Like other international agreements such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) and the Convention on the Rights of Refugees (1951), the four treaties known collectively as the Geneva Conventions reflect the growing sensitivity to human rights and humanitarian needs that emerged in the aftermath of World War II. Nations around the world, shocked by the devastation and unspeakable abuses that it caused, united around universal notions of humane behavior.Before I embarked on a journalistic career, I worked for a while for the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), the Geneva-based body tasked with the job of monitoring respect of the conventions. In Baghdad, during the Iran-Iraq war, and in south Lebanon under Israeli occupation in the early '80s, I had a chance to see first hand how the conventions are used as a daily protection tool.
Unlike human rights NGOs, which alert the public to violations, the ICRC tends to work discreetly, handing reports to the fighting parties reminding them of their international obligations. Only in rare circumstances, when it feels that its recommendations are being ignored, does it voice its concerns publicly.
While the Fourth Geneva Convention, which regulates the treatment of civilians in times of conflict, was shaped partly by the Nuremberg Trial of Nazi officials, the need to codify the rules of war had been recognized much earlier.
In 1862, a young Swiss businessman, Henri Dunant, happened to witness the chaos wrought by the battle of Solferino, which left thousands maimed and wounded. He wrote a book about his observations, proposed the formation of a neutral body to look after injured soldiers and gathered support for what became the First Geneva Convention, ratified in 1864 by 12 states. Dunant eventually became the joint recipient of the first Nobel Peace Prize in 1901.
This first treaty was updated and expanded on several occasions before emerging in its current form in 1949. Conventions I and II deal with military personnel. The third convention regulates the treatment of prisoners of war, while the fourth offers broad protections to civilians. Additional protocols were introduced in the 1970s with new rules to take into account the evolution of wars around the world.
A quick look at news headlines shows that the rules of protection are flaunted everywhere. Increasingly, civilians bear the brunt of armed conflicts, which now rarely involve uniformed soldiers of two nations fighting each other. More common are asymmetrical forms of warfare, internal conflicts fought by rebel groups. Terrorist attacks have also become a new weapon. Civilians are all the more vulnerable since distinguishing them from combatants has become harder.
These blurred lines allowed the Bush administration to declare that the Geneva Conventions were “quaint” and “obsolete” and could be ignored in the context of the “global war on terror” -- a situation that President Barack Obama has pledged to correct. Detained fighters in Iraq and Afghanistan were denied the protected status of prisoners of war and labeled “enemy combatants” to be detained indefinitely with no charges.
The abuses that ensued, which are now well documented, only served to prove that the Geneva Conventions, which have the backing of 194 states, are still much needed.
ICRC President Jakob Kellenberger acknowledged that a “lack of clarity is costing lives” and pointed to an Interpretive Guidance document, prepared by 50 legal experts, that his agency has issued in an effort to plug some gaps.
But upholding human dignity and protecting lives can never become obsolete. While it is clear that humanitarian law remains a work in progress and must continue to adapt to changing circumstances, the ICRC also pointed out that the main problem today remains a basic lack of respect for existing rules.
