Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T16:20:54.478Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The International Committee of the Red Widget? The Diversity Debate and International Humanitarian Law

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 July 2014

René Provost
Get access

Abstract

This article asserts there has been a lack of attention to the impact of cultural diversity within the field of international humanitarian law. Discussions surrounding culture in international humanitarian law have nearly always avoided the central issue of cultural particularism. This has been so in relation to the debate surrounding the emblem, in general surveys of humanitarian law, and in discussions of the laws of war in distinct legal and cultural traditions. The emblems debate, in particular, signals the elusiveness of rigid universality within international humanitarian law. Five elements are suggested to explain the resistance of humanitarian law to contagion by the cultural relativism debate in human rights: the nature of human rights, the distinct normative frameworks of human rights and humanitarian law, the unified conventional basis of humanitarian law, the very broad participation in the humanitarian regime, and the unique role of the International Committee of the Red Cross. While these reasons might explain the fact that the relativism debate in human rights did not readily transfer to humanitarian law, they offer no substantive basis for immunity for humanitarian law to the challenges posed by cultural diversity. Ultimately, the article proposes a legal pluralist approach that recognizes the role of actors in the cultural process of norm-creation. Given the continued violation of the laws of war, the author suggests a need to open the door to cultural diversity in order to generate greater compliance. Without cultural legitimacy, there is a danger that humanitarian law aspires to self-defeating universalism.

Type
Research Article
Information
Israel Law Review , Volume 40 , Issue 2 , Summer 2007 , pp. 614 - 647
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press and The Faculty of Law, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, McGill University and Director, Centre for Human Rights and Legal Pluralism.

Comments can be sent to [email protected]. I greatly benefited from the comments of participants in the International Conference on International Humanitarian Law and International Human Rights in Jerusalem, held on May 21-22, 2006. The paper was much improved thanks to the research assistance of Emilia Ordolis, BCL LLB candidate and Sébastien Jodoin, BCL LLB 2005, Faculty of Law, McGill University. The writing of this article was made possible due to funding provided by the Dobson Fund of the Faculty of Law, McGill University. This is part of a wider project on the impact of cultural diversity on international humanitarian law, supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada and the Fond québécois de recherche sur la société et la culture.

References

1 Compte-rendu de la Conférence Internationale réunie à Genève les 26, 27, 28 et 29 octobre 1863 pour étudier les moyens de pourvoir à l'insuffisance du service sanitaire dans les armées en campagne (Geneva, Flick 1863) 16 Google Scholar, as cited in Bugnion, François, Towards a Comprehensive Solution to the Question of the Emblem 8 (3rd ed. 2005)Google Scholar.

2 Bugnion, id. at 10.

3 Cockayne, James, Islam and International Humanitarian Law: From a Clash to a Conversation Between Civilizations, 84 Int'l Rev. Red Cross 597, 605–606 (2002)Google Scholar. See also Hutchinson, John, Champions of Charity: War and the Rise of the Red Cross 143 (1996)Google Scholar.

4 See Bugnion, supra note 1, at 11. See also Hutchinson, supra note 3, at 138-147.

5 It could be noted that the ICRC itself briefly triggered a certain plurality of emblems, having adopted a green cross to be used in its work benefiting prisoners of war: Bugnion, François, le comité international de la croix-rouge et la protection des victimes de la guerre 40 (2000)Google Scholar.

6 Rosenne, Shabtai, The Red Cross, Red Crescent, Red Lion and Sun and the Red Shield of David, 5 Isr. Y.B. Hum. Rts. 9, 20–24 (1975)Google Scholar.

7 Statement of the ICRC delegate at the 1949 Geneva Conference, quoted in Rosenne, id. at 29. This admittedly revisionist reading of the reasons for choosing this emblem is of course not free from doubt, as the Swiss flag itself is commonly taken to have been a religious reference: Kopp, Peter, “Croix fédérale” in Dictionnaire historique de la Suisse, http://www.hls-dhs-dss.ch (last visited June 26, 2007)Google Scholar; Rosenne, supra note 6, at 18; Commentary to the 1949 First Geneva Convention 303 (Pictet, Jean ed., 1952)Google Scholar; McCormack, Timothy L. H., What's in an Emblem? Humanitarian Assistance under Any Other Banner Would be as Comforting, 1 Melb. J. Int'l L. 175, 177 (2000)Google Scholar; Bugnion, François, Unity of the Sign, 193 Int'l Rev. Red Cross 172, 178 (1977)Google Scholar.

