View previous stories
	Respect for the equal dignity and worth of every person by Antonio Guterres United Nations Secretary-General   United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres's remarks to the Amnesty International Global Assembly (25 July 2025 - Extract):   "Representatives of the Amnesty International Movement, it is an honour to join you today – and to be the first United Nations Secretary-General to address your Global Assembly. I see your invitation as a tribute to UN staff working around the world for human rights and for justice. And I see it as a reflection of our shared, fundamental conviction in the equal dignity and worth of every person – a founding principle of both our organisations.   Friends, one morning in the early ‘60s, a British lawyer opened his newspaper on his way to work. It reported that the dictatorship then ruling my country – Portugal – had imprisoned two students. Their crime: raising a toast to freedom. The barrister – Peter Benenson – was so outraged by their plight that he launched a global movement. And Amnesty International was founded.   Ever since, you have been at the forefront of the global struggle for human rights – fearless, principled and relentless:   Campaigning to free prisoners of conscience around the world. Contributing to the establishment of a number of international institutions and the conclusion of a number of treaties – including the Convention Against Torture. Defending the full spectrum of human rights – civil, political, social, economic and cultural. Winning landmark victories for justice -- and earning the Nobel Peace Prize along the way.   The work of Amnesty International reflects truths I lived under dictatorship: That morality demands the courage to stand against oppression. That solidarity and justice are both personal and global. And that the fight for freedom on one continent can reverberate across the globe..   Powerful forces are ranged against human rights – and against the international system built to protect and uphold them. We see attacks on the International Criminal Court. Attacks on the international human rights system and its representatives.   And flagrant violations of international law: From the horrors in Sudan and beyond… To Russia’s invasion in Ukraine where we need a just and lasting peace based on the UN Charter, international law and UN resolutions. And, of course, the relentless Israeli onslaught on Gaza. I commend Amnesty International for your strong voices.   From the beginning, I have repeatedly condemned the horrific 7 October terror attacks by Hamas. But nothing can justify the explosion of death and destruction since. The scale and scope is beyond anything we have seen in recent times.   I cannot explain the level of indifference and inaction we see by too many in the international community. The lack of compassion. The lack of truth. The lack of humanity.   Our own heroic staff continue to serve in unimaginable conditions. Many are so numb and depleted that they say they feel neither dead nor alive.   Children speaking of wanting to go to heaven, because at least, they say, there is food there. We hold video calls with our own humanitarians who are starving before our eyes.   This is not just a humanitarian crisis. It is a moral crisis that challenges the global conscience. We will continue to speak out. But words don’t feed hungry children.   The United Nations stands ready to make the most of any possible ceasefire to dramatically scale up humanitarian operations across the Gaza Strip.   Since May 27, the United Nations has recorded over 1,000 Palestinians killed trying to access food. Let me repeat: 1,000 people – killed not in combat, but in desperation – while the entire population starves. We need action. An immediate and permanent ceasefire. The immediate and unconditional release of all hostages. Immediate and unimpeded humanitarian access. At the same time, we need urgent, concrete and irreversible steps towards a two-State solution.   We are in a global battle for human dignity. For human rights. For justice. For the multilateral system itself.   Amnesty International is indispensable in that fight. So, my message to you today is this: the world needs you more than ever. We need your courage, your creativity, and your clarity. We need your movements – rooted in communities and rising from the ground up – making it clear that leaders cannot turn a blind eye to their obligations.   And, yes, we need what you’ve called “troublemaking”. The kind that challenges complacency and inaction. That exposes injustice. That drives lasting change.   Because as I scan the global landscape, I see too many leaders who view human rights as the problem. But we know human rights are the solution.   They are the foundation of peace. They are the engine of progress. And they are the path out of conflict and chaos to security and hope.   You know better than anyone: this work is never easy. And the struggle is always hardest when it matters most – when the urgency is greatest and the stakes are highest. But I want to assure you: you are not alone. In the face of crisis, we must stand together – and act together.   Let me turn to your focus for this year’s Global Assembly: confronting the rise of authoritarian practices – and advancing climate justice.   First – authoritarianism. Around the world, we are witnessing a surge in repressive tactics aiming at corroding respect for human rights. And these are contaminating some democracies. This is not a series of isolated events. It is a global contagion.   Political opposition crushed. Accountability dismantled. Equality and non-discrimination trampled. The rule of law cast aside.   On the other hand, civil society – the lifeblood of any free nation – is suffocated. We see activists and journalists silenced – even murdered. Minorities scapegoated. Women and girls stripped of their most basic rights – most brutally in Afghanistan. And all of this is amplified by digital technology.   We must right these wrongs. Countries must recognize and stand firm with human rights. We must push all countries to defend them – consistently, and universally, even – or especially – when inconvenient.   We must urge them to protect and strengthen the international human rights system. We must demand accountability for human rights violations – without fear or favour.   And insist that countries honour the commitments they made to protect civic space, and uphold human rights and gender equality.   We must also demand action to confront the flood of lies and hate polluting our digital spaces. Social media manipulation has become a powerful weapon in the authoritarian playbook. Many algorithms are boosting the worst of humanity – rewarding falsehoods, fuelling racism and misogyny, and deepening division..   The second focus of this Global Assembly is one of the defining struggles of our time: securing climate justice. The climate crisis is not just an environmental emergency. It is a human rights catastrophe.   We must confront and correct the deep injustices it has laid bare: The poor, the vulnerable and the marginalised -- suffering most from a crisis they did nothing to create. Environmental defenders -- arrested, threatened, and even killed for protecting communities and ecosystems.   Land and livelihoods – plundered in the race for minerals critical to clean energy. And climate finance – still wholly inadequate as fossil fuels are propped up by subsidies as others pay the price. All while their political enablers stall and sabotage action.   But we have seen what people power can achieve: From Amnesty’s role in promoting international recognition of the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment. To legal victories that have led courts to clarify States’ obligations on climate.   Just two days ago, the International Court of Justice issued a historic advisory opinion. It made clear that States are obliged to protect the global climate system, that climate change is a human rights issue. And that the goal of limiting global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius must guide climate policies, in accordance with the Paris Agreement.   All of us must build on these hard-won gains – by insisting on legal accountability, and demanding climate justice. That means the biggest economies and emitters leading an urgent global reduction in emissions, and a just transition away from fossil fuels.   New national climate action plans – or NDCs – must align with limiting global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius. They must respect human rights. And they must be shaped in partnership with those most affected – especially marginalized groups.   We need finance for developing countries to adapt to climate shocks, and recover from loss and damage. We must push governments to provide funds they have pledged and explore new sources of finance – including putting an effective price on carbon, and establishing solidarity levies on polluting sectors and industries."   http://www.un.org/sg/en/content/sg/statement/2025-07-25/secretary-generals-remarks-the-amnesty-international-global-assembly-delivered http://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2025/06/why-are-the-sustainable-development-goals-way-off-track http://www.amnesty.org/en/what-we-do/economic-social-and-cultural-rights/ http://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/ Visit the related web page
	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)   Aug. 2025   (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 Visit the related web page
	View more stories