My name is Leanna. I'm a
librarian here at Vancouver
Community Library. We're really
happy to be hosting American
Red cross for this important
talk. Even war has rules, so we
have Mark and Pauly here with
us today. And just so you know,
we're recording this for CCTV,
but they'll have time for
questions and I'll have a mic
and I'll be running around. So
thanks for joining us.
>> Thank you. Thank you.
>> Well welcome everybody. Just
before we get started with the
presentation, one of the
reasons Pailey and I come out
to the community to do these
talks is in addition to what
we're going to be presenting
here, we really want you to ask
all of your questions that you
may have. The past 7 or 8
months, there have been
international humanitarian law,
and the rules of war have been
in the newspapers just about
every week in one one way or
another. And so. Please ask
your questions. You can ask any
questions. One point about the
American Red cross is the
American Red cross is a
strictly neutral organization,
and the Red cross in general.
And so we can tell you all
about what the rules are and
what is or is not a violation
of the rules, but we're not
allowed to discuss whether a
particular incident violates
the rules of war. But with that
in mind, poly is our other
instructor today. My name's
Mark, and we'll get started. We
have narration on each slide,
and then poly and I will talk a
little bit more about it. But
again, please ask your
questions and we will answer
them all.
>> Oops. Okay.
>> Red cross presentation of
Even War Has Rules. An
introduction to international
humanitarian law. Our
presentation will last about
1.5 hours. We hope you find it
enlightening. Terry and law or
IHL is a central part of the
Red cross mission. Wars and
conflicts are a reality in
today's world, and while
humanity has not yet found a
way to end them all together,
we can reduce their
destructiveness. That's what
IEL seeks to do. Set rules to
limit suffering and protect
people during war. Both the
Geneva Conventions themselves
and the statutes of the
international Red cross
Movement instruct the American
Red cross to teach
international humanitarian law,
sometimes called the laws of
war, to citizens throughout the
United States. That is why we
are here today.
>> So interestingly, in the
United States, the Red cross
will be present. International
humanitarian law to the
American public at large. But
it's important fact that we
don't teach international
humanitarian law to the US
military. They do that
themselves, and they have their
own interpretation of the
various laws. So.
>> Sovereign states in the
world, the possibility of war
between sovereign states always
exists. Today we see ongoing
wars between states, as well as
many dozens of conflicts within
states. In every war, people
are killed and injured,
communities are displaced,
buildings and infrastructure
are destroyed and the
environment is damaged.
International humanitarian law
steps in here. It doesn't stop
the wars, but it tries to
lessen their devastating
effects. A current example of a
war between states is the war
between Russia and the Ukraine.
IHL governs how prisoners of
war should be treated and
prohibits targeting civilian
populations despite violations.
The framework of IHL provides a
language for accountability and
a hope for justice after the
guns fall silent. The ongoing
and devastating civil war in
the Sudan is an example of a
war within states.
International humanitarian law
applies to such internal
conflicts as well.
>> Any questions so far? Okay.
Interestingly, you may be
wondering about the conflict
between the United States and
Iran right now. So there's been
a debate in the media about
whether it's a war or not, a
war. The International
Committee of the Red cross and
all of the treaties are written
to talk about what's called
armed conflict instead of war.
War is something states declare
or don't declare, but armed
conflict is a just a fact on
the ground. If two sides, two
nations are shooting at each
other, that's an armed conflict.
And the international
humanitarian law applies in all
such cases, even if if one
bullet is fired between nations,
that's an armed conflict
between nations. And
international humanitarian law
steps in.
>> Are hurt and killed,
buildings and farms are
destroyed, roads and factories
are damaged, and the natural
environment suffers.
Populations are displaced, and
many are imprisoned. These
terrible things happen to
people who find themselves in
war zones every day. Sadly,
nearly half of the deaths
directly caused in armed
conflict today are innocent
civilians rather than those
fighting in the conflict.
>> So the last line of that
slide, I think, is really
important is if you looked at
war in the 17th century, 18th
century, in the 19th century, a
lot of those wars were fought
between armies and the civilian
population, particularly in the
18th century, was not as
affected by war. But as that
slide said, the important thing
is in wars today, the United
Nations recently came out with
a figure that 75% of the
casualties of war since World
War Two have been civilians
caught up in these wars. And as
we go through this today,
you'll see that after World War
Two, treaties were adopted
specifically for the protection
of civilians that are caught up
in war zones.
>> Do we even need rules for
war? The answer is that without
limits, wars would be even more
destructive. International
rules, often in the form of
treaties, make certain
behaviors illegal, and courts
can determine if those rules
have been violated. While
enforcement is sometimes
limited, the very existence of
these rules sets important
standards for humanity in
wartime. The primary reason
given for having rules for war
is to reduce the suffering
caused by war. Some seeing
limiting the violence,
particularly with respect to
the civilian population, as
contributing to the conditions
where peace can be restored. On
the other hand, some cynical
voices would say that having
rules for war makes certain
killing and destruction legal
and thus authorized by society.
It allows soldiers to kill one
another without calling it
murder.
>> Yeah, that is one of the
important facts about
international humanitarian war
killing people under
international humanitarian law
is legal in many, many
circumstances. In fact, as
we'll see a little bit later,
even the accidental killing of
civilians is acceptable under
international humanitarian law.
And so there are a lot of
people that don't like
international humanitarian law
because of that fact, because
it allows legal killing of an
enemy in combat. But the other
side of that. Argument is that
having some standards for what
is and what is not allowed in
warfare holds the parties to
warfare accountable to some
degree. And we'll talk more
about that as we go through.
>> Divided into two broad
categories. The first is use ad
bellum, which refers to the
legality of.
>> Going to war in the first
place. This body of law asks,
when is it lawful for a state
to resort to armed conflict? It
covers questions like
self-defense, U.N. Security
Council authorization, and
prohibitions on aggression. The
second category is use in Bello
or international humanitarian
law. Use in Bello applies once
a conflict has begun and
regulates how war is fought. A
practical example is the 2003
Iraq War. There was intense
debate over use ad bellum
whether the invasion was
legally justified under
international law. But
regardless of that debate, use
in Bello still applied.
Coalition forces and Iraqi
fighters alike were bound by
the Geneva Conventions and
prohibited from targeting
civilians or mistreating
prisoners of war.
>> Yes, so that's an important
point here. International
humanitarian law doesn't
involve itself with whether it
was legal to start a war or not.
Under the United Nations. There
are two reasons you can start a
war. One is if the United
Nations authorized it, or two,
you can in self-defense, you
can defend yourself. Other than
that, there are no
justifications for starting war,
but even wars that are begun
without a proper justification.
International humanitarian law
applies there. And an
interesting fact is, every
nation on the earth has signed
up to a basic set of
international humanitarian laws
that we've agreed to all follow.
Agree to, not necessarily
always follow, though. Is there
a question?
>> Yeah, I was just going to
make a comment about the fact
that there is very few
conventional wars now, because
there are so many failed states.
And.
>> Okay. Thank you. Hi, my name
is Jafar and I used to be a
student of international
relations, but my comment more
or less relates to there are
about a lot of countries today
that are failed states, and
there's really no conventional
rules. So you have quite a bit
of ungoverned territories for
places like in Afghanistan,
Yemen, Libya, Somalia, and and
I'm sure many more other places
as well. But those are the few
that I can recall. In those
cases. There is really no party
in that countries to really
deal with, to work with,
whether it's on a humanitarian
and giving safe passages to, to
victims of war, or whether it's.
The the Red cross might not
even it's even probably forced
to use factions within those
countries to work with, to even
just distribute supplies, even
though it's not it's not
neutral. It's not supposed to
be neutral. So I think the
rules of engagement and rules
of war has significantly
evolved because it's not this
issue of after World War two of
of that we have conventional
parties and that people respect
rules, but it's just all this
ungoverned territories that
just there's no party to deal
with.
>> Yeah, you raise a really
good point. And it's something
that the International
Committee of the Red cross has
tried to address. One of the
treaties we're going to talk
about a little bit later. It
has an odd name called
Additional Protocol two, but
that was a treaty specifically
signed up, signed by a bunch of
the nations of the world that
governed non-international
conflicts. When you have a
civil war going on in a country,
and it might not between be be
between the government and one
faction, but it might be just
between two factions fighting
in a country. This treaty
called International Protocol
two does apply. Interestingly,
the International Committee of
the Red cross tries to train
even these factional armies,
tribal armies in the rules of
war, and they have developed
special training courses that
they'll they're willing to go
in and train a group of people
fighting in a civil war about
the rules of warfare, because
the rules do apply to both
sides in a civil war as much as
they do between two nations
fighting with one another.
You're right, though, in a lot
of cases, the the situations in
these failed states makes it
very, very difficult to, number
one, have the Red cross come in
and train the fighters in the
rules of war and then anybody
to sort of observe and police
the rules of war. So really
good point. Yes. We we.
>> What happens about the
differentiation of these
factions if they. Because a lot
of times they might be like
criminal gangs that evolve into
this. And how can the Red cross
actually can they deal with any
of that? Can they go in and
talk to. I don't know if that's.
It seems like that's the next
natural step.
>> Well, that raises two
important points. One, if if a.
Let's say, an organized crime
unit, if they ask the
International Committee of the
Red cross to be for training on
the laws of armed conflict,
which they have to follow. So
perhaps a drug cartel somewhere
in the world, the Red cross
would try to offer that
training. The other thing is
that there is a level of
conflict where international
humanitarian law doesn't apply.
