In this iteration of the Review's “Beyond the Literature” series, we have invited Joël Glasman to introduce his recent book Humanitarianism and the Quantification of Human Needs, before then posing a series of questions to Bertrand Taithe, Léa Macias, Dennis Dijkzeul, Andrea Behrends and William Anderson. Bertrand Taithe is Professor of Cultural History at the University of Manchester in the United Kingdom. Léa Macias is an anthropologist focusing on digital humanitarianism in the Middle East, currently working as an Evaluation Officer for the French Development Agency. Dennis Dijkzeul is Professor of Organization and Conflict Studies at Ruhr University Bochum, Germany. Andrea Behrends is Professor of Social and Cultural Anthropology at Leipzig University, Germany. William Anderson is the Executive Director for Sphere based in Geneva.

The Review team is grateful to all five discussants, and to Joël, for taking part in this engaging conversation.

Does targeting combatants really provide a military advantage during an armed conflict? The limitations on the use of force against civilians and means and methods of warfare are well developed under contemporary international humanitarian law (IHL), but the issue of targetability of adversary combatants remains underdeveloped. This paper builds on contemporary developments in international human rights law and moral just war theory to offer a revised lex ferenda look at the basic principles of IHL through the internalization of the value of the lives of combatants. It is argued that such a reading of IHL would allow for a rejection of the automatic necessity of targeting combatants, and hence give due consideration to the value of life of combatants (both adversary combatants and own combatants) in the evaluation of the use of force during armed conflicts, including through reduced military advantage, force protection, and adjusted proportionality analysis.

This article proposes a hybrid legal framework combining jus ad bellum and jus in bello to govern the attribution of State responsibility for reparations at the end of a war of aggression. To this end, the article considers former international mass claims processes and proposes a complementary approach that, on the one hand, acknowledges the role of the aggressor State in waging the war, and on the other, takes a cautionary approach to prevent a disproportionate burden of compensation being imposed on the aggressor State as a form of collective punishment. The consequences of respective violations of the prohibition of the use of force and the law of war are blurred in a war of aggression, resulting in complexities around liability for aggressor States. In response, this article concludes with a nuanced proposal to calculate compensation based on (1) the aggressor party's capacity to comply with jus in bello; (2) the extent of damage caused by the war of aggression, factoring in jus ad bellum considerations if a party is found to be intentionally maximizing destruction; and (3) the incorporation of tort law principles for equitable attribution of responsibility.

Conflict-related environmental damage remains a huge challenge. This article provides a brief overview of international humanitarian law (IHL) rules that protect the natural environment in armed conflict and notes some convergences with the rules developed by classical Islamic jurists (those who lived from the seventh century up to the last quarter of the nineteenth century) affording protection to the natural environment. Today, a significant number of International Committee of the Red Cross operations take place in Muslim-majority countries, and some Muslim interlocutors, in particular Islamic non-State armed groups, use Islamic law as their normative framework. For better respect for IHL in relevant Muslim-majority States or territories, considering an Islamic legal approach to the protection of the natural environment alongside IHL would allow the parties to conflicts in such countries to better understand their obligations and should enhance the protection of the natural environment in armed conflict.

Contemporary armed conflicts have increasingly been accompanied by belligerents’ calls for civilians to support their military efforts. This article investigates the legal consequences of civilians taking up arms provided by or with the tacit support of the State. It first looks at the implications of civilian involvement from the perspective of a State's international humanitarian law (IHL) and international human rights law obligations, focusing on removing civilians from the vicinity of hostilities, informing and training civilians on the implications of directly participating in hostilities, and respecting and ensuring respect for the law. It then demonstrates that the broader fabric of public international law is tested when civilians are encouraged to engage in hostilities, through a close analysis of the challenge of attributing civilian acts to the State. The article closes with practical recommendations for States to ensure that they uphold their humanitarian and human rights obligations, and to render the law of international responsibility effective when civilians commit systemic violations of IHL.

The relationship between armed conflict, the environment and climate change is intricate and challenging to define. While international humanitarian law (IHL) includes some environmental protections, it did not anticipate the connection to climate change. Climate change can act as a risk multiplier, intensifying negative socio-economic impacts, and conflict-related environmental damage may contribute to climate change. Bridging these fields is crucial, and to this end, this article seeks to interpret IHL considering evolving understandings of armed conflict effects and progress under international environmental law (IEL). The article illustrates how existing norms can address climate change impacts in warfare, and explores how relevant IEL provisions, such as the Paris Agreement and the harm prevention principle, could be applied during armed conflicts to achieve similar goals.

