The theme of this paper is not an easy one. The difficulty of our subject is twofold: on the one hand, two of its three facets (peace and human rights) raise conceptual and interpretative problems; on the other hand, to deal with them together would involve finding a common factor, something which is not obvious even—perhaps especially—within the limited framework of the Red Cross movement.

In a previous issue, International Review set out the moral and, for the ICRC, fundamental, reasons spurring it to tackle this problem at the international level. The legal standards were described in general terms, but should now be gone into in greater detail.

Not only did the second world war lay waste large areas and virtually destroy economic life; it also left in its wake bitterness and hatred together with fundamental ideological differences. Even the very first attempts at reuniting families demonstrated their pacifying effects. Such reunited families completely forgot the hardships of the wartime and post-war periods and once more looked to the future, starting with the rebuilding of their lives.

One of the principles underlying international law applicable in armed conflicts is that no act of war is permitted against the civilian population, consisting, by definition, of persons who take no part in the hostilities.

Until the holocaust of 1939–45, international law gave practically no real protection to the civilian population in the event of war, and was not even intended to do so since up to that time war was considered to be a State activity from which civilians remained aloof. There were, nonetheless, general principles and rules in various international treaties which, in one way or another, related also to the civilian population.

Within the general right of spiritual assistance there is a distinction between the right to receive assistance and the right to give it. These rights are based on the right of religious freedom.

If they are to be exercised, these rights necessitate means—hence the right to aid—and agents—hence the rights of relief societies.

Contemporary political analyses and studies concerning Islam often bear the mark of ethical values and judgements that obtain in the cultural context of the authors.

In this respect, two main tendencies can be discerned. The first, which we might call “Western-centred”, is to be found in the works of specialists in Oriental or Islamic studies who have been trained in the West and are thence impregnated with its culture. When analysing Islam, they judge it on the basis of the moral or political norms pertaining in the West. The second, which could be characterised as “apologetic”, generally finds its reflection in the writings of Moslem thinkers who, reacting against the first school's attacks on Islam, try to glorify it and, in particular, set out to identify in Islam all the cultural notions and inventions of the modern world, in other words, the Western world. According to this second school, Islam is, for example, the inventor and disseminator of democratic government, socialism, the separation of powers, human rights and humanitarian law.

The Protocol additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I) contains several articles which relate expressly to neutral States–not only to the permanently neutral States but also to those which remain neutral in a particular conflict (temporary neutrality).

The Red Cross is independent, the Proclamation states, in simple and lapidary terms. The statement of the conditions for recognition of new National Societies (Point 10) refers to political, religious and economic independence.

The Diplomatic Conference on the Reaffirmation and Development of International Humanitarian Law Applicable in Armed Conflicts met in Geneva from 1974 to 1977. During its fourth session, in 1977, the Conference finally adopted two Protocols additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 for the protection of victims of war—Protocol I relating to international armed conflicts and Protocol II relating to non-international conflicts.

The English title “Voluntary service”, which heads this chapter of the Proclamation and of this Commentary, is better than the French title “Caractère bénévole” (“Benevolent character”) which was adopted. In modern French language, the term “bénévoles” refers to persons who work without being paid, who donate their services.

The principle goes on to state that the Red Cross may not take sides in hostilities. This refers to neutrality in the military domain, and this is indeed the initial understanding of neutrality.

The affirmation is an obvious one, but it is nonetheless essential. Some people have found it too laconic, even curt. It is true enough that the expression should apply to all forms of conflict and not only to military operations in the narrow sense. Furthermore, it should cover not only conflicts between nations but also civil wars and internal disorders. It might accordingly be better to say, the Red Cross may not take sides in armed conflicts of any kind.

On 4 July 1980 the Islamic Republic of Iran informed the International Committee of the Red Cross and the League of Red Cross Societies of its decision to adopt the red crescent instead of the red lion and sun as the distinctive sign of its armed forces' medical service. As a result, the Iranian National Society has changed its name and emblem. It is henceforth the “Iranian Red Crescent Society”.

This heading also has three parts: universality in the strictest sense—a mixed principle comprising both substantive and organic aspects—the equality of National Societies and the solidarity among them, the latter two belonging to the organic domain.

The President of the Hellenic Republic Mr. Constantin Tsatsos visited the ICRC on 19 March. He was received by the ICRC President Mr. Alexandra Hay, members of the International Committee, the ICRC directors and leading officials of the League of Red Cross Societies.

The Islamic Republic of Mauritania on 6 February, the Gabonese Republic on 20 February, and the Commonwealth of the Bahamas on 6 March 1980 sent the Swiss Government their instruments of accession to the two Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, adopted in Geneva on 8 June 1977.

The news of Professor Eric Martin's sudden death on 6 January, in his eightieth year, was keenly felt by the International Committee and by all who knew him.

Under the heading “unity”, the Proclamation brought together three concepts: unity, properly speaking, or uniqueness: there can be only one National Red Cross Society in any one country; multitudinism: it must be open to everyone; and generality in its action: it must extend throughout the entire territory.

The Assembly of the International Committee of the Red Cross has elected two new members, Mr. Olivier Long and Mr. Dietrich Schindler, who took up their duties at the ICRC on 1 December 1980.

Most of the provisions of the 1977 Protocols to the Geneva Conventions are applicable only in time of armed conflict.

However, there are two types of provisions which may require States Parties to the Protocols to adopt certain measures upon ratification or accession, that is to say already in peacetime. These are:

— provisions which lay down a standing obligation, such as Article 83 of Protocol I and Article 19 of Protocol II, relating to dissemination of the Protocols;

— provisions which need to be supplemented by domestic legislation or regulations, or which require practical action to be taken at an early stage so that they may be applied when the need arises.

During their State visit to Switzerland, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II and H. R. H. Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, visited the headquarters of the International Committee of the Red Cross in Geneva on 30 April. The royal couple were accompanied by Federal Councillor Mr. Pierre Aubert and Mrs. Aubert.