View previous stories
	International humanitarian law is only as strong as leaders’ will to uphold it by Mirjana Spoljaric President of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC)   (Speech given by Mirjana Spoljaric, president of the ICRC, on 18 August 2025 in Bangkok, Thailand on International Humanitarian Law. Extract):   "The ICRC currently classifies approximately 130 armed conflicts. This is more than we recorded last year, and far more than in previous decades.   While the number of countries experiencing armed conflict remains relatively stable, the number of simultaneous or newly escalating conflicts within them is growing. Many are protracted and often last for generations.   Today’s wars are also marked by coalition warfare, the fragmentation of armed groups, and millions of civilians living under the control of non-state armed actors.   Above all, this decade is seeing an increase in wars between states, tectonic political shifts, blurring alliances, and rapid technological advancements, which together exacerbate the risk for more high-intensity conflicts with devastating humanitarian consequences.   As wars multiply and geopolitical divisions deepen, respect for international humanitarian law is in crisis, and with it, our shared humanity. Armed conflict is now the single greatest driver of humanitarian needs. Much of this suffering could have been prevented had the rules of war been better respected.   The ICRC works on frontlines across the world. We know war intimately, and bear witness every day to the scars it carves into people, families, and communities.   In Myanmar, the humanitarian situation remains dire after decades of fighting, compounded by a devastating earthquake in March of this year. Hostilities persist and, in some places, have intensified. Meanwhile, restrictions on the movement of people and goods continue to limit access to essential services for many communities such as those in Rakhine.   Nowhere in Gaza is safe anymore. What we see there surpasses any acceptable legal or moral standards. Civilians are being killed and injured in their homes, in hospital beds, and while searching for food and water. Children are dying because they do not have enough to eat. The entire territory has been reduced to rubble.   Warfare conducted indiscriminately as well as extreme restrictions on humanitarian aid have made conditions unliveable and devoid of human dignity. At the same time, hostages remain in captivity, despite the clear prohibition of hostage-taking under international humanitarian law.   Large-scale drone and missile attacks in the Russia-Ukraine international armed conflict are killing and injuring civilians far from the frontlines. Essential infrastructure is being destroyed. More than 146,000 cases of missing people – both military and civilian – have been reported to the ICRC as of the end of July.   In Sudan, civilians face an unrelenting nightmare of death, destruction, and displacement.   And after nearly four decades of war in Afghanistan, civilians continue to be haunted by mines, unexploded ordnances, and abandoned improvised explosive devices.   The situation in Syria illustrates one of the most heartbreaking and enduring consequences of prolonged conflict: the unresolved fate of the missing. The ICRC has registered over 36,000 missing people. This is likely just a fraction of the true number. If the ICRC had sustained access to all places of detention throughout the conflict, many of these cases might have been resolved or even prevented.   Still today, water supply and electricity are at risk of collapse. At the same time, the recent violence along the coast and southern Syria underscores how the country’s path to peace is fragile – and how quickly clashes can erupt.   The scale of human suffering – in Gaza, Myanmar, Ukraine, Sudan, Afghanistan, Syria and dozens of other countries across the world – must never be accepted as inevitable. These are not unfortunate side effects of war, but consequences of a profound failure to uphold international humanitarian law.   They are the results of political failure. When wars are fought with the mentality of “total victory” or “because we can” a dangerous permissiveness takes root – one where the law is bent to justify killing rather than prevent it. The Geneva Conventions were created specifically to prevent senseless suffering and death.   When hostilities are carried out indiscriminately and when violence is left unchecked, the consequences are catastrophic. Death and destruction become the norm, and not the exception.   In a highly interconnected world, unrestrained violence rarely remains confined to a single battlefield. It reverberates. When the world tolerates unbridled aggression in one conflict, it signals to the others – militaries, non-state armed groups, and their allies – that such behaviour is acceptable elsewhere.   As conflicts escalate, so too does the weaponization of information. Wars are fought today not only on the ground, but also in the digital arena, where harmful narratives and incendiary rhetoric are used to inflame tensions and justify violence.   Horrific events throughout history are rooted in a common element: dehumanisation. Stripping the humanity of others away creates an environment where torture, abuse, and killing is rationalised. There is no such thing as a human animal. No people or territory should ever be erased from the face of the Earth.   