Masood Khan has been Pakistan's Ambassador to the People's Republic of China since September 2008. From March 2005 to September 2008, Ambassador Khan served as Pakistan's Permanent Representative to the United Nations Office and other International Organizations in Geneva. As an official of Pakistan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, he has served in Islamabad and abroad for thirty years. In 2009, he was promoted to the highest rank – that of Federal Secretary – in Pakistan's civil service. Earlier, among other functions, he worked as the Ministry of Foreign Affairs' Director-General for the United Nations and for Disarmament, and as its spokesman. Over the years, he has acquired expertise in multilateral diplomacy, security and disarmament issues, human rights, humanitarian diplomacy, and social development. He has also specialized in international conferences, having held several leadership positions, such as President of the Conference on Disarmament, President of the 6th Review Conference of the Biological Weapons Convention, Coordinator of the Group of the Organisation of Islamic States in Geneva, Chairman of the International Organization for Migration Council, Chairman of the International Labour Conference Reform Committee, and Chairman of the Drafting Committee of the 30th International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent.

Since the constituent Conference in October 1863, which gave birth to the Red Cross,1 the International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent has met on thirty occasions. The first meeting took place in Paris in 1867 and the thirtieth in Geneva in November 2007. What contribution has the Conference made to the development of international humanitarian law and humanitarian action? What are the main challenges that the Conference has had to face? Where has it succeeded and where has it failed? These are the questions that this article seeks to answer.

The International Conference is based in particular on the long-established National Society auxiliary role and partnership with States. The importance of the Conference is clear from the Movement's Statutes. In practice, not all National Societies have taken full advantage of the opportunities provided by the International Conference for interaction and relationship-building with their own authorities. Practical ways are suggested to help National Societies participate more actively in the Conference and to use it to good benefit before and afterwards. The International Conference itself could increase its relevance by making more of its specific function with respect to international humanitarian law.

The International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent (‘International Conference’) is one of the few international fora in which governments take part on an equal footing with other entities. The origins of the International Conference, and its capacity to adopt decisions that are binding on both National Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies and on governments in their dealings with National Societies as their auxiliary partners, give rise to special considerations concerning state participation. This article provides an overview of the models for participation in the assemblies of other international organizations, and how problematic cases have been dealt with in various fora. The authors then examine the participation of states and other political entities in the International Conference, as well as the controversial cases that have put the Conference to the test.

The ICRC Study on Operational and Commercial and Other Non-operational Issues Involving the Use of the Emblems (‘the Emblem Study’) is an efficient and user-friendly tool to tackle issues regarding the use of the emblems of the red cross, red crescent, and red crystal. This article presents the Emblem Study's origin and objectives, and explains the structure and the methodology followed in its preparation. Recurrent questions regarding joint use of emblems and other signs are also examined, in order to demonstrate the Emblem Study's potential as an analytical and practical tool. Particular emphasis is placed on the need to avoid diluting the protective value of the emblems by maintaining a distinction between those entitled to use the emblems, their partners, and other players in the humanitarian field.

In this article, the moral values underlying humanitarian principles are analysed. What were these original moral values? Have they changed? To what extent are they in danger today? Has humanity itself become an instrumental value? To answer these questions, the author examines the humanitarian discourse: firstly, how these values have been described by humanitarians themselves, and secondly, how they are used by humanitarians in specific contexts.

The Responsibility to Protect is being touted as a new approach to protecting populations from mass atrocities. Certainly it would be encouraging to believe that an end to genocides, large scale ethnic cleansing and large scale loss of life were within humanity's reach. However, whilst the holistic approach of the doctrine is to be commended, the legality of the proposal requires further analysis. This paper specifically addresses the evolution of the legality of humanitarian intervention and looks at whether the Responsibility to Protect doctrine advances the legality of the use of force for humanitarian ends.

Genocide is a crime with a double mental element, i.e. a general intent as to the underlying acts, and an ulterior intent with regard to the ultimate aim of the destruction of the group. The prevailing view in the case-law interprets the respective ‘intent to destroy’ requirement as a special or specific intent (dolus specialis) stressing its volitional or purpose-based tendency. While this view has been followed for a long time in legal doctrine without further ado, it has recently been challenged by knowledge- and structure-based approaches, which have not received sufficient attention. A historical, literal, systematic and teleological interpretation of the ‘intent to destroy’ requirement, taking into account the particular structure of the genocide offence and the meaning of ‘intent’ in comparative law, reveals that the traditional view can no longer be maintained. It should be replaced by a combined structure- and knowledge-based approach that distinguishes according to the status and role of the (low-, mid- and top-level) perpetrators. Thus, the purpose-based intent should be upheld only with regard to the top- and mid-level perpetrators, whereas for the low-level perpetrators knowledge of the genocidal context should suffice. Lastly, this new approach requires a fresh look at the ‘intent to destroy’ requirement in cases of participation in genocide.