Disproportion between the single battle that gave rise to humanitarian law and the all-out warfare that has since engulfed vast territories, affecting virtually entire populations, and between nineteenth-century rifles and modern nuclear weapons, as well as the major changes that have swept the planet in the past fifty years -- decolonization, the end of the cold war, the unbridled demographic growth and severe environmental degradation -- all raise two important questions: Do the norms contained in the relevant Conventions still measure up? And does humanitarian law remain relevant in today's world order?

This law, as we know it today, first came into being with the signing of the 1864 Geneva Convention. As for the modern Geneva Conventions, which now constitute the backbone of that law, they were adopted 50 years ago in August. The primary aim of humanitarian law has always been to prohibit any form of violence that is not justified by military imperatives, and this certainly remains essential if potential victims -- the wounded, prisoners, civilians -- are to be protected from wanton attack.

At its inception, humanitarian law had only one purpose: to ensure that wounded and sick soldiers were treated with humanity. Although the idea did not take on tangible form until Henry Dunant witnessed with horror the wounded men lying abandoned on the ground after the bloody battle of Solferino, its seeds had been sown much earlier. Rousseau, for one, affirmed in The Social Contract that "war gives no right, which is not necessary to its ends", and that soldiers who surrender or lay down their weapons "cease to be enemies or instruments of the enemy and become ordinary human beings again".

Despite the proliferation of armed conflicts and the unprecedented technological advances of recent years, humanitarian law has continued to develop, although more in relation to its foundations inspired by Rousseau than in relation to its initial and very specific objective.

In view of the rapid development of modern weaponry, however, States have felt the need to impose further restrictions, in particular the prohibition against bombing, starving or terrorizing the civilian population as a means of forcing the enemy to capitulate, and the principle of proportionality between the anticipated military gains of an attack and the risk of collateral damage to civilians and their property. Protection of the natural environment has also gradually become a part of the philosophy underpinning humanitarian law.

Can it thus be concluded that the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols are still perfectly capable of fulfilling their role? On the whole and given the purpose they are intended to serve, these instruments undoubtedly remain equal to their task, and the few adjustments they may require in light of recent experience would probably not justify the cost and uncertainty of a thorough review of their provisions. There are nevertheless two issues which deserve particular attention.

The first has to do with the rules governing the conduct of hostilities, which were reaffirmed and developed in Additional Protocol I of 1977. Recent world events have shown that the exact scope of these rules and their underlying principles require further thought. What exactly constitutes a military objective? What can be considered an acceptable degree of collateral damage? What limits should be imposed on warfare in order to protect the environment?

The second issue to be addressed is the proliferation of violations of humanitarian law, which must be countered with more efficient means of ensuring compliance with its rules. If this is to happen, a better understanding must be gained of the underlying causes of these violations. But, in addition to those who are simply ignorant, there are, sadly, many who deliberately flout it. A survey recently carried out by the International Committee of the Red Cross among war victims the world over has shown that humanitarian rules are very often so violated. There are two main reasons: either the rules stand in the way of the warring parties' military objectives, or those who are fighting have become alienated from society and are acting outside of its traditional norms. In the face of violations of humanitarian norms, such as forced displacement or the implantation by a foreign power of its own population in an occupied territory, aid agencies are powerless. As a result, humanitarian law ceases to be an inviolable and sacrosanct haven, and these agencies can do little more than seek to protect the immediate interests of victims by striving to discourage murder, rape and other ill-treatment.

In making such compromises, are we compromising our principles? I think not. Concessions in a given situation are not tantamount to an overall lowering of standards. But "politicization" or "adulteration" of humanitarian law can leave aid agencies no choice but to withdraw from an area. In genocidal warfare, for example, they are simply unable to operate, as in situations of general chaos, where might makes right. When humanitarian convoys are openly looted and aid workers murdered in cold blood, agencies are compelled to evacuate their staff. Persuasion, the only real "weapon" they have, is no longer enough, and the international community must consider other actions, such as penal measures, collective pressure or armed intervention. We are probably witnessing a fundamental shift in the relationship between humanitarian law and the existing world order. At its inception, that law did not call into question the legitimacy of war. Since then, the restrictions set forth in the Covenant of the League of Nations and the prohibition laid down in the UN Charter against the waging of international wars of aggression have reduced the role of humanitarian law to a lifeline in the event of violations of international law in general.

Please use this version of the article for printing.

Next Page of this article