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.
|