8 Kosuge, Margaret, The ‘Non-Religious’ Red Cross Emblem and Japan, 85 Int'l Rev. Red Cross 75, 76–81 (2003)Google Scholar; Rosenne, supra note 6, at 14.

9 Kosuge, supra note 8, at 80-81.

10 See Werner, Auguste-Raynald, La Croix-Rouge et les Conventions de Genève: Analyse et Synthèse Juridique 116 (1943)Google Scholar.

11 Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. art.19. July 27, 1929, 118 L.N.T.S. 343. Siam had not made any reservation to the earlier conventions, with the result that no provision was made to allow for the use of the red flame. It should be noted that there is diversity in the crescent emblem used by some national societies, with some pointing to the left (as in Turkey) and others to the rights (as in Egypt).

12 Pictet, supra note 7 at 300.

13 Bugnion, supra note 1, at 15-16.

14 Id. at 26-27; Rosenne, supra note 6, at 28-34. Further proposed emblems included one to use a red swastika in India and Sri Lanka and another to use a red star in Zimbabwe. In yet another variation, some states including the USSR, Kazakhstan, and Eritrea at various times used a combination of the red cross and the crescent: Bugnion, supra note 1, at 19-20.

15 This is explored in detail by Rosenne, supra note 6.

16 Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Adoption of an Additional Distinctive Emblem, Preamble para. 5, (Dec. 8, 2005).

17 Most directly, this is meant to allow for the use of the red shield of David within the crystal, and perhaps some other emblems, if it can be shown that they have been in effective use. The attempt is once again to close the list of possible protective emblems and prevent further proliferation, in a manner equally as unprincipled as the earlier attempts in the 1929 and 1949 Geneva Conventions.

18 For one significant exception, see Cockayne, supra note 3, at 605-611.

19 Indeed, the ICRC offers much more considerable evidence of the dangers of the unregulated and unjustified use of the emblems leading to the dilution of their protective effectiveness.

20 In 1975, in an important report prepared for the Red Cross, Donald Tansley suggested that each national society could be allowed to choose a symbol: Tansley, Donald, Final Report: an Agenda for Red Cross 125–27 (1975)Google Scholar. A collaborator noted that “[p]rivately Tansley said it could be a Red Snowflake for all he cared; the point was to resolve the controversy that showed how fragmented the Red Cross family was”: Forsythe, David, The Humanitarians—The International Committee of the Red Cross 268 n.56 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

21 Penna, L.R., Traditional Asian Approaches [to International Humanitarian Law]: An Indian View, 9 Austral. Y.B. Int'l L. 168 (1981)Google Scholar. See also Adachi, Sumio, Traditional Asian Approaches: A Japanese View, 9 Austral. Y.B. Int'l L. 158 (1981)Google Scholar; Zhu, Li-Sun, Traditional Asian Approaches: The Chinese View, 9 Austral. Y.B. Int'l L. 143 (1981)Google Scholar; Ibrahim, A., Traditional Asian Approaches: A Malaysian View, 9 Austral. Y.B. Int'l L. 217 (1981)Google Scholar; Armour, W.S., Customs of Warfare in Ancient India, 8 Transactions of the Grotius Society 71 (1922)Google Scholar.

22 See Sornarajah, M., An Overview of the Asian Approaches to International Humanitarian Law, 9 Austral. Y.B. Int'l L. 238, 239 (1981)Google Scholar.

23 See Cyr, Michel, Wembou, Djena & Fall, Daouda, Le Droit Humanitaire—Théorie Générale et Réalités Africaines (2000)Google Scholar; Bello, Emmanuel, African Customary Humanitarian Law (1980)Google Scholar; Diallo, Yolande, African Traditions and Humanitarian Law, 185 Int'l Rev. Red Cross 387 (1976)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bello, Emmanuel, Shared Legal Concepts, Between African Customary Norms and International Conventions on Humanitarian Law, 24 Indian J. Int'l L. 79 (1984)Google Scholar; Umozurike, U.O., The 1949 Conventions and Africa, 11 Indian J. Int'l L. 205 (1971 Google Scholar); Njoya, Adamou Ndam, The African Conception in UNESCO, International Dimensions of humanitarian Law 5–12 (1988)Google Scholar; Viljoen, Frans, Africa's Contribution to the Development of International Human Rights and Humanitarian Law, 1 Afr. Hum. Rts. L.J. 18 (2001)Google Scholar.

