This article examines international humanitarian law (IHL) and human rights guarantees of equality and non-discrimination applicable to cases of belligerent occupation. Capitalizing on the responsibilities of the Occupying Power with respect to different categories of persons living in the occupied territory distinguished by their nationality, it looks at the contents of obligations stemming from relevant norms of the two regimes and their interplay. It also addresses questions of the adequacy, utility and limits of IHL and human rights in according protection from discrimination and inequality to the inhabitants of the occupied territory.

This article argues that the growing involvement of civilians in activities on the digital battlefield during armed conflicts puts individuals at risk of harm and contributes to the erosion of the principle of distinction, a cornerstone of international humanitarian law (IHL). The article begins by outlining the ongoing trend of civilianization of the digital battlefield and puts forward brief scenarios to illustrate it. It then examines the narrow circumstances under which such forms of civilian involvement may qualify as direct participation in hostilities under IHL, and discusses what this means for the individuals concerned, particularly from the perspective of their loss of protection under the law. The analysis shows that certain types of State conduct which put civilians in harm's way by inducing them to directly participate in hostilities may constitute standalone violations of IHL and human rights law obligations. Beyond these specific prescriptions, the encouragement of civilian involvement undermines the principle of distinction, with dangerous ripple effects on the interpretation of those rules of IHL that flow from it. Accordingly, the article concludes that States should act to reverse the trend of civilianization of the digital battlefield and refrain as much as possible from involving civilians in the conduct of cyber hostilities.

This article critiques the articulation of the legal framework applicable to Australian Defence Force operations in Afghanistan found in the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force Afghanistan Inquiry Report (Brereton Report). In particular, using the Australian experience in Afghanistan as a case study, the article argues, on the basis of the rules of treaty interpretation, that where a foreign State party to Additional Protocol II (AP II) intervenes in a non-international armed conflict (NIAC) to which AP II applies, that foreign State is bound by AP II, in addition to the host State and non-State armed actors that are parties to the NIAC. The article concludes by outlining the reasons why the Brereton Report's silence in relation to AP II matters.

Despite the thousands of pages written and words said about the Holocaust, I still am at a loss in trying to understand it. How a European people with a rich cultural tradition that produced some of the world's greatest composers, philosophers and poets could invent, enforce and docilely follow the first industrial genocide in human history remains, for me, an enigma. This essay focuses on the Jews, both numerically and ideologically the principal, but not the only, victims, the Roma being the other principal victims.

Endless armed conflicts against terrorist groups put civilian populations at risk. Since France has been involved in the Sahel from 2013 onwards, transnational non-international armed conflicts (NIACs) of extended geographical and temporal scope against groups designated as terrorists are not a US exception anymore. NIACs against terrorist groups, conducted not only by the United States but also by France, persist and have been reconfigured around threat anticipation. How can anticipatory warfare be best constrained? This article argues that it can be best done through more constraining rules regulating target selection in NIACs and, in particular, by redefining the notion of continuous combat function (CCF). Many elements explored in this article indicate that the United States and France select targets that they pre-designate as terrorists, before these targets are engaged in hostilities. Instead of responding to the observed participation of these individuals in hostilities, strikes are based on contextual and behavioural elements ahead or outside of such moments. This paper argues that when war consists of threat anticipation, it becomes very extensive and particularly risky for civilians. Furthermore, recent State practice in the counterterrorism context reveals the pitfalls of the notions of direct participation in hostilities and CCF as defined in the 2009 International Committee of the Red Cross Interpretive Guidance. Outside this context, the interpretations proposed in the Interpretive Guidance might seem sufficient to constrain target selection processes and to protect civilian populations. However, when applied to armed conflicts that are driven by threat anticipation, the pitfalls of these interpretations emerge. I formulate a critique of these interpretations as being partly responsible for anticipatory warfare and propose an alternative theory for the CCF test.

