Winds of change

For almost half a century the Geneva Conventions of 1949 were regarded as being carved in stone. Even their Additional Protocols of 1977, though disputed by the United States, were predominantly accepted as having "largely" reaffirmed the existing customary law regarding the protection of war victims. In conflicts until the end of the last century the warring parties including the United States of America referred to the Geneva Convention rules when calling for the application of humanitarian law by the adversary. The International Committee of the Red Cross traditionally used the reference to the Geneva Conventions in their admonitions to the parties. The International Court of Justice and the Security Council of the United Nations undoubtedly based their relevant decisions implicitly or explicitly on this part of international law. Most important the war victims around the globe had faith in the value of the Geneva Conventions for their survival.

The first complicated conflict of the new decade joggled the foundation of the traditional humanitarian law: The Afghanistan War and its aftermath. Sustained US-resistance against a direct application of the Geneva Conventions to the detained persons in Guantanamo and elsewhere as well as the political debate on the application of the laws of war to the war against terror has fuelled lurking doubts about the appropriateness of the traditional laws of war to the new wars.

The winds of change can easily be sensed everywhere, and their velocity is not to the benefit of the present war victims. Whether there is an appropriate new system in sight is rather questionable but those calling for it should be aware of the risk that those who sow the wind will reap the whirlwind.

Horst Fischer is Academic Director of the Institute for International Law of Peace and Armed Conflict at Ruhr University in Germany.