ICRC Humanitarian Law and Policy Blog

Why Africa should act now on explosive weapons in populated areas: Malawi’s case for action 28.05.2026 13mnt

Across contemporary armed conflicts, the use of explosive weapons in populated areas (EWIPA) has emerged as one of the gravest threats to civilians. Urban centres are increasingly sites of hostilities, where the use of explosive weapons with wide-area effects causes devastating and often predictable harm. In Africa, where rapid urbanization intersects with persistent insecurity in several regions, the humanitarian consequences are particularly acute. Civilians, essential infrastructure, and long-term development prospects are all at risk, raising urgent questions about how international humanitarian law (IHL) can be better implemented in practice. In this post, Brigadier General (Professor) Dan Kuwali, Chief Strategist, Commandant-Emeritus of the National Defence College-Malawi and Chairperson of the Malawi National International Humanitarian Law Committee, argues that African states should urgently endorse and implement the Political Declaration on EWIPA. He argues that this approach is not only a humanitarian imperative, but also a strategic decision that strengthens civilian protection, enhances military credibility, and reinforces Africa’s collective voice in advancing responsible conduct in contemporary warfare.

Collaboration without over-reliance: the role of industry in making military AI "lawful by design" 26.05.2026 11mnt

In the policy debate on artificial intelligence (AI) in the military domain, there is a growing consensus that international humanitarian law (IHL) must be a central consideration in the design of military AI systems. The imperative to make military AI systems “lawful by design” has, naturally, led to a sharper focus on the role of industry. But what this means in practical terms for AI suppliers – and how states can and should collaborate with industry to strengthen IHL compliance – remains an open question. In this post, Laura Bruun and Netta Goussac from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) argue that while focusing on IHL at the design stage makes sense, it carries the risk that states over-rely on industry to make military “lawful by design”. Efforts to elaborate what it means to make military AI “lawful by design” must be grounded in realistic expectations and limits, as well as clear legal responsibilities.

Three lives, one vision: how Dunant, Demidoff and Abdelkader shaped modern humanitarianism 21.05.2026 17mnt

The brutal effects of war have long prompted efforts to limit suffering and preserve humanity in times of conflict. Across cultures, religions, and legal traditions, people have sought to restrain violence and preserve a measure of humanity in conflict. Yet the emergence of modern humanitarianism in the nineteenth century marked a turning point: compassion became increasingly organized, codified, and institutionalized. Against the backdrop of industrialized warfare, technological change, and growing public awareness of battlefield suffering, new forms of humanitarian action began to take shape. In this post, ICRC experts Anastasia Kushleyko, Cédric Cotter, and Ahmed Al-Dawoody revisit the contributions of Swiss businessman Henry Dunant, Russian philanthropist Anatole Demidoff, and Algerian scholar and leader Emir Abdelkader. Through their efforts to protect prisoners of war, care for the wounded, and uphold humane treatment during conflict, these three figures demonstrated that humanitarian principles were neither confined to one region nor rooted in a single tradition. The authors argue that modern humanitarianism emerged through converging ideas, networks, and practices across different societies, and that revisiting these histories can help reaffirm the universal character of humanitarian principles today.

Enforced disappearances: universal responses to a worldwide phenomenon 12.05.2026 13mnt

Enforced disappearances remain an issue of profound seriousness, with lasting consequences for the families of those affected. These realities continue to raise complex legal and practical questions in criminal and human rights law at national, regional, and international levels. This issue remains a priority for UN treaty bodies, Special Procedures, and the International Committee of the Red Cross. In this post, Milica Kolaković-Bojović, PhD, a Former Vice President of the UN Committee on Enforced Disappearances and Prof. Grażyna Baranowska, the Vice-chair of the UN Working Group on Enforced and Involuntary Disappearances, analyse a multidimensional approach to the phenomenon of enforced disappearance, its causes and roots, phenomenology, contexts of occurrence, and approaches to its eradication as being addressed in the edited volume Enforced Disappearances: On Universal Responses to a Worldwide Phenomenon, recently published by Cambridge University Press.

Lebanon's wartime decision to ban anti-personnel mines 07.05.2026 11mnt

Lebanon’s accession last week to the Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention (APMBC) comes not in a time of peace, but amid ongoing conflict – precisely when the consequences of inaction are most visible. In communities across the country, particularly in the south, anti-personnel mines are not relics of past wars, but active threats shaping daily life, obstructing return, and undermining recovery. Lebanon’s decision reflects a stark reality: weapons that continue to harm long after their use cannot be reconciled with the protection of civilians. In this post, Brigadier General Ziad Rizkallah of the Lebanese Army traces how Lebanon’s lived experience with contamination, clearance, and community recovery informed its choice to formalize long-standing practice into legal commitment. He underscores that drawing limits in conflict is neither theoretical nor deferred; it is grounded in operational reality, where the effects of certain weapons cannot be contained in time, space, or intent.

Attacks on the medical mission: identification of issues and good practices 06.05.2026 15mnt

During the last decade, attacks against hospitals have been a hallmark of almost every conflict. What humanitarian medical practitioners have witnessed and denounced for years has become alarmingly routine. International humanitarian law (IHL) is sometimes criticized for failing to protect the very purpose that justified its own existence, particularly when the states responsible for its enforcement remain incapable or unwilling to stand up for the protection of medical facilities in armed conflicts. In this post, Claude Maon, Legal Director for Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF), highlights the need to build consensus around the specific protection of the medical mission under IHL. She calls for good faith interpretation in applying these rules to ensure the effective protection of hospitals by all actors in real situations of attack. In doing so, she underscores that attacks on hospitals are not inevitable and argues that this persistent trend of violations can only be reversed if states respect the law by adopting good operational practices to protect the medical mission, alongside ensuring accountability for attacks affecting medical facilities in armed conflict.

Gender (re)balancing: the updated ICRC Commentary on the Fourth Geneva Convention 30.04.2026 18mnt

International humanitarian law (IHL) has long been critiqued for its gendered fault lines, specifically the marginalization of violence and harm to women and girls during armed conflict, laid bare by the lacunae of protection found in the normative content of the Geneva Conventions. The inadequacy of this normative protection finds a parallel in the Pictet Commentary, whose contours reflect patriarchy, entrenched gender stereotypes, and a lack of awareness of, and disregard for, the vulnerabilities, positionalities and participation of women in war. The limitations of the Fourth Geneva Convention (GC IV), in particular, have been substantively explored by feminist scholars over several decades. In this post, part of a joint symposium on the updated Commentary on the Fourth Geneva Convention with EJIL:Talk! and Just Security, Fionnuala Ní Aoláin undertakes a close examination of GC IV’s Article 27 on the treatment of protected persons, offering an assessment of the extent to which a revised and updated Commentary can overcome the Convention’s structural limitations. The answer, she suggests, is mixed. The Commentary is rigorous, expansive and determined, but it remains constrained by the text itself. While progressive interpretative developments help narrow the gap, they cannot fully remedy the gendered DNA of the Conventions as a whole, a challenge that will unfold over decades of sustained work.

Upholding IHL protections against the risks of ICT activities in armed conflict 23.04.2026 20mnt

Across the world, essential civilian services increasingly depend on information and communication technologies (ICTs). These same technologies are also reshaping the conduct of armed conflict. As warfare becomes more digitalized, a critical question emerges: how can civilians be protected in an interconnected battlespace? Ensuring the faithful implementation of international humanitarian law in relation to ICT activities is central to this challenge. In this post, Wen Zhou, ICRC Legal Adviser with the Global Initiative to Galvanize Political Commitment to International Humanitarian Law (Global IHL Initiative), draws on discussions under the ICT workstream of the Initiative to highlight key humanitarian and legal questions arising from ICT activities in armed conflict, and to reflect ongoing efforts by states and other stakeholders to uphold the protections afforded by IHL and strengthen its implementation in practice.

