The similarity between military occupation and certain operations by international organizations has been stressed by legal scholars. These operations involve the deployment of military forces on a given territory in an often politically and militarily highly unstable context. In the case of transitional international civilian administrations, the authorities thus installed are vested with extensive powers.

However, the formal applicability of the law of occupation to international operations is limited. Insofar as this set of rules is governed by the principle of maintaining the territorial and legislative status quo, it is ill-adapted to the needs of most such operations, which often are deployed to accompany or even bring about institutional change.

In providing for institutions destined to modify the law and institutional structure of certain regions to be put in place, the Security Council's intention was to create situations diverging from the law of occupation's material field of application and consequently requiring identification of a special set of rules. This legal regime should be based on the law of occupation at the start of such operations, and could then be progressively adjusted to meet the specific needs of populations under international administration.

The recent war in Iraq is a perfect illustration of the growing risks faced by journalists working in conflict zones. It is therefore important to call renewed attention to the fact that attacks against journalists and media equipment are illegal under international humanitarian law, which protects civilian persons and objects, as long as they are not making an effective contribution to military action: The media cannot be considered a legitimate target, even if they are being used for propaganda purposes, unless they are being exploited to instigate grave breaches of humanitarian law. Journalists and media personnel also benefit from precautionary measures — not confined to them alone — such as the principle of proportionality and the obligation to give advance warning. There is nonetheless an evident need for the adoption of a new instrument, on the one hand to reaffirm those elements of humanitarian law that apply to journalists and media personnel, and thus to reestablish the authority of certain basic rules that are all too often flouted, and, on the other hand, to improve existing law and adapt it to the requirements of today, for instance the phenomenon of “embedded” journalists. Such is the goal of the “Declaration on the safety of journalists and media personnel in situations involving armed conflict”, drawn up in 2003 by Reporters without Borders.

Humanitarian organizations are in a privileged position to observe what happens in war. Perhaps with the exception of war correspondents — “embedded” or otherwise — no other individuals from outside the conflict area get to see what goes on in its midst. Medical humanitarian organizations will often be exposed through their work to the detail of violence committed against civilians; but all humanitarian organizations operational in conflict are likely to witness the brutal effects of the fighting.

Le CICR s'interroge depuis longtemps sur le comportement des combattants en temps de guerre, en particulier sur les paramètres qui interviennent dans le respect ou la violation des normes élémentaires du droit des conflits armés. La violence inhérente à la guerre induit-elle nécessairement une montée aux extrêmes? La guerre est-elle par définition criminogène? Est-elle inéluctablement accompagnée d'un cortège d'atrocités ?

L'étude Origines du comportement dans la guerre a pour objectif de contribuer à améliorer les politiques et les stratégies de communication du Comité International de la Croix-Rouge (CICR), dans le but de prévenir efficacement les violations du droit international humanitaire (DIH). Cet objectif s'articule autour d'une double interrogation:

a) Quels sont les facteurs qui influencent de manière décisive le comportement des combattants en situation de respecter ou de violer le DIH ?

b) Y a-t-il adéquation entre les stratégies de prévention développées par le CICR et les réponses apportées à la question ci-dessus ?

The Roots of Behaviour in War study sought to contribute to improvements in the communication policies and strategies of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) so as to make them more effective in preventing violations of international humanitarian law (IHL). The study addressed two main questions:

a) What are the key factors which influence the behaviour of bearers of weapons so that they respect or violate IHL in any given situation?

b) Do prevention strategies drawn up by the ICRC take due account of the answers given to the foregoing question?

The application of international humanitarian law (IHL) and international human rights law to UN-mandated forces raises many questions. Several of these were discussed by a panel of academic experts, representatives of governments and international organizations, military legal advisors and ICRC lawyers in Geneva on 11–12 December 2003.

The meeting was divided into three sessions. Two were devoted to the application of international humanitarian law, and one to the application of international human rights law to UN-mandated forces, according to the following framework:

– Working session I: General application of international humanitarian law;

– Working session II: Application of the law of occupation;

– Working session III: Beyond IHL: Aspects of the application of international human rights law.

The meeting only addressed the case of UN-mandated operations, whether under UN, national or regional command and control. Multinational forces acting without a mandate from the UN Security Council were not a focus of the discussions.

Over thirty years ago the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) submitted a report on the reaffirmation and development of the laws and customs applicable in armed conflicts to the 21st International Conference of the Red Cross held in Istanbul. The purpose of that report was to identify legal issues that, in the ICRC's view, warranted a new effort to codify international humanitarian law (IHL). As is well known, almost a decade later, the texts of the two Protocols Additional to the Geneva Conventions were adopted and opened for signature and ratification. Additional Protocol I, among other things, codified rules on the conduct of hostilities, expanded the protection of certain categories of persons and included, among others, wars of national liberation within the scope of international armed conflict. Protocol II, although more ambitiously envisaged at the start, elaborated on the provisions of Article 3 common to the Geneva Conventions and laid down basic safeguards that must be applied in non-international armed conflicts.

Il y a trente ans, le Comité International de la Croix-Rouge (CICR) a présenté un rapport sur la « réaffirmation et le développement des lois et coutumes applicables aux conflits armés » à la 21e Conférence internationale de la Croix-Rouge qui se tenait à Istanbul. Le but de ce rapport était d'identifier les questions juridiques qui, de l'avis du CICR, justifiaient un nouvel effort pour codifier le droit international humanitaire (DIH). Comme on le sait, près d'une décennie plus tard, les textes des deux Protocoles additionnels aux Conventions de Genève ont été adoptés et ouverts à signature et ratification. Le Protocole additionnel I, entre autres, codifiait les règles relatives à la conduite des hostilités, élargissait la protection de certaines catégories de personnes et faisait entrer, notamment, les guerres de libération nationale dans le périmètre des conflits armés internationaux. Le Protocole II, bien qu'envisagé dès le début de manière plus ambitieuse, développait les dispositions de l'article 3 commun aux Conventions de Genève et fixait des garanties de base à appliquer lors des conflits armés non internationaux.

The 2003 Law on Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law was promulgated on 5 August 2003, published on 7 August 2003 and entered into force on the same date. It abrogates the 1993 Law on the Punishment of Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law and introduces its content into other laws. The law of 5 August 2003 and the substantial changes it brings about were described in the previous Biannual update of January — June 2003.