A porous humanitarian shield: The laws of war, the red cross, and the killing of civilians

Abstract

An important literature examines the attempts by the international community in inducing or coercing conflict parties in civil wars to refrain from committing atrocities against the civilian population. We examine in this article whether a nongovernmental actor, the distinctively neutral and independent International Committee of the Red Cross, whose mission includes the promotion of humanitarian law and the protection of the civilian population, has such a restraining effect on the conflict parties. Our results suggest that the more time has passed since the ratification of the relevant Geneva Conventions and Protocols, the larger is the risk of civilian victimization. We cannot find evidence that the ICRC's presence in conflict zones and the seminars it conducts to spread humanitarian law make a crucial difference. Case studies of Bosnia and Darfur indicate that shaming strategies and thus a relatively unusual instrument for the traditionally neutral actor did not abate the killings; the statistical evidence in the form of Granger causality tests rather show that the killing and harming precedes the naming and shaming.

Health Care Providers in War and Armed Conflict: Operational and Educational Challenges in International Humanitarian Law and the Geneva Conventions, Part II. Educational and Training Initiatives

“…However, in no way does this study question the importance of IHL/GC information for the public. 82 We must reexamine our roles as educators and whether the myriad of current educational opportunities is meeting the desired operational expectations of those who respond. We agree that the UN must work closely with WHO and ICRC in reevaluating ICRC's original policy of impartiality and neutrality and whether this policy of discretion has become self-defeating in a world of instant communications.…”

“…Last-minute education is not able to socialize military commanders and their militias with respect for the civilian population, nor can it educate the victims as to their rights under IHL/GC. 82 Admittedly, there are no ready solutions. However, the initial decline and then delay of ICRC and MSF to participate in Mosul because they could not obtain assurances under IHL/GC from ISIS and the similar decline from existing WHO-registered EMTs, as well as refusals from other governmental military medical units, leading to the final decision to embed non-conflict trained NGOs whose only experience had been in SODs, should have set off alarms regarding the educational, operational, and security preparedness of these NGOs (see Part I).…”

What COVID-19 revealed about health, human rights, and the WHO

“…Violent events with global consequences, such as the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, increase real or perceived threats, which in turn can have the effect of increasing peoples' acceptance of human rights violations. Bussmann and Schneider (2015), moreover, found a weakening in the effectiveness of international humanitarian law over time.…”

Condemning or Condoning the Perpetrators? International Humanitarian Law and Attitudes Toward Wartime Violence

“…Several studies show that belligerents who have ratified the prevailing laws of war differ little in their treatment of civilians or prisoners during interstate wars from their counterparts who have refused to make comparable legal commitments (Valentino, Huth, and Croco 2006;Wallace 2012). Similarly, attempts by groups such as the ICRC to promote the laws of war show a similar questionable impact on the decisions of belligerents to target civilians during civil wars (Bussman and Schneider 2016). 5 Other work suggests that the functioning of international treaties is conditional on reciprocity, in terms of both the legal commitment and compliance behavior by opponents.…”