View previous stories
	When international humanitarian law is violated we all, ultimately, pay the price by International Committee of the Red Cross   "The bombing of hospitals, the massive displacement of civilians and the scourge of sexual violence in war have almost become commonplace", says the president of the ICRC, Peter Maurer.   "Human suffering in conflict is nothing new. But collectively, we''re failing in our response to it. Not enough countries, not enough armies, not enough armed groups, are abiding by the fundamental human values enshrined in the Geneva Conventions.   When international humanitarian law is violated we all, ultimately, pay the price."   "The Geneva Conventions are based on the principle that wars have limits, and these limits are as necessary today as they ever were," says the director of international law and policy at the ICRC, Helen Durham.   "Every State around the world has signed up to the Geneva Conventions, which prohibit attacks on medical facilities, torture and the mistreatment of prisoners.   Those with the power to make such practices stop have a legal duty to do so. The Geneva Conventions help preserve our humanity during times of conflict. If we lose that, what are any of us left with?"   War has limits and we need to know them, says Phoebe Wynn-Pope, Director of International Humanitarian Law at Australian Red Cross.   Shocking images and stories from Syria, and the new offensive on Mosul in Iraq, have led our public conversation to a topic fundamental to our common humanity: What behaviour are we prepared to accept in war?   The Mosul offensive launched last week is likely to see up to a million people fleeing for safety as the fighting progresses.   Right now, respect for humanitarian law is all the people of Mosul can hope for, not simply from those holding the city but from those attacking it.   Even wars have laws, and they apply to everyone. Their fundamental purpose is to prevent atrocity, to protect those who are not fighting, to contain the damage and preserve life, insofar as that is possible.   The laws of war are called "international humanitarian law" with good reason. Their intent is to limit how wars are fought, in an effort to balance humanity with the demands of military necessity.   In essence, these are the laws of war: don''t target civilians or medical facilities, provide medical care to anyone who''s wounded, regardless of which side they''re on. Treat prisoners of war humanely. Don''t torture, rape or starve people.   These are the laws that might prevent a missile strike on a building full of children, or allow civilians to leave a conflict zone. That mean wounded soldiers can receive medical care and those providing that care don''t get shot.   These laws apply to everyone involved in the fight, and so they speak to our common humanity.   Where soldiers are captured by enemy combatants, the Geneva Conventions say that they must be treated humanely.   The argument we often hear – from all sides – is that not all parties are capable of behaving in accordance with these laws. For our common survival, we need to move past this.   The laws of war are taught to armed forces, governments, agreed at a global level. They are a starting point for a conversation about how to behave even while bombs are falling and guns firing, so that conflicts do not engulf and destroy everyone and everything we love.   My colleague, Professor Marco Sassoli of the University of Geneva, says that the most difficult part of the laws of war is that they apply to everyone, even people we don''t like.   All soldiers on all sides of a conflict remain accountable for their actions. If we seek justice for the crimes of our enemies, then we must be held accountable for our own actions. If we want them to treat our captured soldiers humanely, we have to do the same to theirs. If we want a world worth fighting for, the starting point is our common humanity and the rule of law.   It''s simple to say and hard to believe, especially when we hear tales of atrocity from all around the world. But in these times we seek light in the darkness, small signs that humanity can prevail.   The release of 21 kidnapped girls in Nigeria last week may be one such candle of hope. The delivery of food and medicines to besieged towns in Syria is another.   Global survey reveals strong support for Geneva Conventions (ICRC)   With fighting intensifying around the Syrian city of Aleppo, a new survey, on how people around the world perceive a range of issues relating to war, indicates overwhelming support in the belief that wars should have limits.   The survey of over 17,000 people took place between June and September, in sixteen countries. Ten of those countries were experiencing armed conflict at the time including Iraq, Afghanistan and South Sudan.   The permanent member countries of the UN Security Council (P5 - China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States) were also part of what is the largest survey of its kind ever carried out by the ICRC.   Eight in ten people surveyed think combatants should avoid civilians as much as possible when attacking the enemy. The same number thinks attacking hospitals, ambulances and healthcare workers, in order to weaken an enemy, is wrong.   "In such troubled times, it''s heartening to see that the vast majority of people believe that the laws of war matter. This recognition of basic human values flies in the face of the appalling violations we see on a daily basis in our work", said the president of the ICRC, Peter Maurer.   "The results also show that we all need to redraw a line in the sand: torture in any form is forbidden. We demonise our enemies at our own peril. Even in war, everyone deserves to be treated humanely. Using torture only triggers a race to the bottom. It has a devastating impact on the victims, and it brutalizes entire societies for generations."   The survey indicates that if you live in or near a conflict-affected country, you are more likely to respond humanely to questions on the laws of war. In P5 countries, it appears that people are more resigned to civilian casualties and suffering as an inevitable part of warfare:   78% of people living in countries affected by war said it was wrong to attack enemy combatants in populated areas, knowing that many civilians would be killed. In P5 countries, only 50% of people said it''s wrong.   26% of people in P5 countries think depriving the civilian population of essentials like food, water and medicine to weaken the enemy is just "part of war", compared to 14% in countries affected by war.   "Faced with constant, gruesome images from the world''s frontlines, we must not lose our empathy and become numb to human suffering," said Mr Maurer. "But the overwhelming message from this survey is that people truly believe in the importance of international humanitarian law, including the Geneva Conventions, and the protection of civilians during times of conflict."   The four Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols seek to limit the effects of warfare on those who do not participate in hostilities, such as civilians or wounded and captured combatants.   "The effectiveness and relevance of the laws of war are being questioned perhaps more than at any time in recent history", added Mr Maurer. "And yet, it is clear that people do not believe in a battlefield ''free for all''. The survey shows that there''s a disconnect between the public, who believe that targeting civilians, hospitals and humanitarian workers is unacceptable, and the policies and actions of States and armed groups who commit these acts."   http://www.rcrcmagazine.org/2016/09/humanity-under-fire/ Visit the related web page
	States must act now to fulfil famine victims’ right to food by Hilal Elver Special Rapporteur on the right to food   The tragic reality of famine around the world has revealed that many States are failing to uphold their legal responsibilities, the UN Special Rapporteur on the right to food, Hilal Elver, told the UN General Assembly.   She also called for an urgent shift in thinking away from crisis reactions and toward famine prevention.   “Contrary to popular belief, casualties resulting directly from combat usually make up only a small proportion of deaths in conflict zones, with most individuals in fact perishing from hunger and disease,” Ms. Elver said in her annual report to the General Assembly.   The Special Rapporteur said that this year the world has faced the largest humanitarian crisis since the creation of the United Nations. Around 20 million people have faced famine and “devastating” starvation in crises in north-east Nigeria, Somalia, South Sudan, Syria and Yemen, all of which had arisen from conflict.   Another estimated 70 million people in 45 countries currently require emergency food assistance, an increase of 40 per cent from 2015, she said, also highlighting the serious starvation and severe right to food violations currently affecting the Rohingya people.   Ms. Elver hailed the “essential” work of the international humanitarian system in getting food to conflict victims and lowering death tolls.   But she said States and other parties involved in conflicts needed to recognize their own duty to act, and above all, avoid using hunger as a weapon of war. The right to food is an unconditional human right and legal entitlement for all people, not a discretionary option, she stressed.   “The human right to adequate food is a core right, indispensable for the enjoyment of all other human rights,” Ms Elver stated. “Freedom from hunger is accepted as part of customary international law, rendering it binding on all States.   “It is crucial that the international community understands that it is an international crime to intentionally block access to food, food aid, and to destroy production of food. Such acts as crimes against humanity, or war crimes.”   She added that the most serious cases should be referred to the International Criminal Court for investigation and possible prosecution.   “If the international community is serious about the imperative character of the right to food and the eradication of food insecurity in times of war and peace, steps must be taken to encourage the implementation of existing standards and to codify international law principles applicable to the right to food,” the expert said.   The Special Rapporteur urged all governments to focus on long-term policies to break the vicious cycle of recurring famines.   “Human rights violations, war crimes, repression and gross forms of inequality are conditions that frequently give rise to famine,” she said. “The attention and commitment of the international community must, as a matter of the highest priority, be directed toward eliminating the root causes of famine, and not limited to ad hoc responses to the agonizing symptoms of the latest food emergency.”   http://ap.ohchr.org/documents/dpage_e.aspx?si=A/72/188 http://hilalelver.org/ http://starvationaccountability.org/ Visit the related web page
	View more stories