In a world increasingly shaped by algorithms, the speed with which harmful narratives can spread is unprecedented – with dangerous real-world consequences.   We witness how genocidal vocabulary eventually translates into gruesome realities on the ground. The vitriolic hatred embedded in such language strips away empathy, creating fertile ground for atrocities to take place. It renders brutality acceptable, or worse, seemingly inevitable.   We are living in a time when the world is not just at war – it is preparing for more war. Global military spending is at record highs. Across regions, states are investing in weaponry, modernising forces, and rearming with a sense of urgency.   As the president of an organisation responding to the horrific consequences of armed conflict, it is my first responsibility to encourage states to de-escalate and not lead the world towards limitless war.   It is also my duty to remind states that responsible conflict preparedness is not measured solely by firepower. It demands sustained respect for international humanitarian law.   We are witnessing a seismic shift in how wars are fought. As states compete in the 21st-century arms race, it is critical to ask: how does IHL apply to these evolving technologies, and what must states consider as they invest in new weapons systems?   Cheap and scalable, drones are becoming one of the defining weapons of today’s wars. Their widespread use is reshaping frontlines and revolutionising the battlefield. Drones are not prohibited under IHL. But like any weapon, they must be used in full compliance with the rules of war.   Low-resolution, analogue systems and operators’ lack of training – especially when it comes to low-cost first-person view drones – raise serious concerns about the ability to distinguish military from civilian targets. Distance does not absolve responsibility. Drone operators and their commanders remain legally accountable for the effects of their actions, just like any other combatant.   Without stronger regulation and accountability, the drone arms race will escalate. More actors will deploy more drones, with fewer safeguards and humanitarian consequences will multiply.   As drones edge towards greater autonomy, they intersect with another deeply concerning development: autonomous weapons systems.   These weapons can select targets and apply force without any human intervention after their activation, raising serious humanitarian, legal, ethical, and security concerns.   Life-and-death decisions must never be delegated to sensors and algorithms. Human control over the use of force is critical to preserving accountability in warfare. Machines with the power to take lives without human involvement should be banned under international law.   Autonomous weapons systems that function in a way that their effects are unpredictable should be prohibited. For example, allowing autonomous weapons controlled by machine-learning algorithms – where the software writes itself without human oversight – is an unacceptably dangerous proposition.   A new legally binding instrument is critical to establish clear prohibitions and restrictions. Without it, we risk condemning future generations to a world where machines decide who lives and who dies, and accountability is dangerously eroded.   We are also in an era where the battlefield is not only physical but digital. Cyber operations have already been used to disrupt electricity, water systems, hospitals, and other civilian infrastructure – often very far from the frontlines.   IHL applies to cyber operations just as it does to conventional means and methods of warfare. The principles of distinction, proportionality, and precaution are just as binding in cyberspace as they are on land.   Civilian protections must be hardwired into digital warfare. That means belligerents must ensure human oversight, refrain from cyber-attacks against civilian infrastructure, and minimize foreseeable harm to civilians and civilian systems.   International humanitarian law also applies to any military activity in outer space related to armed conflict. Disabling or destroying satellites can have serious humanitarian consequences. Satellites that provide navigation, communications, and remote sensing have become indispensable to the functioning of civilian life.   Humanitarian organisations also depend on satellite services to reach people in need. Without these systems, providing life-saving assistance and helping communities recover becomes even more difficult for us.   Just as states must rigorously ensure that new weapons technologies comply with international humanitarian law, they must not neglect their responsibilities concerning conventional weapons.   Putting IHL into action and protecting civilians doesn’t only happen in active conflict zones. It also happens in the choices states make about the kinds of weapons they produce, stockpile, or prohibit.   Today, the global commitment to ban anti-personnel mines is starting to fracture, with several states that once championed disarmament now taking steps to withdraw from the Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention. This is not just a legal retreat on paper; it risks endangering lives and reversing decades of hard-fought progress.   This month also marks 80 years since the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki – a catastrophe that to this day continues to inflict emotional and physical suffering on survivors.   Terrifyingly, the nuclear weapons in today’s arsenals are far stronger. The bombs dropped then would today be classified as a small nuclear weapon.   But there is no such thing as a small nuclear weapon. Any use of nuclear weapons would be a catastrophic event. It would inflict a level of suffering and destruction that no humanitarian response could address. It is extremely doubtful that nuclear weapons could ever be used in accordance with international humanitarian law.   And yet, we continue to see nuclear arsenals expand, and their use be threatened with casualness and frequency. However, the number of states parties to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons continues to grow, with 73 states now parties to the treaty and another 25 that have signed it.   What happens to societies – to the world – if we fall prey to the belief that might alone makes right? When we disregard the rule of law, and pursue victory at any cost?   IHL was not created to prevent war, but to prevent barbarity in war. That distinction is crucial. It recognizes the reality of armed conflict while insisting that even in war, humanity must endure – in how we treat the wounded, in how we protect civilians, and how we treat prisoners.   Protecting hospitals as sanctuaries for the injured is not weakness. Shielding civilians from hostilities is not weakness. Allowing lifesaving aid to reach those in need is not weakness. Treating detainees with dignity is not weakness. It is strength.   It takes strength to act with restraint in the chaos of war. To resist the pull of vengeance and to rise above retribution. To preserve our shared humanity when conflict threatens to erase it.   Parties to conflict that disregard international humanitarian law do so at the cost of legitimacy. The stain of brutality stays long after the guns fall silent. It complicates post-conflict recovery, economic rebuilding, and international cooperation – and lays fertile ground for future violence and security threats to take root.   It is possible, however, to protect civilians in war. When combatants respect the rules of war – when they spare civilians, protect critical infrastructure, and care for the wounded – they reduce the long-term costs of conflict. They make recovery possible. They preserve the social fabric necessary for peace".   http://www.icrc.org/en/statement/ihl-only-as-strong-as-leaders-will-uphold-it   * International Committee of the Red Cross initiative to engage countries in advancing respect for International Humanitarian Law: http://www.upholdhumanityinwar.org/ Visit the related web page
	Countless people are struggling to make ends meet while wealth and power is concentrated at the top by UNU WIDER, V-Dem Institute, agencies   Countless people are struggling to make ends meet while wealth and power is concentrated at the top - World Social Report 2025   Millions of people around the world are living in fear of job loss or struggling to find work, as economic instability, conflict, and climate shocks combine to erode global security, a new UN report has warned.   According to the World Social Report 2025, the sobering sentiment indicates a widespread lack of confidence in the future. Despite people living longer, being better educated and more connected than ever before, many believe that life today is worse than it was 50 years ago.   Close to 60 per cent of people surveyed on life satisfaction reported that they were “struggling” with a further 12 per cent describing themselves as “suffering”, the report notes.   According to the report, economic instability is no longer limited to the world’s poorest regions. Even in high-income countries, rising job uncertainty, gig work and the digital transition are contributing to this trend.   These jobs may offer flexibility but often come at the cost of security and rights – reducing workers to mere service providers in a commodified labour market.   The insecurities are further compounded by an alarming rise in informal employment. In many low and middle-income countries, jobs with no safety net remains the norm, locking workers into cycles of low pay, instability, and zero benefits.   Even those who manage to enter formal employment face significant risks of being pushed back into the informal sector, especially during downturns.   For over 2.8 billion people living on less than $6.85 a day – the threshold for extreme poverty – “even a small shock can send people into extreme poverty and any escapes from poverty are often temporary,” the report warns.   The situation is further complicated by rising climate change impacts and worsening conflicts, further undermining local economies and deepening inequality, especially in the developing world.   As financial pressures mount and stability erodes, public confidence in institutions – and in one another – has also taken a severe hit, particularly among young people.   Over half the world’s population (57 per cent) now expresses low levels of confidence in government. Among those born in the 21st century, trust levels are even lower – raising concerns about long-term civic disengagement and political instability.   People’s trust in one another is also eroding. Fewer than 30 per cent of people in countries with available data believe that most others can be trusted, undermining social cohesion and complicating efforts for collective action.   “The spread of misinformation and disinformation, facilitated by digital technologies, is reinforcing divisions and fuelling distrust,” the report says, warning of abuse and misuse of digital platforms and social media to spread deceit and hate speech, and stoke conflicts.   “Often, users find themselves immersed in virtual and siloed ‘echo chambers’ where they are exposed to news and opinions that align with and may even radicalize their views.”   Platform algorithms facilitate the creation of such echo chambers and reward more extreme content and engagement with higher visibility, the report adds.   To reverse these damaging trends, the report calls for a bold shift in policymaking – one grounded in equity, economic security and solidarity.   It urges governments to invest more in people through expanding access to quality public services – such as education, healthcare, housing and robust social protection systems.   These investments are not discretionary, the report stresses, but essential to promote resilience and inclusive growth.   It also highlights the need to rebuild trust through inclusive and accountable institutions. At the same time, power and wealth needs to become less concentrated at the very top of society.   As momentum builds toward the Second World Summit for Social Development, which will be held in Doha in November, global leadership will be key to driving transformative change.   UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres stressed the need for unity and decisive action in a foreword to the report.   “The global challenges we face demand collective solutions,” he wrote. “Now more than ever, we must strengthen our resolve to come together and build a world that is more just, secure, resilient and united for each and every one of us.”   http://www.wider.unu.edu/news/world-social-report-2025-sounds-alarm-global-social-crisis http://desapublications.un.org/publications/world-social-report-2025-new-policy-consensus-accelerate-social-progress http://www.wider.unu.edu/publication/young-europeans-are-losing-faith-democracy http://unu.edu/merit/article/does-austerity-influence-political-participation-and-opinions-redistribution http://www.wider.unu.edu/publication/safeguarding-tomorrow-social-protection-focus http://www.socialprotectionfloorscoalition.org/   * Paving the Road to the Second World Summit for Social Development. (UNRISD)   The UN Research Institute for Social Development (UNRISD) has launched a global consultation process to offer perspectives from different regions, sectors, and demographic groups on shaping more equitable and impactful social development policies.   In November 2025, the United Nations will convene the Second World Summit for Social Development (WSSD) to address ongoing social challenges and renew commitments made in the 1995 Copenhagen Declaration on Social Development and Programme of Action. The second World Social Summit will also catalyze progress toward the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development by reinvigorating its social pillar grounded in values of social justice, equality and inclusion.   http://www.unrisd.org/en/research/projects/second-world-summit-for-social-development http://www.unrisd.org/en/library/blog-posts/still-reaching-for-the-band-aid-vulnerability-risk-and-the-world-social-summit http://www.socialprotectionfloorscoalition.org/2025/06/second-world-summit-for-social-development-resources/ http://www.socialprotectionfloorscoalition.org/ http://www.ipsnews.net/2025/05/2025-world-social-summit-must-not-missed-opportunity/   High levels of disinformation and polarization fuel democratic backsliding. (V-Dem Institute)   Democratic countries are now in the minority, freedom of expression is declining, and high levels of disinformation and polarization fuel democratic backsliding. This, and much more, is reported in the latest Democracy Report from the V-Dem Institute at the University of Gothenburg.   The wave of democratic backsliding, or autocratization, has been ongoing for 25 years and shows no sign of slowing down, according to the report, authored by a team lead by professor Staffan Lindberg at the V-Dem Institute at the University of Gothenburg.   More countries are autocratizing   45 countries are autocratizing in 2024, an increase from only twelve countries 20 years ago, or 42 countries last year. Many are influential regional powers with large populations, such as Argentina, India, Indonesia, and Mexico.   ”But Western Europe and North America are not immune. Persistent declines in several countries over the past few years – even if it is gradual – start adding up,” says Staffan Lindberg.   Freedom of Expression Affected   Among the top declining indicators that V-Dem measures, the ones relating to freedom of expression are affected the most. They include for example media freedom, harassment of journalists, and freedom of discussion. Freedom of expression is deteriorating in 44 countries in 2024 – a quarter of all the countries in the world – the highest recorded so far, and up from 35 last year.   “Freedom of expression is often first to be attacked during autocratization, and the data shows that government efforts at censoring the media is the preferred weapon of choice against democracy in the 45 autocratizing countries. Adding to this, half of all autocratizing countries increasingly use government disinformation to shape public opinion,” says Staffan Lindberg.   Polarization is increasing in a quarter of all countries in the world. More than half of all countries affected by increasing political polarization are democracies.   Any good news?   