Untitled - the ultimate blog

Their aim is more modest. It was spelled out under prodding from the Geneva-based International
Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), itself set up by a Swiss businessman appalled at the carnage of the
Battle of Solferino in 1859, a European punch-up between forces from Austria, France and Italy. The idea
is to inject some basic humanity into the conduct of all sides in a conflict.
Indeed, the ICRC points out that “common article 3” of the 1949 conventions requires the humane
treatment of any person in enemy hands; then and even earlier, it was clear that such an obligation
applied to parties to wars fought within a country’s borders, not just across them. The second of the two
1977 protocols, meanwhile, applies specifically to non-international conflicts and cements and extends
such obligations in treaty law.
So if the rules are clear, why can’t civilians find better protection in conflict zones? One problem is that,
although the four 1949 conventions have been signed by all countries, support for the tougher 1977 ones
still lags. Among the missing in action are both India and Pakistan, who not only square off against each
other from time to time but also face violent insurgencies inside their borders. Other absentees include
Afghanistan, Iran, Israel, Malaysia, Myanmar—and the United States. Others, it has to be said, have
signed and yet blatantly ignore the rules.
How can such countries and individuals be brought to book? Upholding the rules is bound to be hardest
where people simply do not know about the sorts of protection that the conventions and protocols are
supposed to afford. A survey commissioned by the ICRC to coincide with the 60th anniversary of the 1949
conventions found that knowledge of them was patchy, even in places that had recently seen conflict.
Nearly 60% of those asked had not heard of the accords. Of those who had, 44% thought they did little or
nothing to limit the suffering of civilians in war zones.
The ICRC works hard both to disseminate information about the conventions and to get governments and
others to teach the rules to their armed forces. When conflicts erupt, it seeks to get all parties to commit
to observing the rules by way of special agreements. It has also drawn up more detailed guidelines,
though these are only advisory, to help military commanders distinguish more clearly between who is a
civilian, and therefore to be protected where possible, and who is not and thus potentially a legitimate
target. Yet, as even some of the best-willed practitioners point out, getting from principle to practice will
always be hard: each situation is different and even the most carefully written rules will seldom be an
exact fit.
When impunity persists
In any case, better than new rules would be more effective enforcement of those that already exist. For a
-85-