China: ICRC VP calls for strengthening global security governance through IHL

Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen,

I thank our host as well as the organizers for the renewed invitation to speak at the Beijing Xiangshan Forum, on behalf of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC).

When my organization first addressed this Forum in 2016, there were 49 armed conflicts worldwide. Today, this number has more than doubled to 120, involving over 60 States and 120 non-state armed groups. As we are tragically reminded by daily news, the human cost and humanitarian needs caused by these armed conflicts have risen exponentially.

Our panel today focuses on “International Mechanisms and Global Security Governance”. The primary mechanism for maintaining international peace and security is of course the United Nations Charter, built in the aftermath of the Second World War around a fifteen-member Security Council.

Another key building block is international humanitarian law or the laws of armed conflict. Rules and customs setting limits in war have existed for hundreds of years. They can be found in all religions and traditions across the world. Nowadays, these rules and customs of war are embedded in international humanitarian law (or “IHL”). The first Geneva Convention was adopted just 160 years ago to protect the wounded and the sick on the battlefield. Today, IHL consists of the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their three Additional Protocols. It also comprises treaties governing the means and methods of warfare. And in the face of fast scientific and technological advances, it is key to ensure that any use of new means and methods of warfare, such as autonomous weapons, complies with international humanitarian law.

Simply put, IHL aims to protect people who are not, or no longer, participating in hostilities: civilians as well as those injured and deprived of liberty. Balancing the principles of humanity and military necessity, IHL also aims to prevent unnecessary human suffering.

The four Geneva Conventions have been universally adopted. They represent a rare international consensus to preserve and protect our shared humanity – even in the worst of circumstances: in the midst of armed conflict. Adopted in 1949, states wanted to ensure that the horrors of WWII would never be repeated again. Today, this consensus is under unprecedented stress. Despite normative advances in international humanitarian law, the contrast is often stark between the obligations that states have universally agreed to, and the actual conduct of warring parties on the battlefield. Indiscriminate attacks, the deliberate targeting of civilians, the destruction of critical civilian infrastructure and the ill-treatment of detainees have become all too frequent. It has become a tragic reality for millions of children, women and men affected by armed conflict.

The ‘humanitarian space’ to reach out to the people in war in order to save lives and alleviate suffering has also been shrinking. Access to the field is denied, and humanitarian workers are all too often targeted. Again nowadays, it is with heavy hearts that we mourn the loss of three colleagues killed in Eastern Ukraine, two days ago. Besides, we see increasing attempts to pressure neutral and impartial humanitarian organizations, such as the ICRC, in the pursuit of political or military objectives.

These trends must be stopped and reversed. It is in the best interest of everyone to respect and ensure respect for IHL, and to allow neutral and impartial humanitarian action. This contributes to preserving and restoring the necessary enabling environment for peace and security.

Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen,

What can States do to ensure greater respect for international humanitarian law?

What can you do to ensure that the most vulnerable are effectively protected and assisted? We make two calls in this regard:

• First, demonstrate leadership to ensure compliance with international humanitarian law, making this a political priority.
   
• Second, allow neutral and impartial humanitarian organizations to effectively assist and protect people affected by armed conflict.

Through the Geneva Conventions, states have universally committed to respect and ensure respect for IHL. In today’s polarized context, states have to take a leading role in ensuring IHL compliance. In May this year, the UN Security Council hosted its annual Debate on the Protection of Civilians. Well over one hundred States referred to the critical importance of complying with IHL. So the humanitarian imperative is clear.  But, in practice, what does IHL compliance look like?

At the domestic level, it begins with States ratifying all key IHL treaties and anchoring their obligations in domestic legislation. These legal commitments must be then integrated into military doctrine and training curricula, in rules of engagement as well as in practical military exercises. States must also ensure that IHL is integrated in the military justice systems, and that sanctions are taken in case of grave violations of IHL, thus sending clear signals across military chains of command. It is also essential to regularly review IHL compliance, notably through national IHL committees. You can count on us to assist you in this endeavour: through our offices worldwide, the ICRC remains fully committed to supporting all states in this regard.

At the international level, ensuring respect for IHL requires making compliance a foreign policy and security policy priority. States can - and often do - exert a positive influence by requiring that their allies, partners and proxies abide by IHL as part of their diplomatic, military and financial support to parties to armed conflict.

Our second call is for States to preserve the space for neutral and impartial humanitarian action. When one of our ambulances or vehicles travels through contested territory or passes through checkpoints, it is not protected by weapons nor escorted by armed forces. The security of our staff relies on the trust that warring parties have in the ICRC as a strictly neutral, impartial and independent humanitarian organization. In sum, being able to provide life-saving relief to civilians in war depends on the perception of impartiality and neutrality of humanitarian actors.  But when social media falsely report that the ICRC is taking sides, or falsely allege that we neglect one group in favour of another for political reasons, the safety and access of staff in the field is jeopardized. And, in the end, those who suffer are vulnerable people who are deprived of humanitarian assistance and protection.

On this point, IHL is very clear: parties to an armed conflict are obliged to allow and facilitate the rapid and unimpeded passage of impartial humanitarian relief for civilians in need. But today, how can we persuade malicious actors not to circulate false information? This is where the ICRC relies on you, as High Contracting Parties to the Geneva Conventions, to counteract misinformation and disinformation against our humanitarian mission, as well as hate speech that fuels IHL violations. It is in the best interest of all parties to the Geneva Conventions to ensure that neutral and impartial humanitarian organizations are able to care for civilians, the missing and their families, as well as those injured and held hostage or prisoner.

Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen,

Let me conclude by saying that the Geneva Conventions have proven their enduring relevance. Today, the world needs leaders in international humanitarian law to show the way forward. We need everyone – big powers and small States alike – to step up and make IHL implementation a priority, ensuring compliance with the letter and the spirit of the law in all armed conflicts, worldwide.