Le but de cette brève étude est tout d'abord de faire ressortir l'importance que revêt, pour les réfugiés et personnes déplacées à l'intérieur de leur pays (ci-après personnes déplacées), le droit international humanitaire, et, en particulier, les Conventions de Genève de 1949 et leurs Protocoles additionnels de 1977. Non seulement cette branche du droit international protège ces catégories de personnes lorsqu'elles sont victimes de conflits armés, mais encore ses règles, si elles étaient appliquées scrupuleusement, permettraient d'empêcher la plupart des déplacements.

The article goes back to the early discussions of the morality of city bombing which took place before and during World War II and attempts to analyze both the moral argumentation and its historical context from the 1940s until today. The development of the doctrine of “collateral damage” which recognized that attacking enemy factories was permissible even if it cost the lives and homes of civilians was soon widened beyond its original notion. After the war, the dropping of the atomic bombs became an issue in its own right, to be considered separately from the earlier recourse to conventional bombing — even when conventional bombing achieved equally destructive results. Twin inhibitions have reigned in the issue of what force against civilians was justified: the reluctance of German commentators to seem apologetic for the Third Reich, and the difficulty in the U.S. of seeming to cast any aspersions on those who fought “the good war.”

The Montreux Document on Private Military and Security Companies (Montreux Document) was adopted in 2008 by seventeen States to reaffirm and, as far as was necessary, clarify the existing obligations of States and other actors under international law, in particular under international humanitarian law (IHL) and international human rights law (IHRL). It also aimed at identifying good practices and regulatory options to assist States in promoting respect for IHL and IHRL by private military and security companies (PMSCs). Today, fifty-one States and three international organizations have endorsed the Montreux Document. It contains twenty-seven “Statements” – sections recalling the main international legal obligations of States in regard to the operations of PMSCs during armed conflicts. Each statement is the reaffirmation of a general rule of IHL, IHRL or State responsibility formulated in a way that clarifies its applicability to PMSC operations. This article aims to detail the basis of each legal obligation mentioned in the first part of the Montreux Document (Part I). The article follows the structure of Part I, in order to better facilitate its comprehension. The second part of the Montreux Document, relating to good practices, is not covered in this article.

For more than 30 years the codification of state responsibility has been the main task of the International Law Commission, which has placed greater emphasis on financial reparations than on criminal sanctions. Since the 1990s, however, the responsibility of individuals for gross violations of humanitarian law has been one of the main topics in international law. This new approach implies discrepancies between domestic practice and international case law in terms of the nature and scale of sanctions, the role of victims and also the accountability of non-state entities, including private companies and international organizations.

This paper compares how rules of international humanitarian law and rules of Islamic law protect children in armed conflict. It examines areas of convergence and divergence, and areas where there is room for clarification between these two legal systems. This comparative exercise spotlights four key topics marking the wartime experience of children: the unlawful recruitment and use of children by armed forces and armed groups, the detention of children, their access to education, and the situation of children separated from their families.

The meeting of heads of delegation and regional delegates held in Glion from 19 to 22 January 1997 was a milestone in the recent history of the ICRC. Its aim was to mobilize senior operational staff around security issues in situations where humanitarian operations are undertaken. The recent tragic events affecting the ICRC (the assassination of ten staff members in Burundi, Chechnya and Cambodia) and the murder of three members of Médecins du monde as well as four United Nations human rights monitors in Rwanda, have highlighted the need to reassess security and humanitarian action on behalf of conflict victims.

This paper will briefly examine the legal obligation placed on States to respect international humanitarian law and to train their armed forces in the subject. The practical problems this can create and how they might be overcome will also be addressed. The approach taken by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) to training in general and the particular approach being used in South Asia will be discussed.

In keeping with the efforts which the International Committee of the Red Cross is pursuing in visiting civilians and military personnel detained in all areas in the Congo, one of its own doctor delegates was authorized by the Government in Leopoldville, in May, to visit Mr. Moise Tschombé, President, and Evariste Kimba, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Katanga, in the villa at Coquilhatville, where they had both been detained before being transferred to Leopoldville. Accompanied by a doctor of the Swiss Red Cross, the delegate made a thorough medical examination of both these Katanga personalities.

«En relatión con los articulos 43 inciso 1 y 44 inciso 1 del Protocolo I adicional a los Convenios de Ginebra del 12 de agosto de 1949 relativo a la protección de las victimas de los conflictos armados internacionales, la República Argentina interpreta que esas disposiciones no implican derogación:

a) Del concepto de fuerzas armadas regulares de un Estado soberano.

b) De la distinción conceptual entre fuerzas armadas regulares entendidas como cuerpos militares permanentes bajo la autoridadde los Gobiernos de Estados soberanos y los movimientos de resistencia a los que se refiere el articulo 4to. del Tercer Convenio de Ginebra de 1949».

The ICRC Medical Division, established in November 1977, works for the war wounded, for prisoners, for the civilian population and for the war disabled. Its essential purpose is to keep the victims alive, alleviate their suffering and prevent their sicknesses or wounds from ruining the rest of their lives.

In his summary of ICRC activities during his term of office, (1976–1987) President Alexandre Hay said last May, “The medical sector, completely embryonic when I arrived, has developed considerably and has now achieved a highly praiseworthy quality and dimension. The ICRC and the victims of conflicts owe a great deal to the spirit of initiative, devotion and competence of its doctors”.

The Review is particularly pleased to publish the following article by Dr. Remi Russbach, Chief Medical Officer of the ICRC, who traces the evolution of the Medical Division in the past ten years, emphasizing not only the progress achieved in the execution of its programmes but dealing as well with the problems which the ICRC has had to face in this domain.

Of the 51 opinions handed down by the Court of the Hague (28 by the Permanent Court of International Justice and 23 by the International Court of Justice), there is little doubt that the two delivered on 8 July 1996 in response to requests submitted by the WHO World Health Assembly and the United Nations General Assembly will become landmarks in the history of the Court, if not in history itself.

The San Remo Manual was prepared during the period 1988–1994 by a group of legal and naval experts participating in their personal capacity in a series of Round Tables convened by the International Institute of Humanitarian Law. The purpose of the Manual is to provide a contemporary restatement of international law applicable to armed conflicts at sea. The Manual includes a few provisions which might be considered progressive developments in the law but most of its provisions are considered to state the law which is currently applicable. The Manual is viewed by the participants of the Round Tables as being in many respects a modern equivalent to the Oxford Manual on the Laws of Naval War Governing the Relations Between Belligerents adopted by the Institute of International Law in 1913. A contemporary manual was considered necessary because of developments in the law since 1913 which for the most part have not been incorporated into recent treaty law, the Second Geneva Convention of 1949 being essentially limited to the protection of the wounded, sick and shipwrecked at sea. In particular, there has not been a development for the law of armed conflict at sea similar to that for the law of armed conflict on land with the conclusion of Protocol I of 1977 additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949. Although some of the provisions of Additional Protocol I affect naval operations, in particular those supplementing the protection given to medical vessels and aircraft in the Second Geneva Convention of 1949, Part IV of the Protocol, which protects civilians against the effects of hostilities, is applicable only to naval operations which affect civilians and civilian objects on land.