Florence Anselmo is Head of the Central Tracing Agency and Protection Division at the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). Between September 2016 and June 2025, she was in charge of the Central Tracing Agency (CTA), leading and coordinating efforts to prevent disappearance, reconnect separated families, bring answers and support to families of missing persons and promote the protection of the dead. For this purpose, she convened on CTA matters across the ICRC and beyond and has overseen the development of a new strategy for Restoring Family Links for the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement. She is also in charge of the management of protection data.

Florence worked for the ICRC from 2001 until 2007, first as Field Delegate in Colombia, then as Head of Sub-Delegation in Burundi and in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. From 2007 until 2016 she worked for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) in Jerusalem as protection coordinator, setting up and developing UNRWA’s protection strategy and activities in the West Bank. She holds a bachelor’s degree and master’s degree in political sciences from the University of Lausanne.

Dr Pierre Guyomarc’h is Head of Forensics at the ICRC. A forensic anthropologist trained at the University of Bordeaux (MSc 2008, PhD 2011), his research has focused on human identification, medical imaging and craniofacial analysis. He previously worked at the US Defense POW/MIA Accounting Agency, contributing to the identification of missing service members while advancing innovative forensic methods. Since joining the ICRC in 2014, Pierre has led forensic operations in contexts such as Ukraine, Lebanon and Georgia, and he has overseen programmes from headquarters since 2017. Today, he directs a global team of around 100 experts implementing humanitarian forensic action in conflict and crisis-affected settings worldwide.

With the advent of socio-technical systems that gather and process personal data, the capacity to identify and even locate people in an automated fashion has dramatically increased. This article discusses what militaries need to know about data protection and the right to digital privacy/private life when personal data is processed. The focus in this discussion is on sensitive data that makes individuals identifiable. It is here argued that the right to data protection and the right to digital privacy/private life are distinctive and separate rights and should be treated as such, despite some overlaps. Although the law of armed conflict approaches processing of sensitive data in a topical manner, it remains firm on the delimitation between what is permissible and what becomes unlawful when it comes to processing data. This article illustrates that elements of both data protection and protection of the right to privacy/private life can be traced in the law of armed conflict. In fact, both rights remain distinctive also in times of armed conflict and must be separately protected through obligations of result as well as obligations of conduct.

Judge Roberto Carlos Vidal López is a Lawyer and Professor at the Pontificia Universidad Javeriana in Bogotá, where he gained a PhD in law. Since 1997 he has been a Professor and Expert Researcher there on human rights, international humanitarian law (IHL), forced migration and internal displacement. He has also studied history.

In addition to his work as a Professor, Judge Vidal López has been a Lecturer at the Universidad del Rosario and a Visiting Researcher at the University of Essex in the United Kingdom. He has worked for the Ideas for Peace Foundation, the United Nations in Colombia, the International Association for the Study of Forced Migration, the University Network for Peace, the Ombudsman’s Office of Colombia and the Brookings Institution, a major Washington-based think tank. He has also produced thirty publications, including Truth-Telling and Internal Displacement in Colombia (2012), The Participation of Internally Displaced People in Peace Processes in Colombia (2007) and Derecho global y desplazamiento interno: Creación, uso y desaparición del desplazamiento forzado por la violencia en el derecho contemporáneo (2007).

This article explores the implications of attaching military chaplains and similar religious personnel to State and non-State fighting forces, and what this means for international humanitarian law (IHL). IHL assigns religious personnel a non-combatant humanitarian function equivalent to medical personnel, stipulating that they should perform exclusively religious duties. This underestimates the scope of “religious” activity, however, particularly the moral dimension of their ministry and the force-multiplying and restraining effects that this has on combatant behaviour. As representatives of non-State institutions embedded within military structures, many religious personnel also enjoy a unique degree of access to – and separation from – the chain of command, and can leverage this autonomy to influence the conduct of hostilities. The more that religious personnel are invested in the achievement of a fighting force's military objectives and are involved in its military operations, the likelier it is that they will test the parameters of their humanitarian function, and the protections they enjoy, under IHL. Moreover, some clerics associated with fighting forces do not aspire to non-combatant or exclusively humanitarian status, and should not be considered religious personnel. It is in the midst of armed conflict that religious personnel are most needed, however, and the tensions and ambiguities between their religious and military support functions are integral to their cross-cutting role. The contribution that religious personnel can make to humanizing war, and socializing IHL or corresponding religious principles, depends on them being present to support combatants and not confining themselves to a separate, but less effectual, humanitarian space. Criteria for their humanitarian exclusivity, attachment to fighting forces and protections under IHL therefore require some clarification.

Stephen Fonseca has been involved in medicolegal death investigation for over twenty-seven years, with a focus on forensic human identification and on education and professional development in forensic investigations and emergency management. He has co-authored several articles on forensic human identification. As a coroner in Canada, he led the development of a provincial forensic identification system to concurrently address recently reported and historical unsolved identification cases and managed the Identification and Disaster Response Unit (IDRU) in British Columbia for eight years. The IDRU was regionally recognized for the implementation of the multidisciplinary Identification Information Management Model, for which Stephen received the Queen Elizabeth II Diamond Jubilee Medal. He joined the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) in 2013, initially working in the Middle East and thereafter supporting authorities primarily in Africa and globally with the implementation of well-functioning medico-legal systems and improvement of forensic identification in peacetime as well as during and after conflict, disasters and migration. He is currently the Head of the ICRC’s African Centre for Medicolegal Systems, a satellite hub of the Central Tracing Agency’s (CTA) Advisory Red Cross and Red Crescent Missing Persons Centre. Stephen leads the ICRC’s global Military Personnel Identification (MPI) Project, working with State armed forces around the world to develop global guidelines and implement measures to reduce the number of military personnel who become unaccounted for.

Vaughn Rossouw is an admitted Advocate of the High Court of South Africa. He holds an LLB and an LLM (cum laude) in public international law from the University of Pretoria, specializing in international humanitarian law (IHL) and human rights in military operations. Vaughn joined the ICRC in 2022 as Legal Adviser to the CTA’s African Centre for Medicolegal Systems, advising State authorities and stakeholders in the forensic science services sector on the applicable international and domestic legal frameworks with respect to missing persons and their families, and on the dignified management of the dead in armed conflict and other situations of violence. Vaughn was featured in the Review’s “Emerging Voices” issue of 2021 and has co-authored publications on transnational investigative approaches to address missing and deceased migrants in Southern Africa together with colleagues at the ICRC Pretoria Regional Delegation.

Bearing in mind that the peace process between the Colombian government and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia – People's Army (Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia – Ejército del Pueblo, FARC-EP) has been an important milestone for transitional justice, this article aims to share some of the good practices and achievements of this process, as well as the setbacks and challenges that could be avoided in future peace processes. The article will highlight relevant contributions from the Chamber for Amnesty or Pardon (CAP) such as impacting the resocialization of former FARC-EP members and developing international humanitarian law discussions in relation to war crimes and less serious crimes. Additionally, it will describe some of the main challenges faced by the CAP, such as the high number of applications for transitional benefits that it receives, the high number of proceedings that it supervises, and the security concerns arising from implementing a peace agreement in a country still in conflict.

This article outlines and evaluates several unique challenges associated with legal support to special operations. It describes the essential differences between special tactics, techniques and procedures and conventional military operations. It offers a US perspective on how treaty and customary international laws apply to various special operations, including precision attacks against “high-value targets”, hostage rescue missions, and support to partner and proxy forces. It examines the benefits and drawbacks of heavy reliance on special operations during armed conflict, including an assessment of the legal challenges that arise when special operations forces become a primary feature of a military campaign. Finally, it highlights how the assumption of substantial military and political risk impacts the application of international law to special operations at the tactical level.

In its Macro Case 01, the Colombian Special Jurisdiction for Peace (Jurisdicción Especial para la Paz, JEP) studied massive detentions committed by the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia – People's Army (Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia – Ejército del Pueblo, FARC-EP) to determine if they should be remanded to amnesty proceedings or tried as international crimes. This included the question of detention of civilians and persons hors de combat for an eventual “humanitarian exchange” with imprisoned guerrilla fighters. The JEP concluded that this was in fact the crime of hostage-taking, because the sole reason for the detention was to force a “prisoner exchange”, and conditions of detention were so harrowing that persistent detention amounted to a threat to the life and physical security of the hostages. While the JEP did not refer to conditions of lawful detention, the ruling does suggest circumstances of lawful detention by non-State armed groups and limits to their authority to detain.