Complying with IHL in large-scale conflicts: movement, mass displacement and family links 16.04.2026 18mnt

By the end of 2024, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees estimated that 123.2 million people worldwide were forcibly displaced as a result of persecution, conflict, violence, human rights violations and events seriously disturbing public order. If a large-scale conflict erupts, the intensity, scale and tempo of military operations will only worsen this trend, impacting not only those displaced but also receiving communities, and potentially those staying behind. International humanitarian law’s (IHL) rules seek to prevent displacement due to armed conflict – while respecting people’s agency and genuine will to move – and to reduce harms to civilians, including displaced populations. In this post, part of the “Complying with IHL in large-scale conflict” series, ICRC Legal Advisers Matt Pollard and Helen Obregón explore the humanitarian challenges related to movement, mass displacement and the rupturing of family ties that would inevitably arise in such conflicts. It also looks at some of the practical measures that states can – and should – take to be prepared to meet these challenges and to comply with their obligations under IHL and under other relevant bodies of international law. Advance planning, already in peacetime, is essential for IHL to provide effective protection if such a conflict breaks out.

Why Nordic governments must uphold the global ban on anti-personnel mines 02.04.2026 13mnt

As security concerns intensify across Europe following the escalation of the international armed conflict between Russia and Ukraine in 2022, several states – including Finland, Poland, and the Baltic countries – have moved to withdraw from the Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention (APMBC), while similar calls have emerged in other Nordic countries. These developments reflect a growing perception that existing humanitarian disarmament commitments may constrain military effectiveness in a deteriorating security environment. Yet they also raise fundamental questions about the continued relevance of these commitments at a time when they are most needed. In this post, the Secretaries-General of the Danish, Finnish, Norwegian and Swedish Red Cross Societies argue that withdrawing from the APMBC would not enhance security but risk weakening civilian protection and eroding long-standing humanitarian norms. Drawing on legal, operational and humanitarian considerations, they show that anti-personnel mines remain inherently indiscriminate and of limited military utility, and that their prohibition is fully compatible with modern military cooperation frameworks. They call on the remaining Nordic governments to remain committed to the Convention even – and especially – in times of heightened insecurity.

Restoring education after armed conflict: an IHL-guided framework 26.03.2026 16mnt

When armed conflict ends, education does not always return with it. In many post-conflict settings, schools remain closed long after ceasefires, while children stay at home, enter work, remain displaced or navigate unsafe environments. Education systems remain constrained by destroyed infrastructure, militarization, unexploded ordnance, trauma and fear. Although international humanitarian law (IHL) and international human rights law (IHRL) require the continuity of education even during armed conflict, schooling is frequently disrupted in practice, raising questions about how education can be safely restored after conflict. IHL regulates the conduct of hostilities and contains important protections for children and access to education during armed conflict. Lessons drawn from these protections can help inform recovery decisions as societies transition from conflict to peace, including after the cessation of hostilities, when recovery begins but IHL may still apply. In this post, as part of our Emerging Voices series, Geeta Mahapatra proposes a framework to facilitate children’s safe return to education, centred on child-specific harm assessments, safe access and inclusive recovery. It contends that stronger compliance with IHL rules protecting schools and children during armed conflict helps preserve the conditions necessary for restoring education in post-conflict settings.

When the perpetrator is the climate 19.03.2026 14mnt

Climate change and armed conflict increasingly intersect in humanitarian settings. While the sector is now alert to climate-related risks – particularly in disaster response, resilience programming, and displacement governance – the ways these risks are interpreted and operationalized vary across institutional mandates and operational contexts. In protection practice within conflict-affected settings, climate impacts are still often framed primarily as “conflict multipliers” rather than direct drivers of civilian harm. This narrow lens risks overlooking the very insecurities communities experience most acutely: displacement, restricted movement, isolation, and livelihood collapse. In this post, researcher and former ICRC delegate Lina Aburas argues that our current conflict-centered analysis has a dangerous blind spot. Drawing on her experience in northeast Nigeria, she explores how communities define their own insecurity amid climate and conflict pressures. Practitioner and community perspectives reveal how climate-related hazards reshape mobility, access to livelihoods and assistance, and exposure to protection risks in ways not fully captured by prevailing conflict-centered analyses. Centering these lived experiences reveals that adapting humanitarian action isn’t about mission creep or expanding mandates; it’s about fundamentally shifting how we interpret and prioritize the risks already in front of us.