Democracy levels are rising in 19 countries. Twelve of the current democratizers started as autocracies, and nine of them transitioned to democracy. The report also finds that autocratization can be halted and reversed, which is currently the case in ten countries, among them Brazil and Poland.   Among the countries improving on democracy levels, the report lists three new countries: Ecuador, Poland and Sri Lanka. Ecuador is also one of the countries that made a democratic turnaround and reversed an ongoing autocratization process.   The report launches a watchlist of countries showing early signs of improving or declining democracy to keep an eye on in the near future. Among the seven countries showing signs of deterioration are Slovakia, Slovenia and Cyprus.   Even if events in 2025 are not included in the V-Dem data the report builds on, adding to the bleak picture is the recent events in the USA.   “The USA now seems to be heading towards a transition away from democracy under President Trump. In my view, the reverberations of this are and will be enormous across the world,” says Staffan Lindberg.   http://www.v-dem.net/news/press-release-restrictions-to-freedom-of-expression-as-democracy-loses-ground/ http://www.v-dem.net/publications/democracy-reports/ http://taxjustice.net/press/financial-secrecy-rocks-democracies-financial-secrecy-index-finds http://www.volkswagenstiftung.de/en/news/news/academic-freedom-index-2025-academic-freedom-has-declined-34-countries http://www.idea.int/theme/gender-and-inclusion http://www.dw.com/en/democracy-falls-in-majority-of-countries-worldwide/a-73955759 http://www.idea.int/gsod/2024/ http://interactive.idea.int/gsod-2025/global-trends http://publications.civicus.org/publications/2025-state-of-civil-society-report/ http://www.kofiannanfoundation.org/elections-democracy/electoral-vulnerability-index/   http://eusee.hivos.org/new-survey-us-funding-freeze-triggers-global-crisis-in-human-rights-and-democracy/ http://eusee.hivos.org/document/the-impact-of-the-us-funding-freeze-on-civil-society/ http://www.ipsnews.net/2025/03/new-survey-us-funding-freeze-triggers-global-crisis-human-rights-democracy/ http://monitor.civicus.org/watchlist-march-2025/USA   May 2025   Convergence alone won’t fix global inequality by 2050 without ambitious redistribution. (World Inequality Database)   What will global income inequality look like in 2050? Will the economic catch-up of developing countries lead to a more equitable world? Or will the rise of top incomes maintain or even exacerbate today’s high levels of inequality? What measures can governments implement to influence future global inequality dynamics?   In a new study, Philipp Bothe, Lucas Chancel, Amory Gethin and Cornelia Mohren address these questions leveraging on a new dataset that includes WID distributional data, UN projections and climate change projections through 2050. They outline diverging pathways for the future of global income inequality horizon 2050.   Key Findings:   In a business-as-usual scenario, overall global income inequality will remain largely unchanged in 2050 compared to today. Without significant changes to current redistribution policies, rising within-country inequality will continue disproportionately benefit the global top 1% who will continue to receive 17% of worldwide income. Meanwhile, rapid growth in developing countries will only slightly increase the average income of the world’s poorest 50%, with their share rising from 10% to 12%.   Progressive “post-tax redistribution” policies, in the form of taxation and cash transfers at a country level, are important but will most likely have a limited impact on the global income distribution on their own.   On the other hand, “pre-tax redistribution”, through measures reshaping the distribution of labor and capital income (e.g. increased government spending on public education and health, and minimum wage policies), will play an essential role in reshaping future inequality.   If all countries aligned both their pre-tax inequality and post-tax redistribution policies with those of the most progressive country in their region, the global bottom 50% income share could double by 2050, reaching nearly 20%. Such policy convergence could be sufficient to offset the effect of four decades of rising within-country inequality.   Climate change is likely to exacerbate existing inequalities further. In a high climate impact scenario, the bottom 50% of the world population could see their income share fall to levels not seen since 1980. This group stands to bear the brunt of climate-related shocks, absorbing nearly three-quarters of total relative income losses.   http://wid.world/news-article/global-inequality-by-2050-convergence-redistribution-and-climate-change/ http://wid.world/news-article/new-version-of-the-global-wealth-tax-simulator-released-at-international-taxing-billionaires-conference/ http://wid.world/world-wealth-tax-simulator/ http://wid.world/news-article/thomas-pikettys-view-on-billionaire-taxation-and-wealth-redistribution http://wid.world/news-article/unequal-exchange-and-north-south-relations/ http://inequalitylab.world/en http://www.taxobservatory.eu/joint-press-release-conclusion-of-the-international-conference-on-taxing-billionaires/ http://www.taxobservatory.eu/publication/a-blueprint-for-a-coordinated-minimum-effective-taxation-standard-for-ultra-high-net-worth-individualsmhttp://www.lemonde.fr/blog/piketty/2024/10/15/how-to-tax-billionaires http://wid.world/news-article/10-facts-on-global-inequality-in-2024/ Visit the related web page
	View more stories