There are thousands of families of missing persons around the world who search for answers as to the fate and whereabouts of their loved ones, hoping to be reunited with them, or in the event that they are deceased, to be able to mourn and grieve their death with dignity. In practice when authorities speak with families to confirm that the missing person is deceased, two initial questions frequently arise. First, families generally want to know, “did you identify the body of my relative?” The second question, once they receive information that their loved one has been positively identified as deceased, is usually, “how did they die?” This article examines whether international humanitarian law requires providing families of the missing, who may know or believe that their relative is deceased, with an answer to this second question of “how did they die?” The article argues that under certain circumstances, it is a requirement of international humanitarian law to provide some information about the cause, manner and circumstances of death to families. It also argues that the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement can strengthen the rights of families of the missing by engaging confidentially (directly or indirectly) with judicial bodies that are charged with both identification of the missing and accountability for violations of international humanitarian law. While this is challenging, it is argued that it is often possible to do so while respecting and adhering to the fundamental principles of the Movement, and, in turn, advancing the fundamental principle of humanity.

This article invites the reader on a journey through the legal arguments that would confirm the application of the United Nations (UN) climate change regime to belligerent occupations. Although the regime is silent on this issue, its application should not be limited to peacetime due to the seriousness of global climate change and its adverse effects on the environment and living entities. A harmonious interpretation and application of the UN climate change regime and the law of occupation would allow Occupying Powers to ensure the safety and well-being of the civilian population and contribute to the protection of the Earth's climate system.

For international lawyers seeking to promote compliance with international humanitarian law (IHL), some level of affective awareness is essential – but just where one might cultivate an understanding of emotions, and at which juncture of one's career, remains a mystery. This article proposes that what the IHL lawyers and advocates of the future need is an affect-based education. More than a simple mastery of a technical set of emotional intelligence skills, what we are interested in here is the refinement of a disposition or sensibility – a way of engaging with the world, with IHL, and with humanitarianism. In this article, we consider the potential for the Jean-Pictet Competition to provide this education. Drawing on our observations of the competition and a survey with 231 former participants, the discussion examines the legal and affective dimensions of the competition, identifies the precise moments of the competition in which emotional processes take place, and probes the role of emotions in role-plays and simulations. Presenting the Jean-Pictet Competition as a form of interaction ritual, we propose that high “emotional energy” promotes a humanitarian sensibility; indeed, participant interactions have the potential to re-constitute the very concept of humanitarianism. We ultimately argue that a more conscious engagement with emotions at competitions like Pictet has the potential to strengthen IHL training, to further IHL compliance and the development of IHL rules, and to enhance legal education more generally.

Thermobaric weapons cause damage and harm through overpressure and thermal effects, but secondary harm may also occur due to fragmentation, the consumption and depletion of ambient oxygen, and the release of toxic gases and smoke. Several international instruments prohibit or regulate weapons that generate asphyxiating or toxic gases, poison or poisoned weapons, chemical weapons, and weapons primarily designed to be incendiary. Thermobaric weapons are, however, primarily designed for blast and are not specifically covered by, or excluded from, the application of these instruments. The general customary law principles of international humanitarian law that determine the legality of the use of all weapons, including thermobaric weapons, prohibit causing superfluous injury and unnecessary suffering, and the use of indiscriminate weapons. Thermobaric weapons cause severe suffering but will not be rendered unlawful merely because of this effect. These weapons are also not automatically and inherently indiscriminate when used in their normal or designed circumstances. The use of thermobaric weapons, when directed at a military objective, while considering all feasible precautions to protect civilians and civilian objects and the principle of proportionality, will, as a result, be lawful in most circumstances. However, the use of thermobaric weapons should, in a similar manner to heavy explosive weapons, be avoided in urban or populated areas.

The purpose of this section is to share, in a consolidated format, relevant and public documentation pertaining to the theme of armed violence and the ICRC's operational response to the phenomenon.

Detention – by States and non-State armed groups (NSAGs) – is a reality in armed conflict. In 2021, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) estimated that around 100 armed groups were holding detainees. Detention puts people in a vulnerable situation: their lives and dignity depend on the detaining authority. Experience shows that detention by NSAGs often presents legal and practical challenges, ranging from a lack of knowledge of international rules and standards on detainee protection, in particular those found in international humanitarian law (IHL), to practical challenges such as how to ensure humane conditions of detention in the dire realities of armed conflict, or how to provide essential judicial guarantees for persons facing criminal charges.