 310, 01–02 1996, pp. 60 and 69 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Resolutions 1, 2, 3 and 6 of the 1995 Council of Delegates, ibid., pp. 139, 140, 142 and 147.

³ See the relevant decisions of the Federation's General Assembly since 1989. For a general overview of the most recent decision on the subject, that of the 10th Session of the General Assembly held in 1995, see IRRC, No 311, 03–04 1996, p. 224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴ Such terms, and related ones, can be understood and used in different ways, sometimes interchangeably. The Red Cross and Red Crescent needs to consider its own definitions. To help initiate further thought, and for the purpose of this article, the following definitions are suggested: (1) “advocacy”: making known to others one's support for a particular issue; (2) “public advocacy”: advocacy to the general public; (3) “private advocacy”: advocacy to a confined audience, maybe on a confidential basis; (4) “campaign”: a planned and organized series of actions designed to achieve a specific result, using all available means and normally undertaken in public. All of these activities seek to influence, that is, to affect the views or behaviour of others. Non-confrontational methods have traditionally been successful in enabling components of the Movement to gain access to decision-makers.

⁵ “Regulations on the use of the emblem of the red cross or the red crescent by the National Societies” (1991), in IRRC, No. 289, 07–08 1992, pp. 339 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁶ This activity was, in effect, endorsed by the 26th International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent: Resolution 1, para. 4, IRRC, No. 310, 01–02 1996, p. 58 Google Scholar; Meeting of the Intergovernmental Group of Experts for the Protection of War Victims, Recommendation VIII (c), ibid., p. 87. Also see Gasser, Hans-Peter, “Universal acceptance of international humanitarian law: promotional activities of the ICRC”, IRRC, No. 302, 09–10 1994, pp. 450–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁷ The Federation and its member Societies are supporting the goal of “Health for all by the year 2000”, set by the World Health Organization (WHO). This goal was also endorsed by the 24th International Conference of the Red Cross, Manila, 1981, Resolution XXH, IRRC, No. 225, 11–12 1981, p. 340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁸ In fact, the ICRC and the Federation—the latter in its capacity as representative of its member National Societies at the international level—were granted observer status at the United Nations General Assembly largely because of these specially recognized roles.

⁹ The respective tasks of the ICRC and the National Societies under humanitarian law are explained in: Haug, Hans, Humanity for all: The International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, Henry Dunant Institute/Paul Haupt Publishers, Berne/Stuttgart/Vienna, 1993, pp. 76–81 and 174–179 respectively.Google Scholar It should be noted that in a number of humanitarian law treaty provisions, the ICRC and National Societies are given an exclusive right or duty. This is another reason why the concept of a Movement is important, that is, to try to ensure that components act in a complementary way, rather than as competitors, and do not waste resources by duplicating operations.

¹⁰ This auxiliary role is, in fact, a condition for recognition as a National Society. Statutes (above, note 1), Article 4, para. 3; see also Article 3, paras. 1 and 2.

¹¹ See “Action of the ICRC in the event of breaches of international humanitarian law”, IRRC, No. 221, 03–04 1981, pp. 76–83.Google Scholar

¹² As an illustration, the 1990/91 World Campaign for the Protection of War Victims was based on Resolution VIII, para. 3, of the 25th International Conference of the Red Cross, Geneva, 1986, IRRC, No. 255, 11–12 1986, p. 352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Subsequent decisions on implementation were made by the Movement's Council of Delegates.

¹³ See the ICRC's established policy in such matters, referred to in note 11.

¹⁴ 26th International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent, Geneva, 1995, Resolution 1, para. 4, IRRC, No. 310, 01–02 1996, p. 58 Google Scholar; Meeting of the Intergovernmental Group of Experts for the Protection of War Victims, Recommendation VIII (c), ibid., p. 87; 26th International Conference, Resolution 2, chapter H, para, (j), ibid., p. 60.

¹⁵ The stance adopted by the ICRC with regard to anti-personnel mines resulted in one National Society being refused as a co-sponsor for a seminar on the subject, to be attended by academics, government and military lawyers. This was the first time that such a refusal had ever occurred, the problem being that, as a result of the ICRC's position, the Red Cross and Red Crescent was perceived as not being neutral on this issue.

¹⁶ Anti-personnel landmines: Friend or foe? ICRC, Geneva, 1996.Google Scholar

¹⁷ The Council of Delegates is a statutory body of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, consisting of representatives of its components, which meets to discuss matters which concern the Movement as a whole. Statutes (above, note 1), Article 12.

¹⁸ The ICRC's important roles under Article DC of the Dayton Agreement, on the exchange of prisoners of war (for the text see IRRC, No. 311, 03–04 1996, p. 243)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and as Special Rapporteur at the International Conference for the Protection of War Victims and subsequent expert meetings ( IRRC, No. 296, 09–10 1993, pp. 359 ff.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, are only two recent examples.

¹⁹ Resolution 1, para. 4, see above, note 6.

²⁰ See, e.g., 26th International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent, Resolution 4, chapter G, paras. 1 and 2 (a), IRRC, No. 310, 01–02 1996, p. 69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar