The first Nobel Peace Prize was awarded a century ago to Henry Dunant and Frédéric Passy, thus honouring two different aspects of the struggle against war: the endeavour to limit the suffering of war victims through humanitarian action, in particular the creation of the Red Cross; and the fight against war itself, or pacifism. The article traces the history of Dunant's candidacy and the uneasiness to which it gave rise in Geneva. Indeed, while recognizing the merits of Henry Dunant for promoting the idea of what subsequently became the Red Cross Movement, the ICRC with Gustave Moynier as its President considered that the International Committee itself should be a candidate for the Peace Prize. The attempt to put forward the institution (and not the person of Henry Dunant) failed, as did the candidacy of Moynier in the following year. The ICRC did, however, receive the Nobel Peace Prize in 1911, 1944 and, together with the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, in 1963 (the centenary of the Red Cross).

With the concept of humanitarian action becoming disproportionately vast and politicized, scaled down or diluted, the question is to what extent it can, without seeing its own legitimacy seriously challenged, fill the vacuum created by the lack of a consistent and predictable worldwide political system. Between war and peace, this question casts its shadow on the broader horizon of a world in search of a new political order, one that would be better able to reconcile humanitarian requirements and political interests, State sovereignty and respect for the fundamental rights of the individual. The author looks for answers in the vast experience accumulated over the years by the ICRC whose legitimacy in providing humanitarian assistance and protection to war victims has traditionally been upheld by three elements. The first of these is a set of principles whose raison d'être is to mark out and define the humanitarian space within which it operates; the second is a legal framework, made up today of the 1949 Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols of 1911, which enjoy universal acceptance; and the third is the product of time, the legitimacy acquired through activities conducted in the long term and through constant practice.

Grey zones, lasting crises and forgotten conflicts are typical of our times. Even though certain conflicts come to an end, many do not because no solution is found for the underlying causes. The great majority of these conflicts are internal and involve non-State entities; they are civil wars. Such complex and interminable crises are a challenge not only for statesmen and diplomats but also for “humanitarians”, in particular the international organizations in charge of humanitarian action. The authors examine the causes and characteristics of such conflicts. They particularly highlight the fact that unending wars not only create short-term humanitarian problems but in the long run destroy civil society. What are the solutions to such conflicts? The authors call for a change of attitudes and a new approach to lasting crises and suggest various forms of action to be taken by the international community. While adequate measures for dealing with humanitarian issues have been found for traditional wars, lasting crises and forgotten conflicts are still awaiting a response by the humanitarian community.

The International Fact-Finding Commission mentioned by Article 90 of Additional Protocol I is the only new measure introduced by the Diplomatic Conference of 1914-1911 intended to strengthen implementation of international humanitarian law. (The word ‘humanitarian’ was added to the title by the Commission itself, in order to better express the Commission's limited jurisdiction.) The Commission was established and its rules of procedure were adopted, but never since 1977 has any party to an armed conflict or any other State ever asked the Commission to exercise its activity in a concrete situation. The author (a member of the Commission) examines the reasons of this apparent failure and suggests new ways of understanding Article 90. He has no doubts about the Commission's usefulness, and he calls upon States and the other members of the international community – in particular the United Nations – to accept the Commission as a tool for strengthening respect for international humanitarian law.

The establishment of the International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and for Rwanda, and the recent adoption of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, are important steps towards ensuring that justice prevails. However, existing and future international criminal courts alone will never be able to try all cases of serious violations of international humanitarian law. Domestic courts have to step in and they must keep their role as the main agents for rendering justice. The rule according to which the ICC's jurisdiction is a complementary one is wise and also indispensable for guaranteeing the new court's success. The international courts should actively seek to establish cooperation agreements with national jurisdictions and facilitate the transfer of cases, in particular those of minor importance. In the authors'view the future of criminal justice lies in an invigorated domestic justice system

The Women and War Project unit has been conducting a study of the impact of armed conflict on women and the normative and operational responses to their needs by the ICRC in carrying out its activities. This study will be published in 2001 and forms the basis for the implementation of a specific pledge on women and war made by the ICRC at the 27th International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent (Geneva, 1999) for four years from the year 2000. In that pledge, the ICRC undertook to increase its promotion both of the protection accorded to women by international humanitarian law and of the prohibition of sexual violence. It will also endeavour to ensure that all its protection, health and assistance activities appropriately meet the needs of women war victims in order to alleviate their plight.

• International humanitarian law cannot serve as a basis for armed intervention in response to grave violations of its provisions; the use of force is governed by the United Nations Charter.

• It is not for the ICRC to pronounce on the legality or legitimacy of such intervention.

• International humanitarian law applies when intervention forces are engaged in hostilities with one or more of the parties to the conflict.

• The ICRC seeks to promote the term “armed intervention in response to grave violations of human rights and of international humanitarian law”.