And so international
humanitarian law only applies
when the two sides have enough
organization to be under some
sort of unified command, and
somebody's giving orders about
what to do and not to do. So if
you just had protests in the
street or random violence
occurring, or just general
crime, international
humanitarian law doesn't apply
in those cases. And so there's
kind of a double standard in
for conflicts between states.
Any level of conflict is
considered an armed conflict.
And international humanitarian
law. Within states, you have to
reach a certain level of
organized violence before
international humanitarian law
kicks in.
>> A gray area.
>> That is a gray area.
>> Lovgren states make
compliance with the rules of
war legally binding these
agreements establish
obligations, empower courts and
tribunals to investigate
violations, and sometimes allow
for penalties. Even though
international enforcement is
limited, treaties provide a
framework that shapes behavior.
The Geneva Conventions are the
most widely accepted treaties
in history, ratified by nearly
every country. This near
universality means that when
violations occur, states and
humanitarian organizations can
appeal to a shared legal and
moral standard.
>> Yeah, it's important to note
that laws and customs
concerning how wars are fought
have existed for thousands and
thousands of years in Greece,
the Greek city states all agree
to not have wars during harvest
season, because all of the city
states had to bring in their
crops, and those were the
soldiers. And so they just said,
we're not going to have wars
during harvest season. When
there was when the Muslim
caliphate was taking over much
of the region around the
Mediterranean, they the caliph
issued fairly strict rules
about not killing women and
children, not killing the
elderly, not killing prisoners,
and also, for instance, one of
the rules was not destroying
any palm trees or other fruit
bearing trees, because that's
just wrong in in their eyes. So
treaties really came, became
important for international
humanitarian law starting in
the mid 19th century with the
first Geneva Convention. But
custom and sort of a moral
prerogative have existed for
much longer.
>> Some custom or rule for many
years. And if they do so on
almost all occasions, and if
states do not openly object to
the rule, then a custom can
become international law. If
states view that following this
custom is obligatory, much of
international humanitarian law
is both treaty law and
customary law. As an example of
a custom that became law,
consider the practice of ships
traveling with a red light on
their port left side, and a
green light on their starboard
right side. This started as
merely a custom in the 1800s,
but is now part of
international maritime law,
binding on all states in the
world. States are less inclined
to ratify binding treaties than
they once were. New
international humanitarian law
will increasingly be built via
customary rules, becoming laws.
>> So this slide we added to
our presentation here because
it's really important in the
context of what the United
States does. If you as we when
we get into the treaties
themselves in a little while,
we're going to note that the
United States hasn't signed
this treaty. The United States
hasn't ratified that treaty.
And while we have ratified some
of the basic ones. But there
are other ones we don't. But if
you read the Department of
Defense, Law of War Manual, you
will see something. Words like
this. Although the United
States has not ratified treaty
X, we view that all of these
provisions in this treaty are
customary. International law
and are binding on the United
States. And so when I first
started studying international
humanitarian law, I thought it
was really kind of horrific
that the United States hadn't
signed these treaties. But when
it comes down to it, the United
States just doesn't want to
sign the treaty. If we do view
these, the laws themselves as
binding on our forces in in
almost every case, what is in
the treaty is binding on the
United States. And also
important is what the slide
said there is that if nations
just do something out of a
sense of obligation for long
enough, it becomes binding
international humanitarian law.
Even if they never sign a
treaty. So when people say,
well, they haven't signed the
treaty, so they don't have to
do it. Yes, they do in a lot of
cases, at least under
international law. Any
questions?
>> Okay.
>> Terry and law or IHL is the
body of law that regulates
armed conflict. It protects
people who are not or no longer
participating in hostilities,
and it restricts the means and
methods of warfare to prevent
unnecessary suffering. These
laws have traditionally been
viewed as two separate bodies
of law, laws that govern how
people are treated, the Geneva
Conventions and laws that
govern how war is conducted,
the Hague treaties and now the
additional protocols I applies
in both international wars and
many internal conflicts. For
example, rules on humane
treatment apply whether someone
is a prisoner of war in a
conflict between states or a
detainee in a civil war. This
breadth makes it relevant in
nearly all armed conflicts
today.
>> War.
>> Abraham Lincoln became
concerned that Union armies
were applying different rules
for the treatment of prisoners,
civilians and fugitive slaves.
To address this, he asked his
chief of staff, Henry Halleck,
to find someone capable of
creating a clear code of
conduct for union forces in the
field. Halleck turned to the
scholar Francis Lieber. Lieber
had experienced war firsthand
as a young Prussian soldier
during the Waterloo campaign.
He was wounded, abandoned,
robbed and left for dead on the
battlefield. He survived, but
the brutality of war shaped him
for the rest of his life. In
1863, Lieber authored a code of
nearly 200 rules governing how
union soldiers were to fight
and how they were to treat
civilians and prisoners. Known
as the Lieber Code, it was the
first comprehensive attempt to
place humanitarian limits on
warfare and later influenced
international treaties. Written
in The Hague, the idea was
first captured in the Lieber
Code did not end with the Civil
War. They evolved over time
into the Geneva Conventions,
which today form the core legal
protections for wounded
soldiers, prisoners of war and
civilians in armed conflict.
>> It's. This fellow, Francis
Lieber, is a really a
fascinating character. He. He
found it hard to live in
countries in Europe because
country after country would
kick him out, because he had
very liberal views. And he
finally found a home in the
United States. His. He was one
of the first gymnastics
instructors to come to the
United States, and he sort of
founded the sport of gymnastics
in the United States. That was
his first job in the United
States. But it's interesting
how important the Lieber Code
is to what we call
international humanitarian law.
I mean, diplomats always have a
hard time agreeing on the words
of any treaty. And really a lot
of the language of these
treaties is almost directly
taken from the words of Francis
Lieber and this Lieber code.
Since we're in a library, I
think it's important to note
there's a really good book
about the origins of Lieber
Code in the books called The
Lincoln Code, because he was
president at the time, but it's
the Lincoln Code, and it talks
all about the problems that the
Union Army faced in trying to
figure out what the rules of
warfare should be for union
forces in the field during the
American Civil War. And that
really came, became the
foundation for international
humanitarian law in the future.
>> International humanitarian
law came in 1859 at the Battle
of Solferino in Italy. After
witnessing more than 30,000
soldiers wounded and dying,
Henry Dunant, a Swiss
businessman, stopped everything
to help. His experience
inspired the creation of the
International Committee of the
Red cross in 1863, an
organization devoted to
assisting the victims of armed
conflict. Dunant's story
reminds us of the power of
individual action. He had no
army, no government backing and
no plan, only compassion. Yet
his efforts led to the creation
of a global humanitarian
movement. Today, Red cross
volunteers carry that same
spirit into conflicts from
Syria to Sudan, proving that
one person's response to
suffering can ripple into
history.
>> Yeah, Henry Dunant, another
fascinating character in this
story, he really was the
founder of the Red cross. And
it's interesting, he died
penniless in the early 1900s,
but he was also one of the
first recipients of the Nobel
Peace Prize. And he he really
was a true humanitarian in the
fullest sense of the word.
>> Ferar Barton played a
similar role during the Civil
War. She cared for soldiers and
advocated for more humane
medical treatment. After the
war, she met with the
international Red Cross in
Europe in 1881. Thanks to her
leadership, the American Red
cross was founded with a
mission to bring relief and
protection in times of war and
disaster. Barton became known
as the Angel of the battlefield
because she brought medical
care directly to the front
lines. Her insistence that even
the wounded deserved dignity
reshaped American attitudes
toward wartime medical care,
and her legacy still defines
Red cross missions today.
>> So Clara Barton is
noteworthy in our story. After
the American Civil War and a
few years after the war, she
went over to Europe for a
vacation for a few years and.
But she ended up involved in
the Franco-Prussian war,
setting up hospitals on the
German side of that war, and
the German Kaiser gave her the
Iron Cross for her support for
medical care during the
Franco-Prussian war. She really
is the founder of what has
become the American Red cross
in the world today. So, Holly,
we're going to you're going to
be up in a second.
>> Red Crescent movement is
built on seven fundamental
principles. These principles
ensure impartiality, neutrality
and independence so that
humanitarian work can reach
those in need, no matter the
side they are on. In practice,
this means that Red cross
workers can operate in conflict
zones where few others are
trusted. For example, in Yemen,
Red Crescent teams have
delivered aid across battle
lines precisely because all
sides recognize their
neutrality.
>> Okay, so I've got a couple
definitions. Humanity. This
comes from the German Red cross.
We serve people, not systems
neutrality. We take initiative,
but we don't take sides.
Voluntary service. We work
around the clock but never line
our pockets. Partiality. We
care for the victims, but also
for the culprits. And
independence. We obey the rule
of the need, but not the king's.
We have many talents, but only
one idea. And we respect
nations, but we cross borders
to help. And humanity is the
keystone. If we took sides, for
example, let's say we took
sides in a conflict and we
decide we want. We don't like
country A, so we're not going
to help them. You know, Red
cross can't do that. We have to
look at both sides. We take
care of our victims and the
culprits. And that's what Henry
did not did. He convinced those
villagers it was a conflict
between Austria and France. But
he said because they didn't
have any many medics there and
medics were probably already
killed or left, because what
they do is they do a battle and
they leave and the people are
just left to die or whatever.
