Geneva Conventions at 75: Crossroads for international law?

The 1949 Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols have been described by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) as “one of humanity’s most important accomplishments of the last century.” The treaties set limits on how war is waged and protect civilians, medics and aid workers during wartime, as well as the wounded, the sick, the shipwrecked and prisoners of war.
However, the United Nations in 2023 recorded more than 33,443 civilian deaths in armed conflict, a 72% increase on 2022. 
But with the October 7 attacks by the terror organization Hamas and other armed groups on Israel, the Israeli military response in Gaza, the war in Sudan, and Russia’s ongoing war of aggression against Ukraine, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres warned that “compliance with international humanitarian law and human rights law is often lacking.” In a report earlier this year, Guterres described the state of the protection of civilians as “resoundingly grim.”
“We’ve seen unprecedented attacks on medical workers, on hospitals, on civilians, all in violation of the Geneva Conventions, with very little shame by those who do it,” said Andrew Clapham, an international law professor at the Geneva Graduate Institute and a former member of the UN Commission on Human Rights in South Sudan.
For Clapham, the 75th anniversary of the Geneva Conventions is a “crunch time” for international humanitarian law when states must decide whether or not to hold those in violation of the treaties accountable for war crimes. This includes the obligation of member states to detain or transfer individuals subject to arrest warrants issued by the International Criminal Court (ICC). 
The ICC started operating in 2002 to hold war criminals accountable. Many countries, among them the US, Russia and Israel, do not recognize the court’s jurisdiction.
“The ICC has issued arrest warrants for Russians, and there are requests for arrest warrants in the context of the Israel-Palestine conflict in Gaza,” Clapham told DW. “How seriously that gets taken by Western states is going to be a sign of how significant the Geneva Conventions remain.”
Rashmin Sagoo is the director of the International Law program at UK-based think-tank Chatham House and was previously an adviser to the British Red Cross. For her, the 75th anniversary is a timely reminder for states to ensure that they have their own house in order, that they are focusing on implementation in their own armed forces — and encouraging their allies to do the same.
“The news that we see unfolding on our screens is awful. But what we mustn’t lose sight of is that these are universally agreed conventions, they are based on universal values and principles, which can lend legal and moral weight when violations occur. If we didn’t have them now I suspect there would be calls to create them, which would be difficult in current geopolitical times,” said Sagoo. 
“My perspective is that we have to be really careful in this discussion because actually the Geneva Conventions have been remarkably resilient and flexible enough to adapt to modern times and to these incredible new technologies that we have been seeing, including in cyberspace, but implementing and enforcing the rules remain serious concerns,” she added. 
It was Swiss businessman Henry Dunant who initiated the international negotiations that produced the Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded in Armies in the Field in 1864, what would become the First Geneva Convention in 1949. 
Born in Geneva, Dunant had witnessed the bloody aftermath of the Battle of Solferino is northern Italy in which tens of thousands of people were killed and wounded. Moved by the plight of wounded soldiers, Dunant called for the formation of national relief societies to help military medical services and went on to found the International Committee for the Relief of the Wounded, now known as the ICRC. 
The committee persuaded governments to adopt the Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded in Armies in the Field that obliged armies to care for wounded soldiers, no matter their allegiance, and introduced the emblem of a red cross on a white background to represent medical services.
The horrors of World War II led to the conclusion of the four treaties of the Geneva Conventions in 1949 — albeit following protracted negotiations and much political maneuvering between the delegates of the 64 states involved in the process.
The Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols are at the core of international humanitarian law and seek a balance between military necessity and the principle of humanity. 
“They are international treaties that essentially accept that wars will take place, but they are important rules for regulating the conduct of armed conflict and limiting the brutality of war,” explained Sagoo.
The First Convention protects wounded and sick soldiers and civilian support personnel and guarantees humane treatment, medical care and protection from violence, including torture and murder. It also specifies the neutrality of medical personnel and facilities, and the Red Cross and Red Crescent as visible signs of protection. 
The Second Convention protects the wounded, sick and shipwrecked members of the armed forces at sea. The Third Convention sets out specific rules for the treatment of prisoners of war, and the Fourth protects civilians in wartime, particularly those in enemy hands or occupied territories. 
The 1949 Conventions have since been ratified by every state in the world, making international humanitarian law a universal body of law. Certain violations of the treaties can be investigated and prosecuted by any state or, in certain circumstances, by an international court.
Among the many challenges to international humanitarian law — the proliferation of non-state actors, new and emerging technologies such as autonomous weapons systems and artificial intelligence, in addition to new domains of warfare in outer space — the most obvious is perhaps compliance.
However, the tragic mass suffering and casualty numbers resulting from present-day conflicts does not mean the rules aren’t valuable or that people or even states don’t care about them, said Sagoo.
“Enforcement has always been a challenge, that’s a reality, and alongside that implementation of the rules by states is, I think, another really important thing to focus on by states and that’s something that can only really be done in times of peace,” she told DW. 
“It’s very difficult to do the implementation aspects amid the heat of war, so the groundwork has to be laid down way ahead of time.”
For Andrew Clapham, the only way to ensure that the Geneva Conventions are respected is to hold those who are in violation, and governments who assist other states in violating the treaties, accountable for war crimes.
“We’re beginning to see some decisions in some states saying, ‘Well, we can’t export arms to this or that country anymore — obviously it’s in the context of Israel at the moment — because that is going to facilitate or contribute to a violation of the Geneva Conventions, which is a violation under national law and international law,” he said.
“I’d say that the areas to watch now are war crimes prosecutions and arms exports — those are the two ways in which you can ensure respect for the Geneva Conventions.” 
Edited by: Rina Goldenberg