24 Diallo, supra note 23, at 399.

25 See generally Khadduri, Majid, War and Peace in the Law of Islam (1955)Google Scholar; Coulson, N.J., A History of Islamic Law (1964)Google Scholar; Hamidullah, Muhammad, The Muslim Conduct of State (7th ed. 1979)Google Scholar; Schacht, Joseph, An Introduction to Islamic Law (1982)Google Scholar; Hallaq, Wael, The Origins and Evolution of Islamic Law (2005)Google Scholar.

26 Khadduri, supra note 25, at 104; Zemmali, Ameur, Combattants et Prisonniers de Guerre en Droit Islamique et en Droit International Humanitaire 96–101 (1997 Google Scholar); Kelsey, John, Islam and the Distinction Between Combatants and Noncombatants, in Cross, Crescent, and Sword—The Justifications and Limitations of War in Western and Islamic Tradition 197–220 (Johnson, James Turner & Kelsey, John eds., 1990)Google Scholar; Busuttil, James, Slay Them Wherever You Find Them: Humanitarian Law in Islam, 30 Revue de Droit Pénal Militaire et de Droit de la Guerre 111, 122 (1991)Google Scholar; Mahmassani, Sobhi, The Principles of International Law in the Light of Islamic Doctrine, 119 Receuil des Cours 201, 301–04 (1966-I)Google Scholar.

27 See Shaybani's Siyar (Majid Khadduri transl., 1966) §§28-31; Khadduri, supra note 25, at 127-30; Mahmassani, supra note 26 at 307.

28 See Phillipson, Coleman, The International Law and Custom of Ancient Greece and Rome (1911)Google Scholar.

29 The expression is taken from Achour, Ben, Islam et droit Internationale humanitaire, 722 Revue Int'l de la Croix-Rouge 59, 60 (1980)Google Scholar.

30 See, e.g., David, Éric, Principes de Droit des Conflits Armés (3rd ed. 2002)Google Scholar; McCoubrey, Hilaire, International Humanitarian Law (1998)Google Scholar; Green, Leslie, The Contemporary Law of Armed Conflict (2000)Google Scholar; de Lupis, Ingrid detter, The Law of War (2nd ed. 2000)Google Scholar; Dinstein, Yoram, The Conduct of Hostilities under the Law of International Armed Conflict (2005)Google Scholar.

31 U.N. GAOR, 23rd Sess., Supp. No.19, at 50-1 UN Doc. 2444 (XXIII)(Dec. 19, 1968), reprinted in Schindler, Dietrich & Toman, Jiri, The Laws of Armed Conflict 263 (3rd ed. 1989)Google Scholar.

32 Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, 1996, I.C.J. 226 (July 8); Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Advisory Opinion, 2004 I.C.J. 163 (July 9); Case Concerning Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (DRC v. Uganda), 2005 I.C.J. 116 (Dec. 19), at paras. 216-217 [hereinafter DRC v. Uganda]; See Prud'homme, Nancie, Lex Specialis: Oversimplifying a More Complex and Multifaceted Relationship? , 40(2) Isr. L. Rev. 356 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Schabas, William A., Lex Specialis? Belt and Suspenders? The Parallel Operation of Human Rights Law and the Law of Armed Conflict, and the Conundrum of Jus ad bellum, 40(2) Isr. L. Rev. 592 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

33 It can be argued that in some respects, humanitarian law provides more detailed rules, hence leaving less room for divergent interpretations thereof. The reasons to discard such an argument are discussed under sub-section (D), infra.

34 Provost, René, International Human Rights and Humanitarian Law 241–76 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

35 Id. at 121-238.

36 The Declaration is reprinted in Human Rights Sourcebook 646–57 (Blaustein, Albert, Clark, Roger, & Sigler, Jay eds., 1987)Google Scholar.