And so he convinced these
townspeople, these people need
help. It doesn't matter what
side they're on. And that's
what started it. His idea of
having the International
Committee of the Red cross,
because suffering is universal
and it requires a response. It
cannot be met with indifference.
So it you can't say they're not
on my side, so I don't care if
they survive. And respect for
human dignity is paramount. So
if you believe that every human
being deserves dignity, that
way you will give them humanity.
And that's very important.
Impartiality, nondiscrimination.
We help those in need. Does it
matter what the religious,
their political color of their
skin, gender, whatever it's we
help them. And neutrality, of
course, that's part of
impartiality in humanity is we
don't take sides. For example,
Red cross or Red Crescent goes
into countries ahead of time
and tries to build a
relationship. And so if an
armed conflict breaks out, you
know, it could be another
country or it could be within
the state or the country. What
they do is they say, hey, you
know that Red cross and Red
Crescent are great. They've
been wonderful. We can trust
them to visit the prisoners. We
know that they won't, you know,
they'll make sure they're okay.
And so it's a trust. And the
American Red cross needs trust,
too. We have to have our
communities trust us. For
example, if we go to a house
fire, we do not ask if they're
a citizen. We do not ask if
they have a Social security
number. What we say is you had
a fire and we can help you. You
know they are in need or in the
wildfires we have. We don't
worry about if they're a
citizen or a non-citizen. They
we need to be trusted. And they
know that they can tell us,
yeah, I lost my house or my
apartment. Volunteers. That's
what Henry did. Not wanted
volunteers. We need more
volunteers to go out to the
battlefield and look, Clara
Barton did it. But Henry did
not realize that. Hey, you
can't. Medics are. You know,
they get killed to unity.
There's only one Red cross and
one Crescent Society in one
country. So you can't have a
country divided by two red
crosses or two red crescents.
They're all unified. They have
the same goal, and they treat
all the people in this country.
Universality. It doesn't matter.
Every national society is equal,
and it doesn't matter if
they're the biggest country in
the world or the smallest to
become part of Red cross or Red
Crescent, they have certain
rules that they have to follow
impartiality, for example. But
they're equal and they help
each other. Okay.
>> That movement is structured
into three components the
International Committee of the
Red cross, the International
Federation of Red cross and Red
Crescent Societies. I see, and
the 191 national societies,
together, they form one unified
movement bound by common
principles. The International
Committee of the Red cross and
Red Crescent works to uphold
international humanitarian law
and bear witness to the
behaviors of parties involved
in armed conflicts. The
International Federation of the
Red cross and Red Crescent
works to coordinate disaster
relief work of the national
societies in responding to
humanitarian disasters around
the world. This unique
structure allows local
societies to respond to
national emergencies, while
drawing strength and legitimacy
from a global humanitarian
movement.
>> So the ICRC is the guardian
of the Geneva Conventions.
They're in Geneva, Switzerland,
and they've been there since
Audrey Dunant. Oh, I'm sorry,
Henry Dunant and the Red cross
is we're a Red cross society
and they have the Red Crescent
Societies. And I'll explain
later why we. Red cross started
with the first Geneva
Convention. Basically, it's the
inverse of the Swiss flag. And
I'll explain later. Later why
the Red Crescent came to be.
The International Federation of
the Red cross helps national
societies in disasters. A good
example is Nepal. You heard
about that horrible. What
happened to the people there?
National Federation has given
them money to help because this
Nepal Red cross society. They
don't have enough money. And so
they're helping. And also they
have a rapid response team,
which means people from
different societies say, yes,
if there is a disaster in a
country, I will respond. I may
be there three months. You know,
it's up to three month
assignment. And if Nepal's Red
Cross Society says, you know,
we really do need more help,
that's who will come. It's
through the federation and
their rapid results. Our rapid
response team, Venezuela, has
been offered help. And at this
point, the Spanish Red cross
has a set up, some nursing and
hospitals, and also ten Red
cross societies are helping
with restoring family links.
What. Restoring family links.
Let's say we have a person in
this country that has someone
in Venezuela, and they were
affected by the earthquake
because they what they can do.
Venezuela now says, yes, we can.
So they would contact Red cross
and we would send a message and
do a check to see if that
person's okay or alive or dead,
because all communication is
broken down. They can't write,
they can't call. And so what
they do is through the
Venezuelan Red Cross Society is
try to find the people because
people are scared, their loved
ones are there and they have no
idea if they're okay. Okay.
Okay.
>> You want to do this one?
>> Sure.
>> Okay.
>> Let's. 1864 was the first
international treaty to protect
wounded soldiers on the
battlefield. It required armies
to care for the wounded,
regardless of nationality, and
established the Red cross
emblem as a protective sign.
The treaty was originally
signed by 12 nations, but this
number quickly expanded to
include most of the nations on
the earth. At the urging of
Clara Barton and the American
Red cross, the United States
signed the treaty in 1882.
>> Does anybody know what
president, after three tries,
signed for American Red cross
to be Chester Arthur? You know,
actually what happened is, you
know, if you. It's after the
Civil War and they say, okay,
we're never going to have a war.
So why should we have signed a
treaty how to treat people
during a war? Well, of course,
she finally convinced him. Yes.
So Chester Arthur and and only
took the Senate 12 days to
ratify the treaty, which is
record speed. So they realized,
yes, it's very important. And
of course, later on they talked
about disaster relief through
Red cross. But at first started
with helping the wounded on the
battlefield.
>> 1899 and 1907 expanded the
rules of war into 18 separate
treaties, partly based on the
Lieber Code established by
Abraham Lincoln during the
American Civil War. The
treaties codified centuries of
customary law and addressed
weapons, the treatment of
prisoners, and the
responsibilities of occupying
powers. A famous Hague rule is
the prohibition of dum dum
bullets, designed to expand on
impact and cause unnecessary
suffering. That ban, created in
1899, still applies today,
demonstrating how old
agreements remain relevant in
regulating modern warfare.
>> She mentioned.
>> The International.
>> Criminal Court. It is in The
Hague. Oh.
>> It's going to come up.
>> Oh. I'm sorry.
>> Exposed just how inadequate
existing laws were. Over 45
million civilians died,
alongside more than 20 million
soldiers and 5 million
prisoners of war. The scale of
suffering highlighted the
urgent need for stronger,
clearer protections under
international law. The
Holocaust, the bombing of
civilian cities and the
mistreatment of prisoners all
underscored the absence of
enforceable protections. These
tragedies directly inspired the
drafting of the 1949 Geneva
Conventions, proving that law
often advances only after deep
human loss. Protects the
wounded and sick of armed
forces on the battlefield,
along with the medical
personnel and facilities that
care for them. It requires
humane treatment without
distinction and recognition of
protective emblems. This means
that a medic wearing a Red
cross armband or an ambulance
marked with the emblem should
never be attacked. Violating
this rule endangers
humanitarian responders
everywhere and undermines the
ability to save lives.
>> Okay, that was 1864, as you
heard before, is when the first
Geneva Convention was signed.
>> Shann extends protections to
the wounded, sick, and
shipwrecked members of armed
forces at sea. It requires that
they be collected and cared for,
and it shields hospital ships
and coastal rescue craft. For
example, during naval conflicts,
a marked hospital ship cannot
be lawfully attacked. This
ensures that even in the chaos
of maritime warfare,
humanitarian obligations are
respected.
>> That was. 1899 was the first
I mean, the second Geneva
Conventions, as we said, as she
said in the narration, we have
honorary D Nazis, people
needing help. So he does the
first Geneva Convention, and
all of a sudden we have warfare
on the sea. So we have the
second Geneva Convention. It's
like, oh, we need to do
something.
>> Convention governs the
treatment of prisoners of war.
It requires humane treatment,
protection from violence and
access to due process.
Prisoners must be housed, fed
and allowed correspondence with
their families. Access to POW
camps by the International
Committee of the Red cross is
one of the most visible aspects
of this convention. It ensures
that even captured combatants
retain dignity and basic rights.
>> The Third Geneva Convention
was originally signed in 1929
because of what happened with
the POWs during World War One.
>> And protects civilians,
especially under military
occupation. It prohibits
collective punishment, ensures
essential services and
safeguards hospitals, schools
and religious sites. This
convention is especially
relevant today in conflicts
where military occupation of
civilian areas occurs. Its
rules prohibit forced
population transfers and the
settlement of the occupiers
citizens in occupied territory,
issues that remain at the heart
of international disputes.
>> Okay, as she said before,
World War Two showed atrocities
on all sides of the conflict
and the countries got together
and says, we got to do
something. This was horrible
how civilians were treated,
bombings in Germany, bombings
in Japan, you know. And so in
England, you know, it's all
over the war. And so it was
decided to sign the Geneva
Conventions. To. And also at
this.
>> Time.
>> Protections in international
armed conflicts. It reinforces
the principles of distinction,
proportionality and precautions
in attack. It also expands
safeguards for civilians and
the natural environment, and
clarifies obligations to verify
targets and avoid unnecessary
harm. This protocol updates and
incorporates much of the treaty
law established in The Hague at
the start of the 20th century.
For example, the protocol
requires that when launching an
attack, commanders must choose
methods that minimize
incidental civilian damage.
This means selecting smaller,
more precise munitions or
timing attacks to avoid crowded
areas, obligations that make
the principles of IHL more
concrete in practice.
>> So one thing you'll note is
on the first, on the Geneva
Convention slides, the number
of states who had ratified it
was 196. You see, this is now
down to 174. In particular, the
United States, Russia, China
and Israel have not ratified
additional protocol. One. But
as I noted earlier, the United
States at least accepts that
the laws in this treaty are
customary international
humanitarian law. I think we
had a questionnaire. Wait for
our microphone.
>> Sorry.
>> Yeah.
>> This is probably more of a
commentary thing. But yeah,
when I look at the slides, it's
really reflecting more of what
happened in World War two. And
I'm trying to picture an
environment where the, the ICRC
or the International Committee
of the Red cross is really
functioning in a different
environment. There are states,
some of this that have ratified
who have not ratified these
treaties are actually directly
violating. So I wonder, like
with the technology we have now,
there's really can be friendly
fires, you know, bombing
schools and mosques and
synagogues and churches because
that those are clearly marked
spaces. And it's still
happening. It just happened in
Iran about a couple of months
ago with a girls school. It's
continuing to happen in Gaza.
So and it puts the ICRC in a
very difficult position because
you talked about neutrality
when states are directly or the
Russians bombing apartments in
Ukraine. Yeah. So it's to me
it's like the ICRC as being the,
you know, the ears and the the
eyes of the ground. They do see
states that are deliberately
violating. So I wonder if the
ICRC can be a not a witness,
but actually a, a party to say,
yes, this this state is
violating the Geneva Convention
laws. And this here is the
evidence by putting missiles in
an apartments or because I
think the issue ICRC shouldn't
be just there as neutral body
between parties. They're also a
witness to a crime, you know.
>> Yeah. That's a you should be
up here giving giving the talk.
That's an excellent point. The
International Committee of the
Red cross is on the ground, and
they do witness the violations
of international humanitarian
law under the treaties that
nations have signed. What they
do is the International
Committee of the Red cross will
go to the government of the
nation violating the laws and
say, we've seen you do these
things. We. Under international
law, you have to hold the
perpetrators accountable under
your laws. So if they see a
Russian unit attack on an
apartment building with
civilians in it, they go to the
government of Russia and say,
these people violated the laws
of warfare and need to be held
accountable. What the Red cross
doesn't do is they don't go
public with that information.
And as we'll talk about, one of
the interesting things that
we're going to talk about the
International Criminal Court in
a few minutes, one of the
things that Red cross personnel
can't be do, can't be.
Compelled to do is testify at
the International Criminal
Court. So the Red cross will
witness some atrocities, but
they won't testify in court
about what the atrocities are.
And that's problematic for many
people. But the Red Cross's
view is that we have our role,
which is reporting to the
governments on each side of
what their what their people
are violating. Other
organizations like Amnesty
International, Human Rights
Watch, they're there to tell
the public and the world about
the atrocities they see. So did
you want to comment?
>> No. You're going to talk
later about the ICC.
>> Yeah, we're.
>> Going to have a slide on
that.
>> Good.
>> So additional protocol one
is covers and we're going to
get into it more detail in a
few minutes. The methods of
warfare and what's legal and
illegal in conducting a war.
>> Two was groundbreaking
because it applied humanitarian
law to non-international armed
conflicts such as civil wars.
It established minimum
protections for persons not
participating in hostilities,
including prohibitions on
violence to life, cruel
treatment and hostage taking.
This protocol came about in
part because of conflicts like
the Spanish Civil War and later
Vietnam, which revealed the
need for rules even when wars
were fought within states.
Today, it is central to
addressing humanitarian crises
in places like Syria, Myanmar
and Sudan.
>> Right? This is another
treaty that hasn't been
ratified by the United States
and a bunch of other nations.
And part of the reason they
haven't been ratified is,
number one. The United States
is now in a mode that. It
doesn't want to have any
constraints on U.S. sovereignty.
And so signing a treaty is a
willing is willingly giving up
some of your power. So the
United States just doesn't like
signing treaties in general.
And some of the other nations
are like that. Also, there are
particular items in some of
these treaties that are viewed
as problematic for the United
States in additional protocol.
One, there's a prohibition
against massive environmental
destruction. And at the end of
the Vietnam War, the United
States was very concerned that
it might be held accountable
for its use of herbicides like
Agent Orange all over the
country of Vietnam during the
war. And so that's another
reason why we, the United
States, hasn't ratified that
treaty. Any questions at this
point? Anything.
>> Re codifies the use of the
red crystal as a protective
emblem alongside the Red cross
and Red Crescent. The Red
Crystal was created as a
neutral, non-religious and
nonpolitical symbol to ensure
protection in all contexts.
Although it is not currently
used by Iran, the Red Lion and
Sun emblem from Iran remain an
official emblem of the Red
cross movement.
>> So you probably are familiar
with the Red cross and Red
Crescent. Those are the two
predominant symbols used by the
international movement to both
mark that this is a protected
facility and to. Say that these
people are working with the
organization. The Red Crystal
is really not used yet by any
nation. It was adopted in 2005.
Additional protocol three. And
the only nation that uses it is
Israel
>> Uses the red crystal with a
Star of David inside the red
crystal when they're operating
internationally. Because the
Star of David Israel wanted
that to be a officially
recognized symbol. But the
compromise was you can use the
Star of David inside the red.
>> So is it because they just
can't always have a religious
affiliation and they just can't
agree on the neutral insignia?
>> Yes. I mean, at this point,
I think all nations would agree
to use the red crystal, but.
It's just tradition is so baked
in that the International
Committee of the Red cross and
Red Crescent is just what has
existed for the last 120 years.
So all the societies are just
sort of used to that.
>> Either Christian or Muslim.
>> Yeah. And both both are
widespread in widespread use.
>> Technically.
>> Isn't it, that the the Red
cross was not a religious
symbol at first. It was the
Swiss flag. Yeah. So it came
from the Swiss flag, not the.
That's what you mentioned that
earlier. But then it became I
don't know if.
>> That is what the
International Committee of the
Red cross says.
>> I can talk about the
Christian crusade.
>> Sure.
>> Good point. During the
Christian Crusades, which was
against Muslim countries, they.
On their shields, they wore red
crosses and of course, Turkey
and other, you know, says, wait
a minute. So they finally. It
took years, but they finally
allowed the Red Crescent to be
the second emblem. But what's
interesting, I did some
research and there's ten
countries that use the Red
Crescent on their flag, but
they're not all Muslim
countries. There's African
countries that use the Red
Crescent. And like Mark said,
that's why we got the red
crystal, because you have a
flag that's got a red cross,
and it could be interpreted as
a Christian, or you have the
Red Crescent and it's a country
has the Red Crescent on their
flag, but then they have people
with red crescents and they're
going, are they going to be
impartial? Well, yeah, they are,
of course, because they're part
of Red cross or Red Crescent,
but interpretation. So they all
got together in 2005 and says,
okay, let's do the red crystal.
Like Mark says, no one's using
it, but it is very much. There
is no flag with a red crystal.
No countries use it for
anything else. So it was
decided we should have a third
emblem. And of course, Israel
uses a Star of David inside. If
you watch the news, you'll see
the David Dome. But if they go
outside, they will not. They
won't use that. You know,
that's within their country.
>> Adopted in 1998.
>> Sorry, but what does Asia
use?
>> Asia uses a mixture of the
Red cross and Red Crescent.
Like Japan uses the Red cross.
Indonesia uses the Red Crescent.
It's sort of. Vietnam uses the
Red cross. It. In a lot of Asia.
Colonial domination by various.
They introduced the Red cross
in those places and they just
stuck with those things without
any kind of religious thing.
But it's up to each nation what
they choose.
>> Adopted in 1998, established
the International Criminal
Court. This permanent court has
jurisdiction to prosecute
individuals, not states, for
the most serious crimes under
international law, genocide,
crimes against humanity, war
crimes, and with later
amendments, the crime of
aggression. The ICC represents
a major step in holding
individuals accountable, even
leaders for violations of
international humanitarian law.
The creation of the ICC was a
milestone in international
justice. For example, Thomas
Lubanga of the Democratic
Republic of Congo was the first
person convicted by the ICC
found guilty of conscripting
child soldiers. Cases like his
show how the court can give
voice to victims and signal
that such crimes will not go
unpunished. Despite having over
a hundred signatories around
the world, a group of very
powerful nations do not
recognize the jurisdiction of
this court over its citizens.
The original Geneva Conventions
were designed to be enforced by
nations against their own
citizens, rather than having a
supranational body preside over
all people.
>> So this is an important and
somewhat controversial topic
right now. If you read the
newspapers, you'll understand
that the United States
government is not very friendly
towards the International
Criminal Court. In fact,
there's a law passed by US
Congress that if a US citizen
is ever taken to The Hague and
prosecuted by the International
Criminal Court, there's an
authorization for the president
of the United States to invade
the Netherlands and take that
person out of their. Don't
think that's going to happen,
but that's the kind of
emotional status that is
associated with this. And the
point that the United States
would make is that we signed
the Geneva Conventions. We
didn't give away our
sovereignty. And likewise, a
country like Russia would say
that the treaties say we should
try our own citizens in our own
courts. A similar kind of.
Attitude came up at the end of
the Second World War. You may
have heard of the Nuremberg war
crimes trials that were
conducted by the United States,
the Soviet Union and the UK and
France at the end of the Second
World to try Nazi leaders in a
court of law. The many German
scholars and jurists said that
no. The German courts should
try the Nazi leaders under
German law and will convict
them under German law, just
like the Geneva Conventions
said we would. That's what we
signed it up for the treaty.
But the United States and the
other nations said, no, we
don't trust the German courts
to try that. And so at that
time, the United States
insisted on an international
court independent of the
national courts, to try. The
German Nazis. If you move ahead
a long time, the United States
decided maybe that wasn't such
a great idea to not allow
national courts to try their
own citizens. And so, after the
2003 invasion of Iraq and the
capture of the former leader of
Iraq, Saddam Hussein, instead
of having an international
court try him or the
International Criminal Court,
which existed at the time, do
it. The United States arranged
for an Iraqi court to try and
then sentence Saddam Hussein to
be executed. And so it's a
problematic issue with the
International Criminal Court.
So we have two national leaders
now in the world, Vladimir
Putin of Russia, who has a
warrant for his arrest from the
International Criminal Court,
and Benjamin Netanyahu, the
prime minister of Israel, also
has an arrest warrant from the
International Criminal Court.
And any country where they
visit that is a signatory to
the International Criminal
Court are supposed to arrest
him and take him to The Hague
in the Netherlands for trial
there. It's probably not going
to happen, but you may have
heard some of the media
discussion around that.
>> Oh, a general, a person from
Bosnia just died and he was
convicted of war crimes during
the International Criminal
Court. But we have questions.
Good.
>> Yeah. Is there likely to be
a warrant against Trump for
Iran?
>> No, there's not likely to be
a warrant. Again, the United
States had a. An inconsistent
position. The United States
Department of Justice supported
issuing an arrest warrant for
Vladimir Putin, but greatly
opposed the arrest warrant for
Benjamin Netanyahu. If the
United States wanted to
consistent, they would have
opposed any warrants for any
national leaders. But it
depends on. It's a it's an
inconsistent position and. The
United States has taken a
recent move of sanctioning the
judges and prosecutors in. Of
the International Criminal
Court so that they can't
conduct financial transactions
around the world. So at a
certain point in all of the in
all of international law, but
particularly in international
humanitarian law, politics
matter, and national power
matters. At the end of the day,
the international humanitarian
law, I like to say it's
imperfect, but it's better than
no international law.
>> Yeah. I was just gonna add a
comment to to war crimes. The
International Criminal Court
really has no teeth of its own
to, to arrest anybody. So they
rely this sovereign states to
enforce that. And last week I
read something about Netanyahu
where he was not able even to
come to the States on a direct
flight. He took so many
different routes to get there
because so many European
countries, especially the
French, would, would, would
arrest him. And I think here is
primarily the power dynamics,
because the developed world has
set the stage for the criminal
court. And the I wouldn't say
the victims, but usually
charges against war crimes is
from developing countries. So.
The United States and other
countries do set up these
kangaroo courts. Like you
mentioned, Saddam Hussein, and
that country was taken apart.
And then there was no sovereign
body of Iraqi government to put
Saddam Hussein to trial, you
know, so the legitimate leader
was taken out, whatever the
reason might be. And now,
instead of handing over to a
criminal court, we set up our
own court to say you by using,
I guess, domestic government
that we we set up. So I think
because of the power dynamics
when it comes to apply to the
developed world, in this case,
people who are clearly
violating international laws,
whether that's the US or other
European countries, it seems to
be brushed aside. So there's
really no not equal justice
under the law kind of thing.
Right.
>> Yeah, that that's absolutely
correct in and it's true not
just in international
humanitarian law, but under
international law. There is no
real notion of equal justice.
It's power matters in the world.
And these are treaties that are
signed and treaties. Do
countries do this out of their
own self-interest? And so. It's
from my view, it's good we have
something, but it's far, far
from from perfect. But let's
move ahead. We have some more
things to get to. Oh, we have
one. We have one more slide on
crimes that the International
Criminal Court prosecutes.
>> ETC jurisdiction are
genocide, crimes against
humanity, war crimes, and the
crime of aggression. Each of
these categories reflects the
gravest offenses against
humanity. Genocide is the
intent to destroy, in whole or
in part, a national, ethnic,
racial or religious group.
Crimes against humanity include
widespread or systematic
attacks on civilians. War
crimes are serious violations
of the laws of war. The crime
of aggression involves the use
of armed force by one state
against another, in violation
of the UN charter. The trials
of leaders such as Slobodan
Milosevic and Charles Taylor,
though some were under other
tribunals, illustrate the
principle behind the ICC that
even the highest ranking
officials can be held
accountable for crimes that
shock the conscience of
humanity. These prosecutions
send a message that impunity is
no longer acceptable.
>> Okay, now we're going to
move into the section of our
class where we're going to talk
about some more details about
what is and what is not allowed
on the battlefield. And I'll
let the slides do the talking.
>> Until principles of
international humanitarian law
governing how wars should be
fought. These principles were
derived from centuries of
customary international law.
They were first codified by
Francis Lieber in the Lieber
Code of 1863, and then
incorporated into the many
Hague Treaties and Additional
Protocol, one of the Geneva
Conventions. We will spend some
time with each of these
principles and see the
important role they play in
limiting the devastation caused
by war. Military necessity
allows only those measures that
are required to achieve a
legitimate military objective.
It does not justify unlimited
force, and it never overrides
other rules of international
humanitarian law. Necessity is
about striking what is
militarily relevant, not
destroying for destruction's
sake. For example, a commander
may lawfully target an enemy
ammunition depot, but necessity
does not permit destroying a
village that has no military
value. This principle ensures
that force is tied directly to
legitimate objectives, not
convenience or revenge.
>> A common misconception about
armed conflict is anything goes
when engaged in combat. This is
simply not true. The four
fundamental principles of
international humanitarian law
or IHL military necessity,
limiting unnecessary suffering,
proportionality and distinction
work together as interdependent
and reinforcing parts of a
single system. Military
necessity justifies a certain
level of lawful violence as
necessary to defeat the enemy
as quickly and efficiently as
possible. Conversely, the
principle of limiting
unnecessary suffering forbids
causing suffering that is
unnecessary to achieve a
military objective. The
principle of proportionality
requires that even when actions
may be justified by military
necessity, the expected harm
caused to civilians by those
actions must not be excessive
when compared against the
expected gain by conducting the
actions. Finally, the principle
of distinction requires armed
forces to distinguish between
the enemy forces and the
civilian population, and only
conduct attacks against the
enemy forces. Collectively,
these fundamental principles
both recognize that violence is
a natural part of armed
conflict, while working to
minimize its devastating impact
on both soldiers and civilians.
The principle military
necessity allows parties to an
armed conflict to use those
measures not forbidden by
international law, which are
indispensable for securing the
complete submission of the
enemy as soon as possible. Put
another way, military necessity
recognizes violence will be
necessary to bring about the
end of an armed conflict as
quickly as possible, but
maintains certain weapons and
tactics are so bad they will
not be allowed. Let's take a
moment to look at this
definition in depth. Military
necessity has four elements.
First, violence and destruction
in war is allowed. This means
that the killing, injuring and
capturing of people and
destruction of property is
permissible. Of course, the
definition doesn't stop here,
or conflict would still be as
brutal as it was in the Middle
Ages. There are three more
elements that also must be met
for military necessity. The
second element is that the
measures used are indispensable
to secure the complete
submission of the enemy. This
element of the definition
requires that the acts of
violence and destruction being
done are indispensable, or, put
another way, necessary, to the
military operation. It also
allows for overwhelming force
to be used against an enemy,
and recognizes that total and
unconditional surrender of the
enemy is a permissible goal.
The third element is as soon as
possible. This element
recognizes that the longer an
armed conflict lasts, the more
devastating it is on the
parties fighting it and to the
civilians that are affected by
it. The fourth element is where
humanity comes into play and is
the heart and soul of the
military necessity definition
it provides that acts or
measures cannot be used if they
are forbidden elsewhere in
international law. While the
first element says anything
goes, it is the fourth element
that says not so fast. Other
parts of law must still be
followed. While the first
element of the definition is
permissive, it is the last
element that restricts together,
they allow any means or method
of warfare to be used, unless
that mean or method is
specifically forbidden by
another part of international
law. To understand this
principle in action, consider
this example. A bridge in
country A allows civilians to
cross a river that divides
their town. Normally, there
would be no military necessity
for destroying the bridge
because it serves no military
purpose, and destroying it
would not help win the conflict.
However, this can change if the
bridge is used for military
purpose. To illustrate this,
let's change the example a
little. Now there is an armed
conflict ongoing between
country A and country B. The
army of country A is on one
side of the town, and the army
of country B is on the other
side of the town, with the
river and bridge separating
them. Country A's army plans to
attack Country B's army by
crossing the bridge. The bridge
has now changed from having
purely a civilian use to also
having a military use. Country
B can now destroy the bridge
without violating the principle
of military necessity, because
destroying the bridge will
create a military advantage for
country B by stopping Country
A's attack. It is important to
note, however, that before the
attack on the bridge can take
place. The other three
fundamental principles of IHL
must also be met. While the
principle. Military necessity
does justify violence and
destruction in armed conflicts,
it does not allow armed forces
to doing whatever it takes to
win. Military necessity never
justifies violations of other
provisions of IHL, produced by
the American Red cross. If you
have any questions, please
contact I.h. law@redcross.org.
>> So one of the important
things in that video. So a
nation that said, we're going
to destroy all the bridges in
your country because we want to
disrupt the life in your
country. That is a not a proper
military objective because all
bridges don't serve a military
purpose. But a friend of mine
who works in the Department of
Defense said that on all the
with the ongoing war with Iran
right now, the military
conflict with Iran, sorry, the
ongoing war, every slide he's
seen of destroyed. Bridges has
a little caption that says what
the military objective was.
