This article examines the role of international humanitarian law (IHL) in safeguarding artisanal fishing communities residing along the banks of the Magdalena River in Colombia after the recognition of the river as a rights-bearing entity1 and a victim of the armed conflict. The article also explores the potential of targeted peacebuilding interventions for achieving sustainable well-being, ecological restoration and enduring peace. Against the backdrop of historical conflict, the Magdalena River and its adjoining communities have suffered significant harm, requiring widespread reparations that go beyond immediate crisis management. The study proposes a comprehensive approach for achieving sustainable well-being, ecological restoration and enduring peace, acknowledging the complex connections between legal frameworks, environmental considerations and the cultural heritage of the riverine community.

Decision-makers rely on intelligence to make targeting decisions that comply with international humanitarian law (IHL), yet the relationship between intelligence and the law is not frequently discussed. This article explores crucial elements of intelligence and intelligence analysis that decision-makers should understand to increase their compliance with IHL, focusing on three crucial decision points: (1) the determination of whether a potential target is a military objective, (2) proportionality in attack analysis, and (3) the taking of effective precautions.

In the quest for “identity dominance” over the enemy, armed forces are increasingly leveraging biometrics for a variety of purposes. This paper focuses on the combat employment of one of them – facial recognition, which, unlike other biometrics, does not appear to have been widely utilized for targeting purposes yet. With the purchasing patterns of advanced militaries suggesting that such a development is around the corner, this paper assesses the compliance with international humanitarian law (IHL) of the use of facial recognition technologies for targeting purposes. It peruses the applicable legal framework to demonstrate that IHL is neutral towards the use of new technologies and that the right to privacy under international human rights law does not preclude the use of biometrics in hostilities. The analysis zooms in on two specific use cases in which facial recognition is likely to be employed on the battlefield, namely (1) targeted killings against combatants and (2) targeted killings against civilians directly participating in hostilities. The paper closes with an acknowledgment that while facial recognition does have obvious operational benefits, it also has the potential to exacerbate targeting practices that stretch the limits of IHL.

It is sometimes said that cruel yet short wars are better for humanity than restrained yet lengthy ones. The idea finds sympathy among Francis Lieber and his Prussian contemporaries, as well as some modern writers who back selective non-compliance with international humanitarian law (IHL) on act-utilitarian grounds. This article refutes three underlying claims and reaffirms that IHL progressively narrows room for crude interest-balancing by its duty-bearers. First, it is claimed that toughening wars quickens them, whereas moderating wars prolongs them. This empirical claim overlooks how actions of the party resorting to brutality – the “brutalizer”, for short – interact with the intention of its adversary. Although the brutalizer clearly controls the amount of violence that it chooses to inflict on its opponent, it does not control the opponent's will to resist and, consequently, the length of the war it fights. History abounds with instances where adding cruelty has stiffened the enemy's resolve rather than accelerating surrender. Second, it is claimed that ruthless but swift wars lessen net inhumanity. On this act-utilitarian view, it is normatively superior to hasten wars through barbarity than to lengthen them through moderation; it is therefore the brutalizer's responsibility to toughen fighting and the brutalized party's responsibility to refrain from resisting the brutalizer. Problematically, the brutalizer usurps authority by imposing its own utilitarian considerations upon the brutalized party. Moreover, the brutalizer blames its disobliging adversary for the extra bloodshed to which it resorts in the name of maximum utility. Third, it is claimed that IHL does or should permit non-conformity when non-conformity stands a reasonable chance of increasing net humanity. This position is inconsistent with IHL's functions, however. IHL does aim to reduce net wartime harm, but it would be a mistake to assume that utilitarian ends necessarily justify, let alone require, utilitarian means. When IHL enacts unqualified rules, it predetermines their conformity or non-conformity through processes that are distinctly not act-utilitarian. Nowhere in these processes do lesser-evil justifications naturally belong.

This article provides the personal perspectives of US military operational attorneys and analyzes three significant challenges in applying international humanitarian law (IHL) to modern military space operations: the lack of clear standards for assessing when IHL rules govern particular military activities in outer space; the challenges of effectively distinguishing between civilian objects and military objectives when targeting space systems; and the difficulties of applying IHL rules of proportionality when attacking space systems. To address these challenges, the article argues that States should take steps to develop non-binding norms for military space operations that contribute to broader understanding of States’ views on how IHL applies in space.

Neutrality, a foundational principle in humanitarian efforts and peace mediation, encounters significant practical challenges in the modern landscape of armed conflicts, particularly in the intermediary role of humanitarian organizations. This study examines the role of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) as a neutral intermediary in Yemen, focusing on the release and repatriation of detainees during the 2016–20 peace efforts. Drawing on the ICRC's experience, the analysis highlights the evolving understanding of neutrality from a rigid concept to a more flexible, context-sensitive approach. The findings emphasize the importance of neutrality in fostering trust and facilitating dialogue while acknowledging the operational complexities and strategic considerations involved. This study provides insights into enhancing the contributions of neutral intermediaries to sustainable peace processes.