37 The African Charter on Human and People's Rights, OAU Doc. CAB/LEG/67/3 rev. 5 (June 27, 1981). Provost, supra note 34, at 62-69; Mutua, Makau wa, The Banjul Charter and the African Fingerprint: An Evaluation of the Language of Duties, 35 Virginia J. Int'l L. 339 (1995)Google Scholar; Okere, B. Obinna, The Protection of Human Rights in Africa and the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights: A Comparative Analysis with European and American Systems, 6(2) Hum. Rts. Q. 141 (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Viljoen, supra note 23, at 20; Murray, Rachel, A Feminist Perspective on Reform of the African Human Rights System, 1 Afr. Hum. Rts. L.J. 205, 215 (2001)Google Scholar.

38 See Ouguergouz, Fatsah, La Charte Africaine des Droits de l'Homme et des Peuples 233 (1993)Google Scholar; Mbaye, Kéba, Les Droits de L'Homme en Afrique 213–214 (1992)Google Scholar; El-Obaid, El-Obaid Ahmed & Appiagyei-Atua, Kwadwo, Human Rights in Africa: A New Perspective on Linking the Past to the Present, 41 Mcgill L.J. 819 (1996)Google Scholar; Van Boven, T., The Relations Between People's Rights and Human Rights in the African Charter, 7 Hum. Rts. L.J. 183 (1986)Google Scholar; Viljoen, supra note 23, at 20-21; Murray, supra note 37, at 217.

39 The reading of humanitarian law as providing protection for individual interests by means essentially other than the granting of rights is defended in greater detail in Provost, supra note 34, at 27-34.

40 See Hague Regulations Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land (annex to the Convention (IV) Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, art. 1-2, Oct. 18, 1907, 36 Stat. 2277; Geneva Convention (I) relative to the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, Aug. 12, 1949, 75 U.N.T.S. 31, 6 U.S.T. 3114; Geneva Convention (II) relative to the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea, Aug. 12, 1949, 75 U.N.T.S. 85, 6 U.S.T. 3217; Geneva Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, Aug. 12, 1949, 75 U.N.T.S. 135, 6 U.S.T. 3316; Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts, arts. 77(2) and 4(3)(d), Dec. 12, 1977, 1125 U.N.T.S. 3 [hereinafter Protocol I].

41 Geneva Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, Aug. 12, 1949, 75 U.N.T.S. 287, 6 U.S.T. 3516 [hereinafter the Fourth Geneva Convention].

42 Prosecutor v. Tadic, Case No. IT-94-1-A, Appeal Judgment, (July 15, 1999), at paras. 165-168; The Prosecutor v. Delalic, Mucic, Delic and Landzo Case No. IT-96-21-A, Appeal Judgment, 21 (Feb. 20, 2001), at para. 73 [hereinafter the Čelebići case]. See Provost, supra note 34, at 34-39.

43 This is developed at greater length in Provost, id. at 39-42.

44 Prosecutor v. Tadic, Case No. IT-94-1-AR72, Decision on the Defense Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction, 49-52 (Oct. 2, 1995), at paras. 87-93; The Celebici case, supra note 42, at paras. 153-81; The Prosecutor v. Akayesu, Case No. ICTR-96-4-T, Judgment, (Sept. 2, 1998), at paras. 611-17.

45 See Meron, Theodor, The Humanization of Humanitarian Law, 94 Am. J. Int'l L. 239 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For example, Meron suggests that the consideration of rape as torture or inhuman treatment and thus as a grave breach under a. 147 of the 1949 Geneva Convention (IV) can be understood as evidence of this shift; Meron, id. at 240. See also Meron, Theodor, Rape as a Crime under International Humanitarian Law, 87 Am. J. Int'l L. 424 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Aldrich, George, Individuals as Subjects of International Humanitarian Law, in Theory of International Law at the Threshold of the 21st Century: Essays in Honour of Krzystof Skubiszewski (Makarczyk, Jerzy ed., 1996)Google Scholar. Furthermore, Meron discusses the growing convergence of humanitarian law and human rights law: Meron, The Humanization of Humanitarian Law, id. at 266. See also Hampson, Françoise J., Using International Human Rights Machinery to Enforce the International Law of Armed Conflict, 31 Revue de Droit Pénal et de Droit de la Guerre 119 (1992)Google Scholar.

