Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vvkck Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-29T05:30:19.541Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

International Humanitarian Law and Arms Control

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 January 2010

Daniel Frei
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

For almost two decades, the International Red Cross Movement has been engaged in a continuing process of self-examination regarding its contribution to peace and disarmament. At the same time, public attention is being focused on, and sometimes even captivated by, various bilateral and multilateral efforts to achieve progress in nuclear and non-nuclear arms control in fields such as the reduction of strategic and intermediate-range nuclear weapons, nuclear and chemical weapon-free zones, confidence- and security-building measures, and so on. The two lines of action are usually dealt with individually without proper consideration of the manifold interconnections existing between them. Only recently have efforts been made to clarify the relationship between the two. The purpose of this article is to bring them together and to do so by asking the question: To what extent can the effort to promote and implement international humanitarian law be seen as a contribution in terms of arms control?

Type
Research Article
Information
International Review of the Red Cross (1961 - 1997) , Volume 28 , Issue 267 , December 1988 , pp. 491 - 504
Copyright
Copyright © International Committee of the Red Cross 1988

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

* See International Review of the Red Cross (IRRC), No. 265, 07–08 1988, pp. 388–389.Google Scholar

1 The author acknowledges helpful comments on a first draft, especially by Jean-Luc Blondel, René Kosirnik, Zidane Mériboute, Raymond Probst and Yves Sandoz.

The views expressed in this article, however, are personal and do not necessarily reflect the views of the International Committee of the Red Cross.

2 Cf. for a comprehensive view the article “The International Committee of the Red Cross and Disarmament”, in: IRRC, vol. 61, 03–04 1978, pp. 90–100 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; for an up-to-date collection of resolutions and other texts cf. To Promote Peace, Geneva 1986 Google Scholar: ICRC and League of Red Cross/Red Crescent Societies; for another, although very general, approach cf. Wulff, T.: “International Humanitarian Law as a Means to Promote International Peace and Security”. In: Proceedings of the Thirty-First Pugwash Conference on Science and World Affairs, London 1981, pp. 315–319 Google Scholar. For the latest “state of the art” of Red Cross thinking on this subject cf. Sandoz, Yves: “The Red Cross and Peace: Realities and Limits”, in Journal of Peace Research, vol. 24, 1987, pp. 287–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3 Cf. the pioneering contribution by Allan Rosas/Par Stenback: “The Frontiers of International Humanitarian Law”, in: Journal of Peace Research, vol. 24, 1987, pp. 219–236 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Rosas/Stenbäck conclude: “We would tend to believe that possible future efforts at developing humanitarian law should focus upon the human rights perspective rather than attempt to regulate warfare and methods and means of combat. Thus the direct links between humanitarian law and disarmament should at least not be strenghened further.” (p. 233) While agreeing with the first conclusion, the present contribution is based on the conviction that the second conclusion is not necessarily imperative—at least not before having examined the relationship between international humanitarian law and disarmament/arms control more systematically (which will be done on the following pages).—By contrast to Rosas/Stenbäck, Ove Bring: “Regulating Conventional Weapons in the Future—Humanitarian Law or Arms Control?” (ibid. pp. 275–286) concludes that the “fruitful relationship between international humanitarian law and disarmament… should be explored more vigorously in the future.”

4 Hedley Bull quoted in Booth, Ken: “Disarmament and Arms Control”, in: Baylis, John et al. (Eds.): Contemporary Strategy, 2nd ed., vol. I, London, 1987: Croom Helm, p. 140.Google Scholar

5 For a more elaborate analysis of the relationship between disarmament and arms control cf. Booth, , op. cit. pp. 140–146 Google Scholar, and Corradini, Allessandro: “Disarmament Education as a Distinct Field of Study”, in: Thee, Marek (Ed.): Armament, Arms Control and Disarmament, Paris, 1981: UNESCO Press, pp. 328–377.Google Scholar

6 Cf. Garnett, John: “Limited War”Google Scholar, in: Baylis, et al. , op. cit. pp. 187–208.Google Scholar

7 This is a summary of various contributions such as Bertram, Christoph: “Arms Control and Technological Change”Google Scholar, in: Thee, (Ed.), op. cit., pp. 144–156 Google Scholar; Goldblat, Jozef: Arms Control Agreements. A Handbook, London, 1983: Taylor & Francis, pp. 300 f.Google Scholar; Booth, , loc. cit. Google Scholar

8 That is how Kalshoven coins the essence of the international law of armed conflict; cf. Kalshoven, Frits: Constraints on the Waging of War, Geneva, 1987: ICRC.Google Scholar

9 E.g. Bedjaoui, Mohammed: “Humanitarian Law at a Time of Failing National and International Consensus”Google Scholar, in: Modern Wars. The Humanitarian Challenge. A Report for the Independent Commission on International Humanitarian Issues, London, 1986 Google Scholar: Zed Books, pp. 13–18; for a comprehensive bibliography on the current legal debate cf. Commentary on the Additional Protocols of 8 June 1977 to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, Geneva, ICRC, 1987, p. 594 Google Scholar, footnote 35, and Roberts, Guy B.: “The New Rules for Waging War”Google Scholar, in: Virginia Journal of International Law, vol. 26, Nr. 1 (Fall 1985), p. 163, footnotes 275–279.Google Scholar

10 Cf. the list of States possessing or allegedly possessing C-weapons, in: Robinson, J. P. Perry: “Chemical and Biological Warfare”. In: SIPRI Yearbook 1987, World Armaments and Disarmament. London, 1987: Oxford University Press, pp. 97–115.Google Scholar

11 For a systematic inventory of these instruments, cf. Goldblat, , op. cit., pp. 81–89.Google Scholar

12 For a further elaboration of the meaning of such symbolic interaction cf. Windass, Stan: The Rite of War, London, 1986: Brassey's Defence Publishers, pp. 120–127.Google Scholar

13 A/CONF. 130/39, Article 35(c)(ii).

14 Cf. Kalshoven, , op. cit. pp. 61–64, 126–129 and 145.Google Scholar

15 Sandoz, Yves: “Le droit d'initiative du Comité international de la Croix-Rouge”, German Yearbook of International Law, vol. 22, 1979, pp. 352–373.Google Scholar

16 Karkoska, Andrzej: Strategic Disarmament, Verification, and National Security, London, 1977: Taylor & Francis, pp. 34fGoogle Scholar; Krass, Allan S.: Verification—How Much is Enough? London, 1985: Taylor & Francis Google Scholar; Rowell, William F.: Arms Control Verification. Cambridge Mass., 1986: Ballinger Google Scholar; Tsipis, Kosta (Ed.): Arms Control Verification. Washington D.C., 1986: Pergamon/Brassey's.Google Scholar

17 Cf. Goldblat, , op. cit., pp. 90–111 Google Scholar; Potter, William C. (Ed.): Verification and SALT, Boulder, 1980: Westview Press, pp. 52f.Google Scholar

18 For published details regarding CICR operational practice in accepting and executing its mandate and dealing with cases of grave breaches of obligations cf. “Action by the International Committee of the Red Cross in the event of breaches of International Humanitarian Law” in IRRC, no. 221, 03–04 1981, pp. 76–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

19 Cf. Bring, , op. cit. Google Scholar