2024 will mark seventy-five years since the adoption of the 1949 Geneva Conventions. Despite the drafters’ efforts to mitigate the worst horrors of armed conflict, contemporary conflicts continue to witness the death and suffering of millions. This raises fundamental concerns over the ability of international law to alleviate the harm caused to those caught up in armed conflict, to redress violations and to prevent their recurrence. In international policy, international humanitarian law (IHL) is increasingly intertwined with transitional justice and in particular its emphasis on the centrality of human rights. This article focuses on the intersection between IHL and transitional justice in protracted conflicts, interrogating their increasing overlaps, complementary intersections and even tensions. In particular, the article examines the importance of the temporal dimensions of humanity and justice in prevention of violations. In doing so, the article concentrates on the impact of time on those harmed by armed conflict and the repercussions this has on the law and justice efforts. The article argues that time can be weaponized to frustrate accountability and prevent interference with belligerents’ behaviour. Victims in war cannot wait until the end of fighting to seek the recovery of the remains of their loved ones, for those responsible to be brought to justice, and for redress of their continuing suffering. Indeed, such delays amount to violations of victims’ right to an effective remedy and fail to stop the continuation of violations or the re-victimization of civilians and their communities. The article suggests the need for “provisional justice”, whereby, in the increasing number of situations of protracted conflict, efforts to redress conflict-related violations should be, at least in part, dealt with at the time, rather than waiting until the end of hostilities, so as to mitigate harm to victims and to correct belligerents’ behaviour in order to prevent recurrence.

This article explores the potential classification of decentralized armed groups in non-international armed conflicts (NIACs). Unlike centralized armed groups, decentralized groups consist of fluid alliances of small subunits or cells with loose coordination between them. The central question explored by the authors is whether such groups meet the minimum organizational criterion to be considered parties to an armed conflict under international humanitarian law (IHL). The authors argue that, while not possessing the same chain of command as centralized armed groups, decentralized armed groups can, under certain conditions, nevertheless fulfil the criteria for conflict classification. Judicial precedents and IHL interpretation point to this conclusion where the absence of a centralized command structure within the group can be compensated by the existence of other factors attesting to the group's organization, such as the exercise of operational command over armed subunits, with the intensity of violence being an additional element suggesting the overall organization of the group. Ultimately, this interpretation would ensure the applicability of a legal framework that would better reflect the intensity of armed confrontations on the ground, and bind both States and non-State parties to a NIAC alike.

International humanitarian law (IHL) does not address business entities, except in situations where they directly participate in hostilities, and there is no reference to business actors in the International Committee of the Red Cross's recent Guidelines on the Protection of the Natural Environment in Armed Conflict. Yet, there has been an increasing reaffirmation of specific “duties”, “obligations” or “responsibilities” imposed on private companies operating in conflict zones. For instance, the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights suggest that business entities should respect IHL rules in addition to human rights during armed conflicts, and the third revised draft of the international legally binding instrument on transnational corporations and other business enterprises refers to IHL as an interpretative framework of human rights obligations of States and businesses. The International Law Commission's 2022 Draft Principles on the Protection of the Environment during Armed Conflicts are even more specific, providing that corporations should exercise due diligence concerning the protection of the environment when acting in conflict-affected areas. However, these references to IHL as applicable to business activities remain vague and lack elaboration. This paper intends to close this gap by clarifying whether and, if so, the extent to which IHL imposes environmental obligations upon private companies in conflict situations. It submits that business entities bear environmental duties during armed conflicts deriving from IHL rules and other complementary sources of international law. The paper further discusses the content of the obligation of business entities not to harm the environment as well as their due diligence obligation.

This article aims to highlight the importance of determining the temporal scope of the transition from armed conflict to peace. It will also consider the emergence of a new legal paradigm, jus post bellum, applicable to the post-conflict period, and the associated need for an appropriate regulatory framework. Given the unavoidable impact of armed conflict, the post-conflict period deserves particular attention, especially with regard to the need for a legal framework to facilitate the sustainable reconstruction of communities torn apart by conflict and ensure a lasting peace. After any kind of armed conflict, a solid legal framework is essential to finalize the end of hostilities, begin a sustainable peace process, build a united society and address the rifts caused by armed violence.

In this edition of the Review's “Beyond the Literature” series, we have invited George Dvaladze to introduce his recent book Equality and Non-Discrimination in Armed Conflict, before then posing a series of questions to Nelly Kamunde, Mona Rishmawi, Vanessa Murphy and Alexander Breitegger.

Nelly Kamunde is a lawyer in Kenya and has been working as an independent researcher, lecturer, and trainer with various institutions in international humanitarian law (IHL). Mona Rishmawi is the former Chief of the Rule of Law, Equality and Non-Discrimination Branch of the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. Vanessa Murphy is the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) Legal Adviser responsible for conflict-related legal issues regarding gender, the protection of children and the protection of the environment. Alexander Breitegger is a Senior Legal Adviser at the ICRC's Thematic Legal Advice Unit; he focuses on IHL and persons with disabilities as part of his thematic files and provides support for the implementation of the ICRC Vision 2030 on Disability.

The Review team is grateful to all four discussants, and to George, for taking part in this engaging conversation.

