International humanitarian law and human rights law share a common goal, namely to protect the individual and to ensure respect for human dignity. Yet these two branches of international public law each have their own characteristics and origins and have evolved in different ways.

Nevertheless, the troubled aftermath of the Second World War, the unchecked rise of violence and poverty in recent decades and the resulting need for improved protection of the ever-growing number of victims of violations of fundamental human rights have all contributed not only to the evolution of the two branches of law but also to their convergence, like “two poor crutches on which disarmed victims can lean simultaneously”, to quote an expressive image by Karel Vasak. This expert went so far as to estimate in 1984 that “the convergence of the two branches has led to an overlapping both on paper and, increasingly, in practice as well”.

International humanitarian law is increasingly perceived as part of human rights law applicable in armed conflict. This trend can be traced back to the United Nations Human Rights Conference held in Tehran in 1968 which not only encouraged the development of humanitarian law itself, but also marked the beginning of a growing use by the United Nations of humanitarian law during its examination of the human rights situation in certain countries or during its thematic studies. The greater awareness of the relevance of humanitarian law to the protection of people in armed conflict, coupled with the increasing use of human rights law in international affairs, means that both these areas of law now have a much greater international profile and are regularly being used together in the work of both international and non-governmental organizations.

Governments are principally responsible for the implementation of international human rights and humanitarian law during periods of armed conflict. During non-international armed conflicts, governments and armed opposition groups each bear responsibility for their obedience to those norms.

International organizations can encourage the participants in armed conflicts to respect human rights and humanitarian law. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) has long played a leading role in working for the application of humanitarian law during armed conflicts; it has also begun to refer to human rights law in situations of internal strife or tensions not covered by international humanitarian law. The United Nations General Assembly, the UN Commission on Human Rights, the International Court of Justice, and several other intergovernmental organizations have occasionally attempted to secure respect for human rights law during armed conflicts and have referred on an irregular basis to humanitarian law in such endeavors. The UN Security Council has almost exclusively used humanitarian law in its decisions.

As violations of human rights are a growing concern all over the world, and as the perpetrators are not only governments and their agents but all sorts of parties on many levels, it is essential for a major humanitarian organization like the Red Cross and Red Crescent to focus its efforts on counteracting this evil. If it fails to do so it might dangerously weaken its profile and, what is much worse, it will be deserting many of the most vulnerable groups and communities.

On 19 March 1993 in Berne, Mr. Renè Felber, Head of the Federal Department of Foreign Affairs, and Mr. Cornelio Sommaruga, President of the ICRC, signed an agreement to determine the legal status of the ICRC in Switzerland.

The Federal Council recognizes the international juridical personality and the legal capacity in Switzerland of the International Committee of the Red Cross (hereinafter referred to as the Committee or the ICRC), whose functions are laid down in the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the Additional Protocols of 1977 and in the Statutes of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement.