Au moment où ce siècle de grands cataclysmes s'achève, où la plupart de nos repères se font flous, il est nécessaire de réaffirmer la priorité de l'être humain et de sa dignité. Nous — les humanitaires —, nous le faisons quotidiennement aux côtés des victimes et des plus vulnérables, mais nous devons aussi pouvoir le faire avec les acteurs de la communauté des États.

Jean Pictet, a former Vice-President of the ICRC, is one of the chief architects of modern international humanitarian law. In an article entitled “The formation of international humanitarian law” and published (in English) in the Review (No. 244, January-February 1985, pp. 3–24), Pictet analysed the ideas and forces which led to the successful negotiation and adoption of the four Geneva Conventions of 1949.

Before addressing the question raised in the title of his article, the author looks to the past and shows that the ICRC has been able not only to adapt international humanitarian law to new challenges but also to find new approaches to emerging humanitarian issues. This was the case, for example, when wars produced huge numbers of POWs, or when the plight of political detainees called for innovative action by the ICRC. The emergence of national liberation movements raised particularly difficult problems, but by and large satisfactory solutions were found within the existing humanitarian system. Today we are facing new forms of conflicts, with increasing involvement by non-State actors. After examining the nature of the challenges and discussing possible answers, the author concludes that it would be a tragedy if our time were unable to find a suitable response to them.

At the outbreak of the Second World War, international humanitarian law was made up of the various Hague Conventions of 1907 and the two 1929 Geneva Conventions, none of which dealt in a satisfactory manner with the risks faced by the civilian population. Experience during the war made a major revision of international humanitarian law a priority after 1945. This article traces the history of that endeavour up to the adoption by a diplomatic conference, on 12 August 1949, of the four Geneva Conventions for the Protection of War Victims. Particular emphasis is laid on the link between the ICRC's wartime experience with the inadequate law of the day and the negotiations for new legal provisions. The second part of the article identifies the major advances represented by the 1949 Geneva Conventions, one of the more important being the fact that the law's scope was extended to non-international armed conflicts. Though making no claim to perfection, the new Geneva Conventions nevertheless laid a sound basis on which adequate solutions may be found when military considerations and humanitarian exigencies clash.

It is obvious that adopting the Geneva Conventions of 1949 did not put an end to tragedy in war time. Although there is clearly no reason to rejoice, this anniversary presents an opportunity to reflect on what the Conventions have achieved. After a brief discussion of the circumstances under which they were adopted in the following the Second World War, the author points out the great impact of those treaties on the conduct of parties to armed conflict in the last fifty years. Moreover, the 1949 Conventions have provided a solid basis for further development of international humanitarian law, both in the form of treaties (such as the 1977 Additional Protocols) and practice. A number of issues are identified which, today, ought to be examined in the search for fresh solutions. They include the law applicable in non-international armed conflict, the rules on the conduct of hostilities, the question of nuclear weapons and international humanitarian law, simpler procedures for adopting prohibitions or restrictions on the use of new conventional weapons, and the applicability of humanitarian law to armed forces acting under UN auspices. The article concludes with an appeal to respect the fundamental values embodied in international humanitarian law. Appart from anything else, respecting those values in times of armed conflict facilitates a return to peace.