It is unquestionable that Colombian armed conflicts have had adverse impacts on the natural environment in the country. Current transitional justice mechanisms offer an opportunity to recognize harm and responsibility, establish restorative sanctions and reparations and adopt public policies for the recovery of ecosystems and prevention of further damage. This article focuses on how transitional justice mechanisms, especially the Special Jurisdiction for Peace, have addressed the effects of armed conflicts on the natural environment. Specifically, it analyzes the criminal characterization of environmental degradation, the question of whether amnesties and pardons could be granted for such conducts, precautionary measures and the implementation of restorative sanctions related to the environment. It presents some challenges regarding the preservation of the natural environment due to the persistence of armed conflicts after the 2016 Peace Accord between the government and the FARC-EP guerrillas, and the sustainability of reparations for victims and prevention of further damage. It also sustains that the developments of current transitional justice mechanisms may have significant influence on ongoing and future peace negotiations with other armed groups and the processes for establishing responsibility for environmental damages.

International law began as a discipline concerned with the goal of peace, seen as the ideal state of relations between States, focusing on the potential for peaceful settlement of disputes, arms control and disarmament, and the prevention of war. International humanitarian law (IHL) emerged as the first significant development in international law addressing issues of peace and security. The subsequent development of international criminal law (ICL) following World War II has enabled the criminal prosecution of war crimes (serious violations of IHL) as well as crimes against the peace, crimes against humanity and genocide. This article argues that IHL, as it was developed to regulate the conduct of war (jus in bello) as a means of preventing unnecessary suffering, should be considered as separate yet integrally linked to the pursuit of international criminal justice as part of transitional justice in the context of jus post bellum, defined as “the set of norms applicable at the end of armed conflict … with a view to establishing a sustainable peace”. The article analyzes existing scholarship and emerging ideas about the relatively old yet underdeveloped concept of jus post bellum, and what this concept means in practice since the rapid increase in international interventions in peacebuilding and transitional justice in non-international armed conflicts. Applying the author's theory of transformative justice along with jus post bellum principles to the case study example of Cambodia, the paper discusses the complexities, uncertainties and apparent contradictions of establishing a “just peace” that builds on, yet goes beyond, the intersecting norms and practices of IHL and ICL. The article concludes by proposing the need for a radical reconceptualization of jus post bellum in order to support a more sustainable, transformative and emancipatory peacebuilding agenda.

This article seeks to demonstrate the nexus between agent-related technology and the protection of the environment in armed conflicts, looking at how agent-based modelling and simulation (ABMS) can be used as a tool to protect the environment in armed conflicts. It further analyzes the precautionary principle and due regard, as relevant rules, and explains the legal benefits of deploying ABMS to protect and preserve the natural environment. The article argues that the deployment of ABMS helps States to better understand the environmental effects of conflicts, reassess their military activities and comply with the relevant applicable rules and norms.

Olivier Ray has been Director of Mobilization, Movement and Partnerships at the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) since July 2022. Before joining the ICRC, he was the Senior Adviser for Global Affairs to President Emmanuel Macron, leading on multilateral issues (UN, G7 and G20), global health and environment, humanitarian issues, development and human rights. He has worked for the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs (policy planning and foresight division) and Ministry of Health and Social Affairs (Diplomatic Adviser to the Minister). He held various positions at the French Development Agency, including Head of the Crisis Prevention and Post-Conflict Recovery Unit, Director for Lebanon and Syria, and Regional Director for the Middle East. He holds an MA in international relations from Columbia University, an MA in public affairs from Sciences-Po, and a BSc in international relations from LSE. He is the co-author of Africa's Moment (2011, initially published in French in 2010) and Le Grand Basculement: La question sociale à l’échelle mondiale (2011), as well as many articles on international development.

Eva Svoboda is Director of International Law, Policy and Archives at the ICRC. She worked with the ICRC from 1999 to 2011 in Kashmir, Sudan, Myanmar, Iraq, East Timor, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Algeria as Protection Coordinator, Head of Office and Head of Sub-Delegation as well as Head of Delegation. Prior to joining the ICRC, Eva worked for the Swiss Development Agency and various non-governmental organizations. From 2012 to 2018 she was a Senior Research Fellow with the Humanitarian Policy Group at the Overseas Development Institute in London. Between 2016 and 2017 she worked as the Senior Expert for Detainees and the Missing at the United Nations Office of the Special Envoy for Syria.

The outbreak and continuation of armed hostilities can sometimes cause harm to bordering States not directly involved in the hostilities. This has occurred in many military operations conducted during the last few decades. The scope of the provisions relating to the protection of the environment during armed conflict appears to be strictly limited to the territory in which the operations are taking place. It is therefore important to determine the extent to which a belligerent State at the origin of acts that have had devastating consequences on the territory of one or more States not involved in the conflict can be held internationally responsible for those acts based on the principle of international liability for injurious consequences arising out of acts not prohibited by international law, which is still under discussion. The argument put forward in this article is based on the hypothesis that this principle is at least implicitly recognized when it comes to environmental damage caused in the context of an armed conflict. In our view, this is grounded both in the principle of the inviolability of neutral States and in the no-harm principle, whereby a State cannot use its territory in a way that is harmful to other States not involved in the armed conflict. These principles are based on the notions of fault and risk.