That is being. Achieved by
destroying this particular
bridge. And so although it
appears that the US may be not
taking as seriously all the
rules of war, they are trying
to document why they're
destroying different bridges in
in various countries.
>> Putting unnecessary
suffering prohibits weapons and
tactics that cause harm beyond
what is needed to achieve
military objectives. It aims to
prevent superfluous injury and
suffering. This principle is
central to the American Red
cross framing of I, for
instance, blinding laser
weapons and expanding bullets
are banned because they cause
suffering that far exceeds any
military advantage. Modern
debates about landmines and
cluster munitions continue to
test the boundaries of this
principle.
>> A main idea of international
humanitarian law is that the
means and methods of warfare
are not unlimited. In fact, one
of the four fundamental
principles of IHL is to limit
unnecessary suffering. Limiting
unnecessary suffering is the
principle that forbids the
infliction of suffering, injury
or destruction beyond what is
necessary to accomplish a
legitimate military purpose.
The four fundamental principles
of IHL military necessity,
limiting unnecessary suffering,
proportionality and distinction
work together as interdependent
and reinforcing parts of a
single system. Although the
principle of military necessity
justifies some suffering as
necessary to defeat the enemy
as quickly and efficiently as
possible, military necessity
cannot justify causing
suffering that is not necessary
to achieve that purpose. To do
so will legitimize cruelty and
wanton violence. For this
reason, the principle of
limiting unnecessary suffering
is often thought of as the
counterbalance to the principle
of military necessity. On one
hand, military necessity allows
violence in armed conflict,
while on the other hand,
limiting unnecessary suffering
places a limit on how violence
can be inflicted. The first
international agreement
addressing the principle of
limiting unnecessary suffering
was the 1868 Saint Petersburg
Declaration. In 1863, Russia
developed a bullet which
exploded on contact with hard
surfaces. Its intended use was
to blow up wooden ammunition
wagons. By 1867, the bullet was
modified so that it would
explode on contact with softer
surfaces, including the human
body. Concerned that using a
bullet against people would
cause unnecessary suffering,
the Russian government decided
not to use the bullet. They
also did not want other
countries to use it either.
Their answer was the 1868 Saint
Petersburg declaration. This
international agreement
prohibited the use of exploding
bullets because they cause
greater suffering than was
necessary to achieve a
legitimate military goal. The
modern definition of the
principle of limiting
unnecessary suffering is found
in the 1977 Additional Protocol
one to the Geneva Conventions
of 1949. Article 35 of
Additional Protocol one
addresses the principle of
limiting unnecessary suffering
by stating it is prohibited to
employ weapons, projectiles and
material and methods of warfare
of a nature to cause
superfluous injury or
unnecessary suffering. Put
another way, weapons and
tactics, which are designed to
create more suffering than is
necessary to achieve a
legitimate military objective,
will violate the principle of
limiting unnecessary suffering.
Additionally, once a military
objective has been achieved,
causing more suffering is
unnecessary and must be avoided.
The most common way nations
ensure they follow the
principle of limiting
unnecessary suffering is to
train their armed forces to
cause no more suffering and
destruction than is required by
their mission. A more
systematic approach is to
conduct reviews of new weapons
before allowing them on the
battlefield. Additional
protocol one requires nations
to study each new weapon to
ensure the harm caused by the
weapon does not result in
unnecessary suffering or
violate other provisions of IHL.
Once a weapon has been approved
and it's used in an approved
manner, it should not violate
the principle of limiting
unnecessary suffering. While
the principle of military
necessity recognizes that
suffering and destruction are
necessary in armed conflict,
the principle of limiting
unnecessary suffering puts a
limit on how much suffering is
allowed. Suffering to achieve
legitimate military objectives
is unfortunate but necessary,
causing suffering that is not
necessary to achieve a military
objective is cruel and is
prohibited. Produced by the
American Red cross. If you have
any questions, please contact
EAG law@redcross.org.
>> Any questions at this point?
Okay. We'll keep we'll keep
moving. Yeah.
>> Shann requires parties to a
conflict to distinguish at all
times between combatants and
civilians, and between military
objectives and civilian objects.
Attacks may only be directed at
combatants and military targets,
never at civilians or protected
facilities. In urban warfare,
this principle is especially
difficult, but also critical.
Target verification, precision
strikes, and the marking of
protected sites like hospitals
are all applications of
distinction. Failing to make
this distinction has led to
some of the greatest tragedies
in modern warfare. Civilians
are protected under I, H, l and
may not be targeted. They lose
this protection only if and for
as long as they directly
participate in hostilities, for
example, by taking up arms or
assisting in combat operations.
In many conflicts, civilians
often live alongside fighters
in urban areas. This makes
their protection more difficult,
but the principle remains
attacks cannot be directed at
civilians. Even if the military
advantage would be significant.
>> Not everyone and everything
on the battlefield can be
targeted during an armed
conflict. The principle of
distinction one of the four
fundamental principles of
international humanitarian law,
requires the parties to an
armed conflict to distinguish
between civilians and
combatants, and between
military objectives and
civilian objects. The military
objectives and combatants can
be deliberately targeted.
Civilians and civilian objects
can never be deliberately
targeted. While the fundamental
principle of distinction is not
specifically written into the
41949 Geneva Conventions, it
was included in the 1977
Additional Protocol one, which
supplements the four main
conventions. Additional
protocol one addresses
distinction in two places. In
article 44, it says, in order
to promote the protection of
the civilian population from
the effects of hostilities,
combatants are obliged to
distinguish themselves from the
civilian population while they
are engaged in an attack or in
a military operation
preparatory to an attack. It is
also addressed in article 48,
where it says in order to
ensure respect for and
protection of the civilian
population and civilian objects,
the parties to the conflict
shall at all times distinguish
between the civilian population
and combatants, and between
civilian objects and military
objectives, and accordingly
shall direct their operations
only against military
objectives. These two articles,
taken together create the
modern IHL Principle of
Distinction, which has two
aspects. The first requires
combatants to distinguish
themselves from civilians by
taking steps to separate
themselves from the civilian
population. This is typically
done by requiring the armed
forces to wear uniforms or
display a distinctive emblem
that is visible from a distance,
so that the enemy will not
confuse the combatants with the
civilian population.
Additionally, they should not
locate military objectives. For
example, radar stations and
anti-aircraft guns close to
civilian objects, placing
military objectives close to
civilian objects forces the
enemy to choose between
attacking a military object and
harming civilians, or
refraining from attack to
safeguard civilians. The second
aspect of distinction requires
that before conducting an
attack, parties must
distinguish between combatants
and civilians and civilian
objects and military objectives.
They must take all reasonable
steps to ensure the weapons and
tactics they use in the attack
are directed only at combatants
and military objectives. Some
types of landmines are simply
placed in the ground and left
to be triggered by whomever
steps on it. This type of
landmine is a good example of a
weapon that violates the
principle of distinction,
because it is, by its nature,
indiscriminate. Whoever
triggers the mine causes it to
explode, regardless of whether
the person is a civilian or a
combatant. When the mine is
buried, there is no way to
target it directly to
combatants and no way to tell
if it will ultimately harm a
combatant or civilian. Iho
recognizes that civilians and
their objects cannot be
completely spared from the
violence and destruction that
is always part of armed
conflict. However, it does seek
to limit the effects of armed
conflict on civilians. The
principle distinction, along
with the other three
fundamental principles, are how
each attempts to protect the
victims of armed conflict.
Produced by the American Red
cross. If you have any
questions, please contact E
law@redcross.org.
>> Any questions? So the next
principle we're going to cover
is viewed by many people as one
of the most problematic
principles of international
humanitarian law. And it's the
principle of proportionality.
And this is where the. It comes
through that it's not illegal
in war to kill civilians. And
we'll see that in these next
video.
>> One of the more difficult
principles of international
humanitarian law. It accepts
the fact that civilians will be
injured and killed during war,
and accepts the fact that an
attacking forces may even know
that civilians will be killed
during a planned attack. It is
not illegal that civilians are
killed. Rather, it is illegal.
If a military attack causes
excessive, unnecessary civilian
casualties. The principle of
proportionality prohibits
attacks. If the expected
civilian harm would be
excessive compared to the
direct and concrete military
advantage anticipated. It is a
balancing test. Even lawful
targets cannot be attacked if
the cost to civilians is too
high. For example, destroying a
small weapons cache is not
justified if it would also
demolish a crowded apartment
block next door.
Proportionality forces
militaries to constantly weigh
military gain against human
cost and to seek alternatives
that reduce harm.
>> Similar to the other
fundamental principles of IHL,
the principle of
proportionality imposes
restrictions on what actions
can be taken during armed
conflict. The principle of
proportionality requires that
before an attack can occur, a
military commander must weigh
the anticipated harm to
civilians and civilian objects
against the anticipated
military advantage to be gained
if the anticipated harm to
civilians and damage to
civilian objects would be
excessive in relation to the
anticipated military advantage
of the attack, then the attack
should not be conducted. The
principle proportionality is
not new like the other three
fundamental principles
consisting of military
necessity, distinction and
unnecessary suffering. The
principle proportionality in
armed conflict has existed in
various forms across world
history. In the 17th century,
the famed international lawyer
Hugo Grotius attempted to
expand the definition of
proportionality by writing one
must take care, so far as is
possible, to prevent the death
of innocent persons, even by
accident. In 1863, Professor
Francis Lieber wrote about the
importance of taking
precautionary measures before
attacking in his code for the
Union Army during the American
Civil War. Commanders should,
whenever admissible, inform the
enemy of their intention to
bombard a place so
noncombatants, and especially
the women and children, may be
removed before the bombardment
commences. Proportionality
continued to appear in various
forms in armed conflict
throughout the 19th and 20th
century. The principle
proportionality, as understood
today, was written in its final
form in 1977 as part of
Additional Protocol one to the
Geneva Conventions of 1949,
article 51 of Additional
Protocol one states an attack
should not be conducted if it
may be expected to cause
incidental loss of civilian
life, injury to civilians,
damage to civilian objects or a
combination thereof, which
would be excessive in relation
to the concrete and direct
military advantage anticipated.
There are four important things
to note from this definition.
First, proportionality only
considers the impact the attack
will have on civilians and
civilian objects. The impact on
combatants or military
objectives is not considered.
Second, the anticipated loss of
civilian lives, injury to
civilians and damage to
civilian objects is not evenly
balanced against the
anticipated military advantage
to be gained from the attack.
It is not even enough that the
anticipated harm to civilians
outweighs the anticipated gain
to the military. The principle
of proportionality requires
that the anticipated loss to
civilians must not be excessive,
in relation to the anticipated
military advantage that may be
gained by the attack. The
principle of proportionality
does not make it illegal to
cause civilian casualties.
Instead, proportionality
focuses on whether attack
creates excessive civilian
casualties and damage to
civilian objects. Third, the
proportionality calculation is
not a precise measurement. The
commander ordering the attack
must use his best judgment to
weigh the anticipated civilian
casualties against the
anticipated military advantage.
It is left to the judgment of
the attacking commander to
decide when the loss to
civilians is excessive. Fourth,
to determine if the principle
proportionality was properly
followed, it is reviewed using
the standard of what a
reasonable commander would have
done under similar
circumstances. Known at the
time the decision to attack was
made. It is important to
remember that the commander's
decision is reviewed based on
the information that was
reasonably available at the
time of the decision. After an
attack is conducted, it may be
discovered that the actual loss
of civilian lives and property
was much greater than what was
anticipated, or that the
military advantage actually
gained by the attack was much
less than what was anticipated.
While it may be human nature to
judge the proportionality of an
attack based on the perfect
information that is available
after an attack has been
conducted, this would be unfair
to the commander ordering the
attack, as he must make his
proportionality determination
based only on the information
that was reasonably available
to him before the attack is
conducted. To better understand
how the principle of
proportionality works, consider
this example a commander in the
Army of Country A learns that
three senior commanders from
the Army of country B will be
meeting in a room in an
apartment building. The
commander from country A
believes that if he bombs the
building, he will kill all
three of the senior commanders
from country B, but he also
anticipates he will kill 20 to
30 civilian residents and
destroy the apartment building.
In deciding whether to bomb the
building, the attacking
commander from country A must
ask himself if the anticipated
loss of 20 to 30 civilians and
an apartment building is
excessive compared to the
anticipated military benefit he
would get by killing the three
senior commanders. This example
highlights one of the most
difficult aspects of the
principle of proportionality.
The fact that there often isn't
a clear right or wrong answer.
The facts in the example can be
adjusted to create more clear
cut answers, but
proportionality is always a
judgment call of the attacking
commander. For example, if we
change the facts to say there
was one very junior enemy
soldier hiding in the apartment
building and bombing the
soldier would cause the deaths
of 20 to 30 civilians and the
loss of the apartment building.
Almost everyone would agree
that the attack is not
proportional and should not be
conducted. Likewise, if we said
that every senior leader in
Country B's army was attending
the meeting in the apartment
building and by killing them,
the war would end immediately,
likely saving thousands of
lives. Many would say that
attack would be worth the loss
of civilians and apartment
building. While these last two
examples provide more clear
outcomes, most applications of
proportionality in real
situations are not clear. Let's
take a look at a real example
of proportionality from World
War Two. In February 1945, U.S.
forces were fighting in the
Philippines to enter the
heavily defended capital city
of Manila. Subordinates of the
U.S. commander, General Douglas
MacArthur, repeatedly requested
permission to use airplanes to
bomb enemy positions in the
city. General MacArthur refused,
saying you would probably kill
off the Japanese. All right,
there are several thousand
Filipino civilians in there who
would be killed, too. The world
would hold up its hands in
horror if we did anything like
that. MacArthur decided not to
conduct the air attack because
he believed the loss of
civilian lives by doing so
would be excessive to what he
believed he would gain by the
attack. Military commanders
engaged in armed conflict must
make life and death decisions
every day, often with imperfect
and incomplete information.
Their decisions not only impact
the lives of their soldiers,
but also the lives of the
civilians in the area where
they fight. I cannot completely
protect civilians from the
impacts of armed conflict, but
by applying fundamental
principles such as principle
proportionality, it can work to
inject humanity into it.
Produced by the American Red
cross. If you have any
questions, please contact I.h.
law@redcross.org.
>> One thing before we move on
to the next topic here is. You
may wonder, with such a wishy
washy definition of what is
excessive compared to a
military accomplishing a
military objective. Has anyone
ever been tried for violating
proportionality? The answer is
yes, and it's as far as I can
tell, there's only been one
trial, and this was at the end
of the Second World War. It was
a trial of a German officer who
was serving in Norway, and he
was accused of sort of wanton
destruction when it wasn't
necessary to achieve a military
objective. And on the face of
it, there was huge amount of
civilian destruction that he
laid waste to. But he was found
in one of those rare instances.
He was found innocent because
at the time he thought there
was a large Soviet army that
was about to move into this
area of Norway. And that was a
considered to be a reasonable
military objective, to deny the
enemy of resources. So that's
one objective. More importantly,
I think the principle of
proportionality goes to how
armies decide to choose
objectives. Do you want a
question? Do you have a
question? Okay, how armies go
about it. And in the next
slides we'll talk. Do one
example of that.
>> So the principle of
proportionality, you know, just
in recent conflicts starting
after September 11th, I think
sometimes it doesn't apply
because. Right after September
11th about I don't know how
many countries came undone, you
know, because of that, of that
anger. So I don't think
sometimes we weigh the
principles of proportionality.
And just from my own country's
experience, even during
colonial time, the British, in
order to subdue local African
resistance movements, basically
wiped out entire populations
and drove them up into the
mountains so that they would
have no resistance. And in my
own country of Somalia and
Ethiopia, in those places, the
the Italians in after World War
Two introduced rinderpest,
which destroyed the entire
livestock. To this day, there's.
We never really came back from
from the life, from the amount
of livestock we have lost just
because we stood up to a to a
colonial power. So I'm just
surprised to see this idea of
the how long it has been in
existence, you know, and then
the very nations that are
actually established, this rule
were just in violation. The
British, the Italians, the
French. So and even what's
happening in Gaza in terms of
principle, personality, that
was an entire race turned into
a parking lot. You know, maybe,
you know, I mean, so sometimes
countries respond not on
principles of personality, but
because of other anger, you
know, absolutely. They anger
wipe out people.
>> Yeah. And.
>> And sort of one of the
objectives of international
humanitarian law is to try and
force military organizations to
do their planning and targeting
in a way where anger has, has a
difficult time getting into
that planning process. Did you
want to say something?
>> No.
>> Okay. Because we're going to
talk about we're going to talk
about the way the United States
does targeting in a second. But
here's a slide from it's
actually from the United
Nations. And we're showing
basically the dark black
circles are sort of the region
where everything within anyone
inside those dark black circles
would be killed. And the
lighter circles are where
anyone within that circle will
be. Injured. And the white.
Diagram there, that's supposed
to represent a soccer stadium.
So three weapons here we have a
2,000 pound bomb, a Hellfire
missile, and 155 millimeter
artillery shell. So you can see
that a Hellfire missile, which
carried on a lot of U.S. drones,
has a fairly limited kill
radius and a and the injury
radius around that is really
quite small in comparison. You
look at a 2,000 pound bomb, and
that has a would destroy
everything on that soccer field.
But the injury radius is huge.
And so. Humanitarians in a lot
of countries would like to
outlaw the use of 200 0 pound
bombs in any kind of populated
area, notably the. Israeli
attacks on Gaza used a huge
number of 200 0 pound bombs to
attack military objectives in
that. But. The United States
and many of our allies have a
process. And this is where I
get to the point where planning
is supposed to take away some
of the anger. When the US is
planning a strike, they're
supposed to go through this
thing called a collateral
damage estimation methodology.
And you can read the slides
here. But it's basically a very
structured process where. For
any conflict there is something
called. I don't think it's on
the side. There's a something
called a civilian casualty
cutoff value, which is a secret
number that the US doesn't
disclose. But basically it says
any time when the estimated
number of civilian casualties
is going to be greater than
this number for any particular
strike, it has to be the
decision has to be made by a
higher level command. And
usually that's the president of
the United States. And so there
was a study done at the end of
the Iraq war, and it was found
that whenever the United States
used this planning process for.
Developing a strike package and
striking a target generally
that held down civilian
casualties, because basically
part of the process here is you
pick a weapon that's going to
minimize achieve your objective
while minimizing casualties.
However, whenever the
commanders decided they didn't
have enough time to use that
process, that's when the
civilian casualties went way up.
A good example of that is many,
many times during at at the end
of the Iraq war, there were
reports of where Saddam Hussein
was hiding, and the United
States would inevitably do a
some kind of bomb or missile
strike on that building. And
because he was never Saddam
Hussein was never in any of
those buildings. Whoever was
was a civilian casualties. And
so I think it's important for
militaries to use these
methodologies to think about,
basically use some mental
thinking before the as you
pointed out, the anger kicks in.
So if you have to take a time
and say, okay, what is the
going to be the damage? Which
way is this wall of this
building collapse? Is it going
to collapse on a school, or is
it going to collapse on an open
field? And those are the kind
of things that this methodology
is meant to. Put a sort of a a
pause in the anger that comes
with military strikes,
questions. Okay, this next
section, and it's really our
last major section of the class.
We're going to talk about
people on the battlefield. You
remember earlier on we said
that international humanitarian
law was kind of split up into
two portions. One is how wars
are conducted. And this and the
other section is how people
should be treated. This section
of our classes and why why we
end up with is the important
laws about how people are
supposed to be treated.
>> The only people who would be
on a battlefield would be the
combatants fighting for one
side or another in an armed
conflict. In modern wars, there
are many different categories
of people found on a
battlefield. In the next few
slides, we will discuss various
categories of people and how
the rules governing their
treatment vary. First, on the
battlefield, it is only the
combatants that can be targeted
and killed by enemy combatants.
It is only the combatants that
are legally permitted to target
and kill their enemy. Second,
and most importantly, we must
understand that all people
under all circumstances,
regardless of the category they
fall under, must be protected
from harm and treated with
dignity when they are not
participating in hostilities.
That is an ever present rule in
international humanitarian law.
People who find themselves in
war zones and who are not
participating in an armed
conflict, they are the innocent
bystanders to armed conflict.
Unfortunately, nearly half of
the casualties in today's wars
are civilians. When Henry
Dunant and Clara Barton
experience war, only about 5%
of the casualties in war were
civilians. Military forces
operating in the vicinity of
civilian populations have a
responsibility to protect these
civilians from harm, both
during fighting and during
periods of military occupation.
Armed forces of a party to the
conflict. They are lawful
targets while fighting, but if
captured, they are entitled to
prisoner of war status and
protections. Under the Third
Geneva Convention during the
Gulf War, thousands of captured
Iraqi soldiers were granted POW
status and visited by the Red
cross. This demonstrates how
even enemies in wartime retain
legal rights and protections.
>> Any questions about this?
>> Personnel are given special
protection under I. Because of
their humanitarian roles, they
must not be attacked and are
expected to display protective
emblems such as the Red cross.
When feasible, an attack on a
marked field, hospital or
chaplain is a grave violation
of IHL. Conversely, misuse of
emblems such as disguising
soldiers as medical staff
undermines trust and is itself
unlawful.
>> It's interesting if you see
medics on the most battlefields
today, you won't find them
wearing the distinctive emblem
of a Red cross on their arm
anymore, despite the fact that
it's illegal to target these
people on the battlefield.
Warfare throughout the world
today, medics are always
targeted when they wear the
distinctive emblems. And so
you'll find us. Medics on a
battlefield won't be wearing
red crosses anymore.
Technically they are. They're
not only they're not only serve
as medics, they can also serve
as a combatant since they
aren't wearing the protective
emblem.
>> Take part in hostilities,
lose their protection against
attack, but only for the
duration of their participation.
Once they disengage, they
regain civilian protection. For
example, if a civilian fires on
soldiers during a battle, they
can be lawfully targeted while
fighting. But once they put
down their weapon and return to
civilian life, they cannot be
attacked simply for what they
did earlier.
>> So this is one of the
provisions of international
humanitarian law that many
soldiers in various armed
forces don't like, because a
civilian can attack you during
the day and then go home to his
home at night, and he is in in
vulnerable to attack than under
the law. And some people think
that's not the way it should be.
He's he's a legitimate
combatant. During the years
after the nine over 11 attacks,
the United States in the
international humanitarian law
community were in a debate
about this, of how to consider
a member of a terrorist
organization and how they
should be treated. Excuse me.
And the a compromise was was
made, and I've studied
international humanitarian law
for a while now. And the actual
words of the compromise are
about the most convoluted
international legalese you can
ever manage. But basically,
what the US and the
international community decided
to is that if somebody
participates in hostilities
often enough as part of an
organized group group, and he
does so on a regular basis, and
you can put him on a list like
this person is a member of that
terrorist organization. And if
he's on such a list, then he
can be targeted at any time,
day or night, whether he's
participating in hostilities or
not participating in
hostilities. But if he ever
formally leaves that
organization, then he can no
longer be targeted at any time.
And so it's kind of stretching
these criteria of what is a
civilian.
>> Sometimes called unlawful
combatants do not have the
right to fight and do not
qualify for prisoner of war
status. If captured, however,
they are still entitled to
fundamental humanitarian
protections. This category
became widely discussed after
nine over 11 in the context of
Guantanamo Bay detainees.
However, even when their status
is disputed, IHL requires
humane treatment and prohibits
torture or cruel treatment.
>> So under international law,
the least protected people are
spies and mercenaries. Now, a
mercenary you can think of as
somebody who's paid to fight
for another country. And it's
important to make a distinction
here. Many people from around
the world have gone to fight
for on the side of Ukraine,
against the Russians, and
they're often paid for that.
They're not considered. They
would be if they were paid
large sums of money, they would
be considered mercenaries. But
as long as that person is not
getting paid much more than the
soldiers of the nation they're
fighting for, such as Ukraine,
then they're not considered
mercenaries. This was a
problematic thing that happened
in the war between Russia and
Ukraine. Several U.S. people
were killed fighting for the
Ukraine, and the Russians said,
these are mercenaries. We're
not going to return the bodies
to them, to you, to the United
States. And the United States
argued that, no, these people
were just fighting in the same
status as Ukrainian soldiers.
And they well, eventually the
bodies came home. But
mercenaries are generally
disliked under international
law.
>> Certain civilians accompany
armed forces onto the
battlefield. Examples include
journalists, supply contractors
and maintenance crews. While
they retain civilian status,
they should be issued
identification designating
their role and be treated as
prisoners of war. If captured
by enemy forces.
>> So journalists are
considered prisoner of war when
they're captured. Now we're
going to talk about civilian
objects, and we'll be wrapping
up about them.
>> Terren law protects civilian
objects such as homes, schools,
hospitals and cultural sites.
These places cannot be targeted
unless they are being used for
military purposes, such as
storing weapons or housing
troops. For example, a school
being used as a base for
launching attacks could lose
its protection and become a
lawful target. But if it is
functioning as a school,
attacking it would be a serious
violation of IHL. This
distinction highlights the
importance of accurate
intelligence before strikes are
carried out.
>> So one of the things that
happened a few years ago in the
war between Ukraine and Russia
is that one side, and I don't
think I certainly don't know,
and I don't know if it's been
determined who actually did
this, but somebody destroyed a
dam along the dinner river, and
it flooded a whole bunch of
farmland in southern Ukraine.
That would be a war crime under
international humanitarian law.
>> Prohibits widespread, long
term and severe damage to the
natural environment. Such
destruction can constitute a
war crime under additional
protocol one to the Geneva
Conventions. A stark example
comes from the Gulf War in 1991,
when retreating forces set fire
to hundreds of Kuwaiti oil
wells. The smoke, pollution and
environmental devastation
lasted for years. Under modern
IHL deliberate acts of
environmental destruction are
not just tragedies, but crimes
prosecutable on the
international stage.
>> Any questions?
>> Yes.
>> Was anyone prosecuted?
>> No.
>> It's our once said the Red
cross is a light in the
darkness. It is the duty of all
of us to see that it does not
go out. These words capture the
essence of international
humanitarian law. Even in the
midst of violence, destruction,
and despair. IHL represents a
beacon of humanity, a reminder
that compassion and dignity
must endure. That light shines
every time aid convoys reach
besieged cities. When medics
treat the wounded under the Red
cross emblem, and when courts
hold perpetrators of war crimes
accountable. The survival of
IHL depends on our collective
responsibility to uphold it,
ensuring that even in the
darkest moments of war,
humanity does not disappear.
What started as the vision of
people like Henry Dunant and
Clara Barton to ease the
suffering of the sick and
wounded on the battlefields of
the 19th century, has grown
into the largest humanitarian
relief organization in the
world. The American Red cross
serves the people of the United
States every day in every
corner of our country.
>> Know about the rules of war.
Civilians must be protected. It
is illegal to target civilians
and civilian objects, things
like homes, schools and
hospitals. The sick and wounded
must be cared for regardless of
whose side they're on. Like
soldiers, the shipwrecked
civilians and medical staff
detainees are also protected
under international
humanitarian law. This includes
protection from acts of
violence and intimidation, and
special protection is given to
prisoners of war. All those
who've died must be treated
with dignity. Under
international humanitarian law,
warring parties must facilitate
the return of the dead to their
loved ones. Humanitarian aid
like food, water and medicine
must be able to reach people,
so parties to a conflict must
facilitate humanitarian access.
And most importantly, the rules
of war must be applied without
discrimination, regardless of a
person's race, sex, nationality,
political opinion or religion.
>> Well, that completes our
presentation. We have plenty of
time now for questions you may
have or thank you
>> For so much for coming today.
We like giving these
presentations. I guess we can
end the filming of this. And if
you want to just come up and
ask questions at the end,
that'd be great too. Thank you
so much.