View previous stories
	International humanitarian law is only as strong as leaders’ will to uphold it by ICRC president Mirjana Spoljaric International Committee of the Red Cross   (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
	A Tax on the World’s Ultra-Rich to Fight Hunger and Disease by Lawrence Gostin, Eric Friedman FXB Center for Health and Human Rights at Harvard University, agencies   On April 1, 2025, Forbes published a list of a record 3,028 billionaires worldwide, including 902 in the United States, 516 in China, and 205 in India. Their total net worth was US$16.1 trillion, up nearly US$2 trillion from 2024.   Meanwhile, children and adults are dying of hunger and disease amid humanitarian crises around the world, from Afghanistan and Burma, to Gaza and Yemen, Sudan and the Democratic Republic of Congo, Haiti and Venezuela. In Sudan alone, hundreds of children starve to death every week.   It is time to marry these two realities to the benefit of humankind by ending this starkest of denials of the dignity of every person and our fundamental equality. We propose a tax on the world’s richest people, with the revenue directed to United Nations and partner agencies that are addressing the needs of people who require international assistance to meet their food and other core needs. Ours is ultimately a modest proposal, an approach that could be expanded from meeting immediate humanitarian needs to reducing the financing gap for achieving the storied goal of ending hunger throughout the world and other development and human rights priorities.   United Nations humanitarian assistance appeals—collectively known as the Global Humanitarian Overview (GHO)—cover areas including food security and nutrition, together by far the largest single component, along with health, multipurpose cash, education, emergency shelter, protection, and water, sanitation, and hygiene. Heading into 2025, these appeals—most covering single countries but several addressing regions—aim to cover about 190 million of some 305 million people in urgent need of humanitarian assistance and protection.   In addition, every year the World Food Programme (WFP) issues its own appeal, which partially overlaps with the GHO but also includes funding not incorporated into the GHO (such as for countries without overall humanitarian appeals but in which WFP operates). All told, WFP is targeting 123 million people for support in 2025, yet in the countries where WFP operates, 343 million people (60% of whom are women and girls) are experiencing acute hunger—phase 3 or higher of the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification.   (Each phase, from 1 to 5, with 5 being famine, has its distinct metrics, including mortality, food consumption, nutritional status, and coping strategies.)   A major reason that neither the GHO nor WFP target all in need is inadequate funding. Yet even funding for those targeted for support consistently falls far short. In 2024, the United Nations sought US$49.5 billion in humanitarian assistance to cover more than 40 separate appeals, with similar needs heading into 2025 (US$47.4 billion). The 2024 GHO was just under 50% funded. The 2024 WFP appeal received 46% of required funding. Prospects of improvements are dim as the United States slashes foreign assistance and as increased defense spending and economic stagnation in Europe further threaten development assistance. Contributions for both appeals are well behind those reported at this time last year; at the end of March 2025, WFP announced that it may need to curtail humanitarian assistance for 58 million people this year, nearly half of the total number of people it is supporting.   Recent developments have created a fertile environment for the tax we propose. Asking billionaires to channel billions to humanitarian assistance, and emergency food aid in particular, has precedent. In 2021, WFP Executive Director David Beasley appealed directly to Elon Musk on Twitter, asking him to contribute US$6.6 billion to WFP to enable it to meet the needs of 42 million people experiencing emergency and catastrophic levels of hunger (Integrated Food Security Phase Classification phases 4 and 5). Musk responded positively, with the proviso that WFP had to provide a plan on how it would spend the money. WFP did just that, but Musk never even acknowledged Beasley’s follow-up or made any contribution.   There are also two precedents for a global agreement on taxing the wealthy. First came a 2021 agreement, negotiated through the OECD, for countries to impose a minimum 15% tax on corporations. Then, at last November’s G20 summit, leaders agreed to “engage cooperatively to ensure that ultra-high-net-worth individuals are effectively taxed.” Their final communiqué offers a glimpse of the cooperation the leaders envisaged: “exchanging best practices, encouraging debates around tax principles, and devising anti-avoidance mechanisms, including addressing potentially harmful tax practices.” Advancing this effort is on this year’s G20 agenda.   An influential report commissioned by last year’s G20 Brazilian presidency offered specifics. The idea was to increase billionaires’ effective income tax rate so that it would make billionaires’ effective tax rate no lower than that of middle-class taxpayers, resulting in a tax equal to 2% of billionaires’ wealth. Those already paying this level would face no extra tax; those paying less would pay extra to reach this level.   Such a tax scheme would raise US$200–250 billion annually, and an additional US$100–140 billion if extended to people with a minimum net wealth of US$100 million (centi-millionaires). Notably, with a 7.5% annual pre-tax rate of return on their wealth (after inflation), these super-rich individuals would still see their wealth increase by an average of 5.5% annually after taxes. The report’s author, Gabriel Zucman, offered proposals for avoiding several of the main pitfalls of any taxes calculated based on wealth.   A tax on the ultra-high-net-worth individuals to boost funding for humanitarian assistance would help states raise the funds required to meet one aspect of their human rights obligations. States are obliged to meet people’s urgent food and other humanitarian needs, necessary to help fulfill corresponding rights such as the rights to food, health, clean water and sanitation, and education.   Critically for our purposes, with our focus on people who are reliant on the international community to help meet their most basic needs, the requirement that states act to fulfill these rights extends to states’ extraterritorial obligations.   The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights obliges governments “to take steps, individually and through international assistance and co-operation … to the maximum of their available resources” toward fully realizing people’s rights.   This obligation extends even to states not party to the convention. Through the preeminent instrument of international law, the United Nations Charter, states have assumed the responsibility “to take joint and separate action” to achieve “universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all.”   Where states are unable or unwilling to secure those rights, other states must step in. Otherwise, “universal respect for, and observance of, human rights” is unachievable. Nowhere does this obligation more clearly fall on the international community than meeting all people’s core humanitarian needs. Humanitarian assistance represents only a small portion of states’ extraterritorial obligations, which extend to development assistance and other forms of cooperation.   Yet as General Comment 14 of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights makes clear, humanitarian assistance is a priority: “Each State should contribute to this task to the maximum of its capacities,” prioritizing vulnerable and marginalized groups.   A reasonable starting point for discussion for a tax dedicated to humanitarian assistance would be a tax equivalent to 0.2% of wealth, or a tenth of what was put before last year’s G20. Applied to all billionaires globally, this would raise US$23.5–29.4 billion, and another US$11.8–16.5 billion if also charged to centi-millionaires. At the low end, US$23.5 billion would be about half of the 2025 GHO. Move the tax up to 0.3% and extend it to centi-millionaires, and it would raise at least US$52.9 billion. With even only meager government donations, this would fully meet the combined need of the GHO and WFP’s separate appeal, the latter of which was US$16.9 billion for 2025.   G20 should commit to such a tax, or at least to establishing a fast-tracked process to reach an agreement. Yet countries need not wait for a G20 agreement to establish a tax on ultra-high-net-worth individuals; they could create momentum for such a tax by establishing one for their own taxpayers.   Beyond its inherent benefits, an initial tax for humanitarian assistance could also serve as a trial run for a larger G20-agreed tax directed to national treasuries. The G20’s purported interest in a billionaires’ minimum tax raises the hope of G20 leadership on our proposal. WFP and other humanitarian agencies are facing record shortfalls. A new taxe on ultra-high-net-worth individuals offers a way to compensate for cuts in official development assistance. Humanitarian leaders within the United Nations system—such as the WFP’s executive director, the High Commissioner for Refugees, and the Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs—could propose such a tax to the G20; their calls would not be easily dismissed.   A tax on ultra-high-net-worth individuals will not stop wars, save our environment, or buttress democracies. But until we can begin to repair our world, it would bring some hope and relief to hundreds of millions of people who are the greatest victims of humankind’s present failings. And perhaps it could serve as a stepping stone to confronting our more vexing challenges.   * Lawrence Gostin is co-faculty director of the O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law, and director of the WHO Collaborating Center on Global Health Law at Georgetown University Law Center. Eric Friedman is a global health justice scholar at the O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law, Georgetown University Law Center.   http://www.hhrjournal.org/2025/05/20/a-tax-on-the-worlds-ultra-rich-to-fight-hunger-and-disease/ Visit the related web page
	View more stories