Michael S. Pollanen is a Canadian medical doctor with over twenty years of experience as a forensic pathologist and Professor at the University of Toronto. His main area of expertise is the application of forensic medicine to investigating human rights abuses, with a focus on clinical and autopsy investigations of torture, extrajudicial killing, and death of detainees, and humanitarian action. He is also dedicated to forensic capacity development in resource-limited settings in order to strengthen medico-legal systems. He has consulted for various organizations and is a past president of the International Association of Forensic Sciences. Michael has worked in over twenty countries and has published over 100 peer-reviewed articles.

While sexual violence is receiving increasing attention in terms of international humanitarian and criminal law, and on the world political scene, this does not apply to all aspects of such crimes. Sexual acts on dead bodies are a common practice in times of armed conflict, constituting an affront to universal moral values that exacerbates the violence, domination and humiliation which motivates such abuses. However, such crimes have rarely been prosecuted under international criminal law, and where they have, perpetrators have been charged with umbrella offences or in connection with the protection of human dignity rather than with sexual offences. To explain this tendency, the present article takes stock of the legal treatment of sexual violence on dead bodies, examining the legal, philosophical and moral concepts that apply, with a view to obtaining recognition of such acts as sexual offences.

How international law applies to the use of information and communications technology by States is still a matter of discussion. Against this background, cyberspace has become the main area of competition between States, and this competition, to put it simply, is resulting in a constant low-intensity warfare below the threshold for a use of force. Such low-intensity cyber warfare, from a legal point of view, revitalizes the debate over the concept of a “state of intermediacy” that has the potential to overcome the dichotomy between peace and war. In the present author's opinion, this state of intermediacy also supports the idea that the international humanitarian law (IHL) principle of distinction should be applied, even before the eruption of a full-scale war, whenever wartime means and capabilities are employed by States. This paper argues that some opacities in international law have created favourable conditions for such constant low-intensity warfare, and that tackling the identified opacities would therefore be beneficial in order to achieve a more peaceful cyberspace. Thus, the paper goes on to address one of the identified opacities, namely the definition of espionage under international law, because, as international law now stands, it does not allow us to tackle the other identified opacities. Finally, the paper discusses how the proposed narrow interpretation of espionage can cope with the IHL principle of distinction in the cyber domain.

This article examines the role of international humanitarian law (IHL) in safeguarding artisanal fishing communities residing along the banks of the Magdalena River in Colombia after the recognition of the river as a rights-bearing entity1 and a victim of the armed conflict. The article also explores the potential of targeted peacebuilding interventions for achieving sustainable well-being, ecological restoration and enduring peace. Against the backdrop of historical conflict, the Magdalena River and its adjoining communities have suffered significant harm, requiring widespread reparations that go beyond immediate crisis management. The study proposes a comprehensive approach for achieving sustainable well-being, ecological restoration and enduring peace, acknowledging the complex connections between legal frameworks, environmental considerations and the cultural heritage of the riverine community.

This article analyzes the main investigative and legal challenges addressed by the Acknowledgment Chamber of the Colombian Special Jurisdiction for Peace (SJP) in Case 07 on recruitment and use of children in the armed conflict. First, it presents a general background on the mandate of the SJP as a special system of justice – the outcome of the 2016 Final Peace Agreement reached between the Colombian government and the former FARC-EP guerrilla group. Second, it outlines how the investigative methodology used in Case 07 addressed challenges related to understanding child recruitment as a complex criminal phenomenon, the identification of those bearing the greatest responsibility, and the approach to the broad scale and scope of the victimization. Finally, the article addresses the main challenges faced by the Chamber in the legal qualification of the criminal patterns identified, and how it resolved three key issues: the determination of the age threshold under which child recruitment constitutes a war crime, the definitions of the international humanitarian law status of protections of individuals within an armed group, and the classification of different forms of gender-based violence as war crimes.