Newly emerging US cyberspace warfighting concepts highlight the need to update US legal doctrine. Concepts adapted to future high-intensity, high-paced armed conflict, including command post dispersal and integration of cyberspace into other targeting domains, present opportunities to refine US understandings of the law of war attack threshold and overlooked rules applicable to destruction and seizure. The advantages of staking out clear and current opinio juris on these and other matters extend beyond providing responsible and consistent operational law advice. Updated and authoritative military cyber legal doctrine will serve the strategic and diplomatic legal interests of the United States and the international legal system as a whole.

This article examines how European Union (EU) arms control measures are tailored to its constitutional foundations. EU Member States subject shipments of arms and components to controls so as to screen them for risks and potentially block them. In this context different Member States may make different geopolitical and humanitarian risk assessments. Existing EU measures have achieved only limited security screening harmonisation, and have left room for Member States to shirk their obligations under international humanitarian law. But in case of joint arms production, which the EU subsidises to become more autonomous, one Member State’s arms controls may block another State’s exports and thereby jeopardise cooperation. This article posits that any reform of EU arms controls should start by re-evaluating their present legal basis. A constitutional competence analysis shows that controls on arms shipments to non-EU states should be regulated in part through the Common Commercial Policy (CCP), and not just through the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP). This would be consistent with other EU regulatory regimes for trade security. While a joint CFSP-CCP approach cannot fully prevent conflict, since this would require further foreign policy harmonisation, it could help foster security convergence and strengthen humanitarian due diligence mechanisms.

Ben & Jerry's – the famous ice cream brand known for its quirky flavours and social justice ethos – announced in 2021 that it would withdraw its products from Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT). This announcement sparked controversy, with an impact on the company and its parent, Unilever. While the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (2011) (UNGP) have established themselves as the leading international governance framework for the social responsibilities of businesses, their application to conflict-affected areas lacks clarity. Questions remain, including when is a company legally complicit in violations of international humanitarian law (IHL), and when is a corporate exit from an area under military occupation the appropriate and responsible thing to do. This article uses Ben & Jerry's withdrawal from the OPT as the basis for investigating these questions. It finds that while it is unlikely that Ben & Jerry's would be exposed to any legal liability for violating IHL through its product sales in Israeli settlements in the OPT, its withdrawal aligns with its responsibilities under the UNGP as a reasonable and prudent corporate action in response to its activities being linked to enduring and severe IHL violations.

Bearing in mind that the peace process between the Colombian government and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia – People's Army (Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia – Ejército del Pueblo, FARC-EP) has been an important milestone for transitional justice, this article aims to share some of the good practices and achievements of this process, as well as the setbacks and challenges that could be avoided in future peace processes. The article will highlight relevant contributions from the Chamber for Amnesty or Pardon (CAP) such as impacting the resocialization of former FARC-EP members and developing international humanitarian law discussions in relation to war crimes and less serious crimes. Additionally, it will describe some of the main challenges faced by the CAP, such as the high number of applications for transitional benefits that it receives, the high number of proceedings that it supervises, and the security concerns arising from implementing a peace agreement in a country still in conflict.

Franz Perrez is Director-General of the Directorate of International Law at the Federal Department of Foreign Affairs (FDFA), Switzerland. He is responsible for the development and interpretation of international law and ensuring that Switzerland's strategic rights are respected abroad. As a member of the FDFA senior management, Mr Perrez is also jointly responsible for the FDFA's strategic approach and advises the Federal Council, Switzerland's representatives abroad and other Federal Administration offices on international law issues.

Prior to his new role Mr Perrez was appointed Switzerland's Ambassador for the Environment and Head of the International Affairs Division at the Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN) in 2010. In this capacity, he headed the Swiss delegations to international environmental and climate negotiations for thirteen years.

After studying law in Bern and Paris, Mr Perrez worked at the FDFA's Directorate of International Law from 1993 to 1995. He went on to study at New York University, where he gained a master of laws focusing on international law and completed a PhD thesis on the topic of sovereignty as a principle of cooperation. On returning to Switzerland, he took up a position at the World Trade Organization (WTO) Division of the State Secretariat for Economic Affairs, before joining the FOEN in 2001.

Mr Perrez has proven expertise in international law. He has widely published in the area of international environmental law, international environmental governance, the relationship between trade and the environment, and public international law. Since 2008, Mr Perrez has also lectured on international environmental law at the University of Bern School of Law. He served as a panellist on the newest WTO tuna–dolphin dispute between Mexico and the United States, and as Switzerland's Ambassador for the Environment and Chief Negotiator for Environmental Issues, namely climate change, biodiversity, chemicals and waste, he led the Swiss delegation to the Rio+20 conference and to the Paris Climate Change Conference in 2015. He was President of the Basel Convention (COP 11 in 2013) and President of the Rotterdam Convention (COP 8 in 2017) and facilitated the negotiations on mitigation of the Paris Agreement. Through his work within and outside of Switzerland, he has built strong networks around the world and within the Federal Administration.

This article examines the links between the concept of peace and international humanitarian law (IHL). It takes a closer look at how the originator of IHL, the International Committee of the Red Cross, justified the existence of this body of law, which was supposed to regulate war, in the face of those who wanted to see war abolished once and for all. The article also questions the attitude of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, which, while wanting a peaceful society, did not give itself the means to achieve one.

This article advocates a turn to the visual in legal scholarship. The phenomenon used to elucidate this methodological proposition is the figure of the ‘human shields’ under international humanitarian law, viewed from within the lived history of the peoples of the Global South. Today, the ‘human shields’ notion profoundly shapes how international law operates in scenes of intense organized violence. Once deployed, the human shields claim triggers a radical shift in the applicable international legal framework. After this point, harm to the civilian population and space can be legally authorized and justified. This article challenges the ways in which the ‘human shields’ notion continues to be debated in mainstream legal scholarship and discourse in terms of doctrinal interpretation, examination of evidence, or analyses of ‘asymmetricity’ and ‘urbanization’ as ‘challenges’ in ‘contemporary’ war. Before any such inquiries, I argue, it is crucial to pay attention to the visual and the lived history of the peoples of the Global South. Images that exist in the cultural realm – of and about war and crime, the human shielding spectacle and its actors, and Global South societies – structure and delimit the legal conversation and predetermine its possible outcomes. I propose, in sum, an attention to the visual as a site of the legal inquiry that can inform our understanding and critique of the law and politics of human shields. Images enable, rationalize and provoke the emotions necessary for an ‘exceptional’ operation of international law that authorizes massive violence against Global South spaces and peoples.

The principle of proportionality under international humanitarian law prohibits an attack if the expected harm to civilian persons and objects is excessive in relation to the anticipated concrete and direct military advantage. In this article we argue that, when applying the principle of proportionality, the incidental harm to a child must be given a higher value as compared to incidental harm to an adult. This reflects the broader framework of international humanitarian law, which creates stratifications amongst different groups of civilians and provides special protection for children in times of war. This aligns with the practice of many militaries, which tends to implicitly assign a heightened worth to the lives of children due to moral and political considerations. Such reasons stem from the perceived vulnerability of children as well as their moral innocence reflecting harmlessness and blamelessness. Indeed, harm to children’s lives tends to generate a greater backlash among the community to which they belong and, as a result, a military disadvantage. We argue that the greater weight assigned to the lives of children in proportionality assessments is not simply a matter of morality or strategic calculations, but in fact a requirement from a more wholistic interpretation of international humanitarian law.

International humanitarian law (IHL) provides the normative foundation for efforts to address the issue of missing persons during and after armed conflict. Whilst IHL does not engage with how parties to an armed conflict may go about restoring peace, there has been speculation that resolving the missing issue, by bringing answers to families about the fate and whereabouts of their missing relatives, can potentially play a role in building peace. This article represents an effort to compile existing evidence in academic and practice literature that supports an understanding of how addressing the missing issue relates to peacebuilding. In so doing, the article seeks to lay out a research agenda to understand how addressing the issue of the missing can serve to advance peacebuilding, and proposes avenues for further research.

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.

The Russia-Ukraine war demonstrates the crucial role of technology in modern warfare. The use of digital networks, information infrastructure, space technology, and artificial intelligence has distinct military advantages, but raises challenges as well. This essay focuses on the way it exacerbates a rather familiar challenge: the “civilianization of warfare.” Today's high-technology warfare lowers the threshold for civilian participation in the war effort. A notable example is the widespread use of smartphone apps by Ukrainian civilians, who thereby help the armed forces defend against Russian aggression. Through the lenses of international humanitarian law, conventional just war theory, and revisionist just war theory, this essay evaluates the normative dimensions of such civilian participation. The analysis shows that civilians can lose their legal protections when they use these apps to directly participate in hostilities, and this loss of immunity can be justified by Michael Walzer's conventional just war theory. Revisionism, however, puts the justness of the war at the forefront, and so sheds doubt on the moral liability of Ukrainian civilians. Considering the broader implications, including the blurring combatant-civilian distinction, indicates that such civilianization of warfare should not be welcomed; the risks will often outweigh the benefits. At a minimum, states ought to exercise restraint in mobilizing civilians and inform them of the implications of their actions.

Since commencing its illegal invasion in 2022, the Russian military and authorities have committed numerous war crimes against the people of Ukraine. These include the mutilation and execution of combatants; the torture, kidnapping, forced expulsion, rape, and massacre of civilians; and indiscriminate attacks on densely populated areas. In this essay, I evaluate the strategic implications of this misconduct, focusing exclusively on Western responses. I argue that war crimes can and often do negatively impact the strategic goals of the perpetrator, but whether and how this occurs is rarely governed exclusively by the offending action. Western perceptions of battlefield atrocity, shaped as they are by identity, race, and politics, may radically shift from one context to another. In the case of the Russia-Ukraine war, the status of both the participants and the conflict itself has helped inculcate a particular sensitivity among Western actors to the battlefield criminality of Russia. Drawing on evidence from the 2022 Bucha massacre and the ongoing bombing of Ukrainian civilians, I argue that Russian misconduct has consolidated Western support for the Ukrainian military effort, politically, diplomatically, and materially.