Before addressing the question raised in the title of his article, the author looks to the past and shows that the ICRC has been able not only to adapt international humanitarian law to new challenges but also to find new approaches to emerging humanitarian issues. This was the case, for example, when wars produced huge numbers of POWs, or when the plight of political detainees called for innovative action by the ICRC. The emergence of national liberation movements raised particularly difficult problems, but by and large satisfactory solutions were found within the existing humanitarian system. Today we are facing new forms of conflicts, with increasing involvement by non-State actors. After examining the nature of the challenges and discussing possible answers, the author concludes that it would be a tragedy if our time were unable to find a suitable response to them.

The author begins by observing that most conflicts today are non-international in character and do not follow the pattern of classical warfare. Indeed, they are marked by a decline in State monopoly on the use of force and by the proliferation of private players who resort to violence for reasons that more often than not are linked to economic interests. At the same time, many of these conflicts are ethnic in origin and are particularly cruel in that the killing and displacement of civilians are not incidental but are the main object of the violence. The author doubts whether in such situations classical international humanitarian law provides adequate tools for influencing the behaviour of the “fighters” (who have replaced combatants, with their rights and duties under the laws of war). He pleads for an imaginative approach, based on general and universally accepted ethical rules and on action in the field, close to the victims.

L'auteur de cet article s'intéresse au concept de la neutralité de l'action humanitaire. Il examine les tensions qui peuvent surgir entre la théorie et la pratique, et pose un regard particulier sur la position du CICR. La neutralité, au sens des Principes fondamentaux du Mouvement international de la Croix-Rouge et du Croissant-Rouge, impose le devoir de »s'abstenir de prendre part aux hostilités et, en tout temps, aux controverses d'ordre politique, racial, religieux et idéologique«. Le CICR a toujours poursuivi cette ligne de conduite qu'il considère fondamentale pour le succès de son activité humanitaire, même si pour d'autres la neutralité est un obstacle. L'auteur constate que l'usage que le CICR fait de ce principe est en fait plus dynamique et politiquement plus fin qu'on ne le pense généralement. Une réflexion permanente sur le concept clé de la neutralité est nécessaire, mais il ne faut pas oublier que ce qui est bon pour le CICR ne l'est pas nécessairement pour d'autres organisations internationales, qu'elles soient gouvernementales ou non.

The author points out that while a number of serious diseases have been eradicated in the recent past, most people in the world still have no access to basic health services. He argues that public health efforts should be given new priorities. War is of course a scourge which has not been eradicated, despite its immense impact on the state of health of entire populations. The author suggests that the same efforts should be undertaken to prevent armed conflict from breaking out and public health from deteriorating. He discusses a number of ways in which health personnel might contribute to such preventive action. Doctors, nurses and other health professionals are particularly well qualified to participate in such efforts as they are close to those who are affeded by war.

The author raises the rather daunting question of whether it is possible to justify celebration of the Geneva Conventions despite the enormous suffering caused by war which those Conventions are supposed to prevent. What can international humanitarian law achieve under the present circumstances? The author does not give an easy answer to this question but he asks the right questions, which could lead to at least certain components of a good answer. He goes on to present the project, called “People on War”, that the ICRC has launched to mark the anniversary. The purpose of this unique initiative is to meet people who have been through war and ask them to share their personal experiences with conflict and to say what they expect from humanitarian law. Results of this vast study should be available for the 27th International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent, to be held in Geneva later this year.