Deciding under algorithms: artificial intelligence and the protection of civilian infrastructure in armed conflict 12.03.2026 15mnt

Artificial intelligence (AI)-based decision-support systems are increasingly embedded upstream of the use of force, shaping how military actors plan attacks, assessing effects, and anticipating harm. In contemporary urban warfare, where civilian infrastructure forms complex and deeply interconnected systems, these tools are increasingly used to guide decisions with far-reaching humanitarian consequences. This raises critical questions for international humanitarian law (IHL), which requires parties to anticipate and mitigate foreseeable civilian harm when applying the principles of proportionality and precaution, including indirect, cumulative and systemic effects on civilian infrastructure. In this post, independent legal researcher Yéelen Marie Geairon argues that while AI-enabled decision-support systems do not alter the legal rules governing attacks, they significantly reshape how foreseeability is operationalized in practice. By structuring what decision-makers are able to anticipate, compare and justify ex ante, AI systems recalibrate the factual basis of legal judgment, while also introducing new risks linked to data gaps, opacity and over-reliance on technical outputs. The protection of civilian infrastructure in AI-enabled warfare therefore depends less on technological performance than on the legal discipline, transparency and human judgment with which these tools are embedded in decision-making processes.

Engaging non-state armed groups on the protection of missing people and their families 05.03.2026 14mnt

The ICRC continues to witness unacceptable levels of suffering when the law designed to protect families, prevent people from going missing, and ensure the dignified and respectful treatment of the dead is disregarded. At the same time, we have also documented countless, daily efforts by parties to armed conflict to prevent family separation, clarify the fate and whereabouts of missing people, and treat the dead with dignity and respect. This is a humanitarian imperative, a legal obligation that should be a priority of any party to an armed conflict. In this post, ICRC Legal Advisers Tilman Rodenhäuser and Ximena Londoño present key findings of a recent ICRC study, “Non-State Armed Groups and the Separated, Missing and Dead: Obligations Under International Humanitarian Law and Examples of How to Implement Them”. Drawing on the doctrine and practice of 64 non-state armed groups (NSAGs) across the world, the study offers unique insights into practical measures that NSAGs can take to implement IHL and protect missing people and their families. This post provides a snapshot of the study’s main findings and operational relevance.

The adoption of the 1949 Geneva Conventions: a humanitarian break and colonial continuity 26.02.2026 16mnt

More than seven decades after their adoption, the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 remain foundational to contemporary international humanitarian law (IHL). Efforts to update their Commentaries testify to both the resilience of the Geneva Conventions and their enduring relevance in modern armed conflicts. Yet the story of their making is inseparable from the longer history of the law of armed conflict, which developed in the late nineteenth century within a deeply hierarchical international legal order. From the perspective of colonized states and territories, that history reveals a persistent divide between European and non-European worlds, a divide that shaped not only general international law but also key features of the Geneva Conventions themselves. In this post, part of a joint symposium on the updated Commentary on the Fourth Geneva Convention with EJIL:Talk! and Just Security, Associate Professor Srinivas Burra revisits the adoption of the 1949 Geneva Conventions against the backdrop of the Second World War, the creation of the United Nations, and the onset of decolonization. Focusing on the Fourth Convention’s regime of occupation and on Common Article 3, he examines these developments from a Third World Approaches to International Law (TWAIL) perspective, accounting for the structural legacies of empire in international law. He argues that while these provisions marked important advances, they also carried forward earlier exclusions embedded in colonial conceptions of sovereignty. Read in this light, the Conventions represent both a decisive break in humanitarian protection and a continuation of hierarchies inherited from the nineteenth century.

