This paper will briefly examine the legal obligation placed on States to respect international humanitarian law and to train their armed forces in the subject. The practical problems this can create and how they might be overcome will also be addressed. The approach taken by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) to training in general and the particular approach being used in South Asia will be discussed.

The Advisory Opinion handed down by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on 8 July 1996 concerning the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons contains many elements that are of fundamental interest from the standpoint of international humanitarian law. Indeed, humanitarian law, which has developed to a remarkable extent since the Second World War, has always lacked an express ruling on nuclear weapons.

Protocol I additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 is a product of the mid-1970s. It reflects the then-prevailing Zeitgeist: the confrontational mentality of the Cold War; the defiance of the West by a suddenly assertive and temporarily united “Third World”; the tendencies on the part of an entrenched majority in international organizations and forums to show no tolerance for the dissenting voices of a large and influential minority; and the cynical sacrifice of good sense (and good law) on the altar of political expediency.

Following allegations that appeared in the press last summer, calling into question the actions of some of its delegates during the Second World War, the ICRC resolved to shed full light on that period in its history. The allegations were based on a number of reports by agents of the US Office of Strategic Services (OSS), the predecessor of today's CIA, and suggested that ICRC delegates had been involved in activities that were inconsistent with the organization's humanitarian mandate.

If we look back to the diverse origins of the laws of warfare, one basic question which seems to have occupied the early lawmakers was: why, in fact, should there be legal limitations to belligerent actions aimed at destroying a foreign foe? At first glance, any such constraints would appear to be contrary to the very purpose of warfare and thus of no value to those who were either forced to resist an armed attack or who themselves wished to wage war against an enemy.

Any attempt to spread knowledge of international humanitarian law (the law of armed conflict) and its corresponding obligations among the military and political authorities of a country must be matched by an effort to introduce the subject into academic programmes, where the subject will be taught and studied in greater depth.

Today, international humanitarian law is a minor component of the academic curriculum at universities in the countries of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), constituting only a small part of the public international law course offered at leading law faculties. Until very recently, although the relevant treaties and instruments of international humanitarian law existed in the Russian language, they were not readily available in libraries and were very seldom the subject of academic study and research.

In the following pages I will give an account on how the Norwegian Red Cross reacted to the tragic killing of six ICRC delegates in Chechnya in December 1996. Then was the time for action; now is the time for reflection.

For the Movement as a whole it is vital that we now focus on the security issue as it affects our Red Cross/Red Crescent workers. At the same time, we must never let evil acts like this paralyse our ability to operate in conflict areas.

The request by the United Nations General Assembly, in resolution 49/75 K (1994), that the International Court give an advisory opinion on the question “Is the threat or use of nuclear weapons in any circumstance permitted under international law?” gave the Court an unusual opportunity to consider the principles of international humanitarian law. It is an opportunity which the Court might well have preferred to do without. The question was not well framed and the reasons for asking it were wholly unsatisfactory. In particular, the necessarily abstract nature of the question placed the Court in an exceptionally difficult position, because it could not possibly consider all the combinations of circumstances in which nuclear weapons might be used or their use threatened. Yet unless one takes the position that the use of nuclear weapons is always lawful (which is obvious nonsense), falls wholly outside the law (which no State suggested) or is always unlawful (a view which has had some supporters but which the majority of the Court quite rightly rejected), then the answer to the General Assembly's question would have to depend upon a careful examination of those circumstances.

In the early hours of 17 December 1996, six members of the Red Cross team working at the ICRC hospital in Novye Atagi, Chechnya, were murdered in their sleep by a group of masked men using weapons fitted with silencers. A seventh delegate was wounded but managed to escape with his life.

The Advisory Opinion delivered by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on the legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons was a somewhat disappointing if not entirely unexpected decision. After the final paragraph, which constitutes the dispositif, all fourteen judges appended either personal declarations, separate opinions or dissenting opinions to indicate the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with specific findings and particular aspects of the reasoning behind the Opinion.

The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda was created on 8 November 1994 by the United Nations Security Council, of which it is a subsidiary body. Its task is to help restore and maintain peace and bring about national reconciliation by trying persons allegedly responsible for acts of genocide and other grave breaches of international humanitarian law committed in Rwanda and Rwandan citizens suspected of committing such acts and violations in the territory of neighbouring States between 1 January and 31 December 1994.

There are few institutions in the world which are able to assemble officers from all the countries of the globe, who wear their own uniforms and live and work together for two weeks. One of these is the International Institute of Humanitarian Law in San Remo, Italy.

This non-governmental organization was set up in 1970 for the purpose of promoting the dissemination and development of international humanitarian law. The choice of the Italian seaside resort of San Remo was not accidental. It was there that Alfred Nobel spent the last years of his life, and he left all his property to the humanitarian cause. The villa he occupied until his death became the headquarters of the International Institute of Humanitarian Law.

The 1977 Protocols additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, adopted after a complex process of preparatory work and negotiations in various fora, have not been formally applicable in many armed conflicts. Yet it would not be appropriate to say that they have not stood the test of reality. One of the most important effects of these instruments on State practice has been to generate a large number of experts on the subject in all regions of the world, sharing knowledge on the interpretation of relevant rules and facing the challenge of their implementation.

It is an honour and a privilege for me to address this Conference devoted to a topic of great importance to the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). As a humanitarian organization, whose mandate it is to provide protection and assistance for victims of armed conflicts and which is operational worldwide, the ICRC has been directly concerned with many peace-keeping missions undertaken by the United Nations.

Hans Bachmann, an honorary member of the ICRC, died on 7 July 1997, a few days after his 85th birthday.

Mr Bachmann had a long career in the service of the ICRC. A lawyer by profession, he joined the institution in early 1942, in the middle of the Second World War. He immediately occupied senior posts under Carl Burckhardt and in relief operations, playing a key role in the Joint Relief Commission and especially in the Foundation for the organization of Red Cross transport, which he was instrumental in setting up. The Foundation conducted activities on an unprecedented scale, supplying countries affected by the conflict and its aftermath. At the beginning of 1946 Mr Bachmann left the ICRC but returned 12 years later, in 1958, as a member of the Committee, on which he remained until 1976. In this capacity he served on the Presidential Council from 1963 to 1971 and as Vice-President of the ICRC from 1964 to 1965 and from 1968 to 1971. When he decided to leave the Committee in 1976, he was appointed an honorary member and was awarded the ICRC silver medal by the then President Éric Martin, in recognition of his long years of service.

On 8 July 1996, the International Court of Justice finally rendered its Advisory Opinion on the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons. The procedure had been dragging on since the start of the public sittings on 30 October 1995. Several deadlines set by the Court for reaching a decision came and went, ultimately giving rise to the fear that there would be no decisive majority to affirm the basic unlawfulness of the use of nuclear weapons. This would have been a bitter setback for the initiators of the Advisory Opinion proceeding and for the development of international law.

In the face of the atrocities committed in Rwanda between April and July 1994, the international community committed itself to ensuring respect for international humanitarian law and trying those responsible for breaches of it. Thus, on 8 November 1994, the United Nations Security Council adopted resolution 955 creating the International Criminal Tribunal for the prosecution of persons responsible for genocide and other serious violations of international humanitarian law committed in the territory of Rwanda and of Rwandan citizens responsible for such acts committed in the territory of neighbouring States.

At its meetings on 4 July 1996 and 24 April 1997, the Assembly of the International Committee of the Red Cross elected three new members of the Committee:

Mr. Jean-Roger Bonvin

Mr. Peter Arbenz

Mr. Jakob Nüesch

This brings the membership of the Committee to 21 members.

It is not without reservations that I am responding to the invitation from the Review for ‘veterans’ of the Diplomatic Conference on the reaffirmation and development of international humanitarian law applicable in armed conflicts (hereafter the Diplomatic Conference) to commemorate the signing 20 years ago of the Protocols additional to the Geneva Conventions. On 8 June 1977, all of us who contributed in one way or another to the drafting of those texts felt a sense of relief at having finally achieved our task. We also felt a kind of exhilaration at the thought that we had successfully completed an important undertaking that would benefit war victims. The two Protocols represented a major leap forward in the law of armed conflict. It should not be forgotten that practically two-thirds of the international community have now ratified these instruments. Yet compliance with them regrettably remains far from satisfactory. I need hardly recite the tragic litany of conflicts over the past 20 years that bear out this deficiency. The case best known to me is that of the “Yugoslav wars” (1991–1995). They constitute the clearest example of the yawning gap between the law itself and the degree to which it is implemented. What is even more worrying is that all of this is taking place in a world where the demise of “totalitarianism” has left the world with what is, for all practical purposes, a single centre of power. This centre comprises those States which, since the International Peace Conference held in 1899 in The Hague, have been inspired by their democratic traditions and their attachment to human rights and the rule of law to play a leading role in developing, affirming and reaffirming what today constitutes international humanitarian law applicable in armed conflicts. I therefore believe that this divergence between the letter of the law and the conduct of those responsible for implementing it results from a lack of determination on the part of governments to “ensure respect” for that law throughout the world. I am in no doubt whatsoever that they have sufficiently efficacious means at their disposal to do so. What is missing, unfortunately, is the political will.

In the past few years there has been a growing awareness of the need to strengthen implementation of international humanitarian law. States thus have to create the means enabling them to fulfil their obligation to respect and ensure respect for humanitarian law. This requires them to take action in peacetime and to adopt national measures to guarantee compliance with the law in all circumstances.