It is sometimes said that cruel yet short wars are better for humanity than restrained yet lengthy ones. The idea finds sympathy among Francis Lieber and his Prussian contemporaries, as well as some modern writers who back selective non-compliance with international humanitarian law (IHL) on act-utilitarian grounds. This article refutes three underlying claims and reaffirms that IHL progressively narrows room for crude interest-balancing by its duty-bearers. First, it is claimed that toughening wars quickens them, whereas moderating wars prolongs them. This empirical claim overlooks how actions of the party resorting to brutality – the “brutalizer”, for short – interact with the intention of its adversary. Although the brutalizer clearly controls the amount of violence that it chooses to inflict on its opponent, it does not control the opponent's will to resist and, consequently, the length of the war it fights. History abounds with instances where adding cruelty has stiffened the enemy's resolve rather than accelerating surrender. Second, it is claimed that ruthless but swift wars lessen net inhumanity. On this act-utilitarian view, it is normatively superior to hasten wars through barbarity than to lengthen them through moderation; it is therefore the brutalizer's responsibility to toughen fighting and the brutalized party's responsibility to refrain from resisting the brutalizer. Problematically, the brutalizer usurps authority by imposing its own utilitarian considerations upon the brutalized party. Moreover, the brutalizer blames its disobliging adversary for the extra bloodshed to which it resorts in the name of maximum utility. Third, it is claimed that IHL does or should permit non-conformity when non-conformity stands a reasonable chance of increasing net humanity. This position is inconsistent with IHL's functions, however. IHL does aim to reduce net wartime harm, but it would be a mistake to assume that utilitarian ends necessarily justify, let alone require, utilitarian means. When IHL enacts unqualified rules, it predetermines their conformity or non-conformity through processes that are distinctly not act-utilitarian. Nowhere in these processes do lesser-evil justifications naturally belong.

Enforced disappearance and death – and, by extension, the protection of the dead – are related to each other, but this relationship is more nuanced and sensitive that it may initially seem. An automatic equation between the two, as well as the hasty application of presumptions, triggers significant – and often undesirable – practical, legal and psychological consequences. This article explores how this ambiguity is, to a certain extent, unavoidable, and must therefore be reflected in the interpretation of the core international obligations related to enforced disappearance, namely the search for the disappeared, including through inter-State cooperation; investigation aimed at identifying those responsible for the crime, followed by prosecution and sanction; and the provision of psychosocial support and reparations for the harm suffered.

Imagine a future where man and machine become one on the battlefield, where soldiers direct weapon systems through a neural implant. Research advances on brain–computer interfaces (BCIs) may eventually allow such control of arms at the speed of thought. This article sketches two modes of BCI-controlled weapon systems. In Mode A (active BCI), the soldier opens fire by actively imagining that he is pushing a button with his hand. By contrast, Mode B (reactive BCI) captures neural signals evoked instantly after having spotted a target, before the operator becomes consciously aware of it. If he deems the target lawful, the brain signal is translated into a command to fire. Arguing that such man–machine collaboration transforms the operating soldier into a means of warfare, this article conducts a weapon review in line with Article 36 of Additional Protocol I (AP I) to answer the question of whether BCIs can be lawfully used to control weapons in international armed conflict. Consequently, the two set-ups are reviewed on their compliance with the customary targeting principles of international humanitarian law. Since Mode B casts doubt on the amount of control that the soldier retains over his targeting decision, the concept of meaningful human control is transposed from the debate on lethal autonomous weapon systems and applied to BCIs. It is found that reactive BCIs cannot be meaningfully controlled and thus violate the principles of distinction and proportionality. Hence, reactive BCIs are unlawful under Article 36 of AP I.

International treaties commonly request States to submit periodic reports on measures adopted to facilitate compliance with relevant obligations, permitting them to identify shortcomings and develop appropriate policies, promote transparency and facilitate the exchange of good practices. International humanitarian law (IHL) might appear at odds with this approach as its core instruments do not establish a periodic reporting procedure; indeed, only limited reporting activities have been required from States party to the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols. The present paper challenges this perspective, exploring mandatory periodic national reporting activities provided by other treaties forming part of the IHL framework, as in relation to cultural property and weapons systems, as well as more informal reporting mechanisms on IHL developed outside treaty regimes, including those addressing organized armed groups. Taking stock of existing approaches and practices, the paper identifies relevant trends, opportunities and challenges for IHL reporting activities.