46 G.A. Res. 60/147, UN Doc. A/RES/60/147 (Dec. 16, 2005).

47 See Humphrey, John, Human Rights and the United Nations—A Great Adventure (1984)Google Scholar; Morsink, Johannes, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Origins, Drafting and Intent (1999)Google Scholar; Waltz, Susan, Reclaiming and Rebuilding the History of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 23 Third World Q. 437 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

48 See Glendon, Mary Ann, A World Made New (2001)Google Scholar; Humphrey, supra note 47.

49 On the broad phenomenon of the fragmentation of international law generally, see the report recently issued under the chairmanship of Martti Koskenniemi: International Law Commission, UN Doc. A/CN.4/L.682 (2006).

50 See Mbaye, supra note 38; Ouguergouz, supra note 38.

51 An-Na'im, Abdullahi, Toward an Islamic Reformation—Civil Liberties, Human Rights and International Law 42 (1990)Google Scholar; Khadduri, Majid, Islam and the Modern Law of Nations, 50 Am. J. Int'l L. 358, 364–67 (1956)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

52 See Slaughter, Anne-Marie, A New World Order (2004)Google Scholar; Slaughter, Anne-Marie, A Typology of Transjudicial Communication, in International Law Decisions in National Courts (Franck, Thomas & Fox, Gregory, eds., 1996)Google Scholar; Claire-L'Heureux-Dubé, , The Importance of Dialogue: Globalization and the International Impact of the Rehnquist Court, 34 Tulsa L.J. 15 (1998)Google Scholar.

53 Under Protocol I, the Commission's competence is optional, and relatively few states have elected to make a declaration pursuant to Article 90 to give it power to intervene in an armed conflict. See generally Vité, Sylvain, Les Procédures Internationales d'établissement des Faits dans la Mise en Oeuvre du Droit International Humanitaire (1999)Google Scholar.

54 See Bélair, Karine, Unearthing the Customary Law Foundations of Forced Marriages During Sierra Leone's Civil War: The Possible Impact of International Criminal Law on Customary Marriage and Women's Rights in Post-Conflict Sierra Leone, 15 Colum. J. Gender & L. 551 (2006)Google Scholar.

55 Abella et al. v. Argentina, Case 11,137, Inter-Am. C.H.R., Report No. 55/97, OEA/Ser.L./V/II.95 doc. 7 rev. (1997), at 271; Avila v. Colombia, Case No. 11,142, Inter-Am. C.H.R., Report No. 26/97, OEA/Ser.L.//V/II.95 doc. 7 (1997), at paras. 169-170; Coard v. the United States of America, Case 10.951, Inter-Am. C.H.R., OEA/ser.L/V/II.106.doc.3rev (1999), at para. 37. See Hampson, supra note 45; Cerna, Christina M., Human Rights in Armed Conflict: Implementation of International Humanitarian Norms by Regional Intergovernmental Human Rights Bodies, in Implementation of International Humanitarian Law 31–68 (Kalshoven, Frits & Sandoz, Yves eds., 1989)Google Scholar. On the application of international humanitarian law by the European Commission and Court of Human Rights, see Reidy, Aisling, The Approach of the European Commission and Court of Human Rights to International Humanitarian Law, 324 Int'l REV. Red Cross 513 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

56 Las Palmeras Case, Sentencia sobre excepciones preliminares del 4 de Febrero de 2000, Corte I.D.H. (Ser. C) No. 66 (2000). See Provost, René, El uso del derecho internacional humanitario por la Comisión interamericana de derechos humanos: hacia un derecho humanitario regional?, in Jornadas de Derecho Internacional 169–79 (2002)Google Scholar.

57 Multilateral Treaties Deposited with the Secretary-General, UN Doc. ST/LEG/Ser.E.

58 There has been a great deal of discussion concerning the large number of reservations to CEDAW, many of which are substantive. Arguments have been made that the convention is “culturally and religiously hegemonistic,” and there has been significant debate regarding the reservations made by Islamic countries. See Morgan-Foster, Jason, A New Perspective on the Universality Debate: Reverse Moderate Relativism in the Islamic Context, 10 ILSA J. Int'l & Comp. L. 35, 42 (2003–2004)Google Scholar; Cook, Rebecca J., Reservations to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, 30 Va. J. Int'l L. 643 (1990)Google Scholar; Venkatraman, Bharathi Anandhi, Islamic States and the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women: Are the Shari'a and the Convention Compatible?, 44 Am. U. L. Rev. 1949 (1995)Google Scholar.

59 See Pilloud, Claude, Reservations to the Geneva Conventions of 1949, 180 Int'l Rev. Red Cross 107 (1976)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Pilloud, Claude, Reservations to the Geneva Conventions of 1949, 181 Int'l Rev. Red Cross 163 (1976)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Pilloud, Claude, Reservations to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, Int'l Rev. Red Cross 343 (1965)Google Scholar; Pilloud, Claude, Les Réserves aux Conventions de Genève de 1949, Revue int'L de la croix-rouge 409 (1957)Google Scholar.

60 See Cover, Robert, Nomos and Narrative, in Narrative, Violence and the Law—the Essays of Robert Cover 103 (Minow, Martha, Ryan, Michael, & Sarat, Austin eds., 1993)Google Scholar; Geertz, Clifford, Local Knowledge 218 (1983)Google Scholar.

61 See Fuller, Low, The Morality of Law (rev. ed., 1969)Google Scholar, see particularly 39-40, 191-95 & 220-43.

62 See Forsythe, supra note 20, at 260.

63 See Nahlik, Stanislaw, Droit dit “de Genève” et Droit dit “de La Haye”: unicité ou dualité?, Ann. Français de Droit Int'l 9 (1978)Google Scholar. See also Bugnion supra note 5, at 75-80.

64 Bugnion, id. at 131-32; Forsythe, supra note 20, at 289.

65 Hutchinson asks a similar question in the introduction to his book, underlining the need to investigate the history of the Red Cross—to ask not “what the Red Cross did” but “what the Red Cross was”: Hutchinson, supra note 3, at 2. See also Forsythe, David, Who Guards the Guardians? Third Parties and the Law of Armed Conflict, 70 Am. J. Int'l L. 41 (1976)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

66 On the homogeneity of its membership, see Forsythe, supra note 20, at 206; Bugnion, le Comité International de la Croix-Rouge et la Protection des Victimes de la Guerre, supra note 5, at 1138-55. See Moorehead, Caroline, Dunant's Dream: War, Switzerland and the History of the Red Cross xxi, 60, 176, 628 (1998)Google Scholar; Hutchinson, supra note 3, at 6.

67 This is examined in details by Forsythe, supra note 20, at 183-92, who concludes that there were even episodes of direct Swiss interference into the affairs of the Red Cross. For a perspective more closely aligned with the ICRC, see Bugnion, supra note 5, at 1156-75.

68 See Wembou & Fall, supra note 23, at 272.

69 Pictet, Jean, Humanitarian Ideas Shared by Different Schools of Thought and Cultural Traditions. in International Dimensions of Humanitarian Law 4 (1988)Google Scholar.

70 ICC RPE Rule 73(4)-(6); The Prosecutor v. Simic, Case No. IT-95-9-PT, Decision on the Prosecution Motion Under Rule 73 for a Ruling Concerning the Testimony of a Witness (July 27, 1999).

71 One could also mention the 1977 ENMOD Convention, although its characterization as an international humanitarian law treaty is more controversial.

72 Van Boven, Theo C., Reliance on Norms of Humanitarian Law by United Nations Organs, in Humanitarian Law of Armed Conflict: Challenges Ahead—Essays in Honour of Frits Kalshoven 495–513 (Delissen, Astrid & Tanja, Gerard eds., 1991)Google Scholar. Supra notes 55-56 and accompanying text.

73 The Banning of Anti-Personnel Landmines: the Legal Contribution of the International Committee of the Red Cross (Maresca, Louis & Maslen, Stuart eds., 2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

74 Forsythe reports it in 2005 at 4-5% of the 50% non-Swiss group, or 2-2.5% of the total staff: Forsythe, supra note 20 at 232.

75 Cover, supra note 60, at 98-99.

76 This conclusion of course raises a series of further complex questions touching on the manner in which international humanitarian law should take account of variable cultures and the resulting impact on the framework of that legal regime. These and other issues are addressed in further essays forming part of a general project on the impact of cultural diversity on humanitarian law.