Islamic law and the right to life in armed conflict 24.02.2026 16mnt

Islamic legal traditions and the modern framework of international humanitarian law (IHL) emerged from different contexts and traditions, but they share many underlying values – such as restraint, humanity, and the protection of those not (or no longer) participating in hostilities. Islamic law therefore offers a distinct but complementary perspective to IHL on the sanctity of life (ḥurmat al-nafs), particularly in contexts where international legal frameworks lack traction, understanding, or perceived legitimacy. In this post, and as part of our Emerging Voices series, legal researcher Alannah Travers explores how Islamic law, as its own coherent and longstanding legal tradition, offers a parallel framework of moral constraint during armed conflict. She argues that better understanding these Islamic legal norms can provide stronger grounds for compliance with protective norms, deepening our collective understanding of the right to life in war.

“If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”: the ICRC’s approach to Common Article 3 in its updated Commentary 19.02.2026 16mnt

The updated ICRC Commentary on the Fourth Geneva Convention (GC IV) includes a number of important updates to its treatment of Common Article 3 (CA3). These relate primarily to three areas: the treatment of coalitions in non-international armed conflict (NIAC); the provision of support by one party to another; and questions of gender and the treatment of other marginalized groups. In this post – part of a joint blog symposium on the updated GC IV Commentary with EJIL: Talk! and Just Security – Associate Professor Katharine Fortin examines these developments, highlighting their significance and strengths while also pointing to areas that may warrant further reflection or study.

Protecting civilians in good faith a joint symposium on the updated ICRC Commentary on the Fourth Geneva Convention 17.02.2026 13mnt

Following five years of research and consultations, the ICRC published a new, updated Commentary on the Fourth Geneva Convention (GC IV) of 1949 in October 2025. GC IV is the cornerstone of protection for civilians in international armed conflict and occupation – protections that remain urgently relevant amid patterns of urban warfare, strikes on essential services, and persistent harm to people who are not, or are no longer, taking part in hostilities. The 2025 Commentary, following the interpretive methodology outlined in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, consolidates seven decades of practice, jurisprudence, and operational experience into a practical guide to applying GC IV’s safeguards effectively today. Over the coming weeks, we are delighted to co-host a joint symposium with the editors of Just Security and EJIL:Talk!, sharing expert contributions on selected topics addressed in the updated ICRC Commentary on the Fourth Geneva Convention. We hope this analysis will help shed light on important aspects of the Fourth Convention that are explored in depth in the updated Commentary, outline developments in law, technology and language since 1949, and give readers an idea of what has changed since the initial ICRC Commentary on this Convention was published in 1958. As Jean-Marie Henckaerts highlights below, a good faith interpretation and application of the Fourth Convention is indispensable: “it keeps interpretation anchored in the Conventions’ object and purpose, ensuring that their protective spirit prevails over technical evasions.” His following post, initially published on 21 October 2025, serves as an introduction both to the updated Commentary and to this symposium.

Waging warfare at sea: how exceptional is the maritime domain today? 10.02.2026 18mnt

Naval warfare has undergone dramatic transformation, expanding across multiple domains and exposing civilian seafarers, infrastructure, and global supply chains to new and evolving risks. As modern maritime operations become faster, more complex, and more interconnected, long-standing legal frameworks face growing pressure to keep pace. In this post, ICRC Legal Adviser Abby Zeith examines the changing character of naval warfare and questions whether the maritime domain should still be treated as exceptional. She explores how technological, operational, and geopolitical shifts intersect with existing international humanitarian law (IHL), and why renewed clarity from states is essential to protect civilian shipping, seafarers, and populations ashore.

“Cognitive warfare”: why the human brain should not become a battlefield 05.02.2026 21mnt

Militaries are gearing up for confrontation on a new battlefield: the human brain. While psychological operations aimed at deceiving enemies or manipulating soldiers and civilian populations have long been part of the military playbook, “cognitive warfare” marks a conceptual shift in which human cognition is framed as a “sixth domain” of military competition, alongside land, sea, air, cyber, and space. In this post, ICRC Policy Adviser Pierrick Devidal offers an overview of the concept of “cognitive warfare” and examines the humanitarian concerns it raises. He argues that if our brains are to be treated as future battlefields, now is the time to consider how the risks can be prevented and mitigated.