The author begins by observing that most conflicts today are non-international in character and do not follow the pattern of classical warfare. Indeed, they are marked by a decline in State monopoly on the use of force and by the proliferation of private players who resort to violence for reasons that more often than not are linked to economic interests. At the same time, many of these conflicts are ethnic in origin and are particularly cruel in that the killing and displacement of civilians are not incidental but are the main object of the violence. The author doubts whether in such situations classical international humanitarian law provides adequate tools for influencing the behaviour of the “fighters” (who have replaced combatants, with their rights and duties under the laws of war). He pleads for an imaginative approach, based on general and universally accepted ethical rules and on action in the field, close to the victims.

In the author's view the state of international humanitarian law as we approach the 21st century may be characterized by two major developments. The first is the trend away from well-structured conflicts between States and towards chaotic violence within the territory of the classic State entity. The second is the growing tendency to target civilians. The result is an increase in suffering and casualties among the civilian population. After considering the major obstacles to humanitarian action in present-day conflicts, the author looks at what she calls “the remarkable development of the international rules governing non-international armed conflicts”. She discusses ways of strengthening and developing standards applicable to such conflict other than formal codification of new rules. The paper finishes by stressing the decisive importance of making the law known among those who need to know it, particularly those engaged in violence.

L'auteur de cet article s'intéresse au concept de la neutralité de l'action humanitaire. Il examine les tensions qui peuvent surgir entre la théorie et la pratique, et pose un regard particulier sur la position du CICR. La neutralité, au sens des Principes fondamentaux du Mouvement international de la Croix-Rouge et du Croissant-Rouge, impose le devoir de »s'abstenir de prendre part aux hostilités et, en tout temps, aux controverses d'ordre politique, racial, religieux et idéologique«. Le CICR a toujours poursuivi cette ligne de conduite qu'il considère fondamentale pour le succès de son activité humanitaire, même si pour d'autres la neutralité est un obstacle. L'auteur constate que l'usage que le CICR fait de ce principe est en fait plus dynamique et politiquement plus fin qu'on ne le pense généralement. Une réflexion permanente sur le concept clé de la neutralité est nécessaire, mais il ne faut pas oublier que ce qui est bon pour le CICR ne l'est pas nécessairement pour d'autres organisations internationales, qu'elles soient gouvernementales ou non.

The fall of the Berlin Wall has fundamentally changed Europe, and this has come about in a surprisingly peaceful way. However, the events of 1989–1991 have not produced a new and stable order. Conflicts have erupted in many parts of the former Soviet Union, in particular in Eastern Europe and Central Asia. Tensions between the former superpowers have been replaced by a large number of local conflicts, i.e. civil wars. After analysing the characteristics of these internal armed conflicts, the author discusses the responses of existing international humanitarian law to the humanitarian issues they raise. The different measures capable of strengthening the respect for the rules are of particular importance. Recent events show, however, that the use of military force may not necessarily be the appropriate reaction to violations of humanitarian law, in particular if the number of casualties and the material damage caused by such intervention are likely to be disproportionately high. A durable international order cannot be built on force, but only on dialogue and mutual respect.

Ever since the Security Council decided for the first time to send armed forces into a troubled area, the question has remained open as to whether such peace-keeping or peace-enforcement contingents were required to comply with international humanitarian law when they had to use force. The ICRC has always argued in favour of the applicability of that body of law, in particular the 1949 Geneva Conventions, to operations conducted under the control of the United Nations. Under the title « Observance by United Nations forces of international humanitarian law» the United Nations Secretary-General has now issued a set of fundamental principles and rules of international humanitarian law applicable to forces conducting operations under United Nations command and control. The text is given below.

Le Secrétaire général édicte les dispositions ci-après aux fins d'établir les principes et règles fondamentaux du droit international humanitaire applicables aux forces des Nations Unies qui mènent des opérations sous le commandement et le contrôle de l'Organisation des Nations Unies:

Les principes et règies fondamentaux du droit international humanitaire énoncés dans la présente circulaire sont applicables aux forces des Nations Unies lorsque, dans les situations de conflit armé, elles participent activement aux combats, dans les limites et pendant la durée de leur participation.

The author points out that while a number of serious diseases have been eradicated in the recent past, most people in the world still have no access to basic health services. He argues that public health efforts should be given new priorities. War is of course a scourge which has not been eradicated, despite its immense impact on the state of health of entire populations. The author suggests that the same efforts should be undertaken to prevent armed conflict from breaking out and public health from deteriorating. He discusses a number of ways in which health personnel might contribute to such preventive action. Doctors, nurses and other health professionals are particularly well qualified to participate in such efforts as they are close to those who are affeded by war.

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 articles 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.

The Secretary-General, for the purpose of setting out fundamental principles and rules of international humanitarian law applicable to United Nations forces conducting operations under United Nations command and control, promulgates the following:

The fundamental principles and rules of international humanitarian law set out in the present bulletin are applicable to United Nations forces when in situations of armed conflict they are actively engaged therein as combatants, to the extent and for the duration of their engagement.