Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen,
The ICRC currently works in about 130 situations of armed conflicts around the world, three times more than over a decade ago.
While the number of countries experiencing armed conflict remains relatively stable, the number of simultaneous conflicts within them is growing. Conflicts tend to be protracted, often lasting for decades and affecting several generations.
Contemporary warfare is marked by an increase in international armed conflict, geopolitical tensions and rapid technological advancements. As my ICRC colleagues witness daily in the field, this exacerbates the risk for more high-intensity conflicts with devastating humanitarian consequences. Much of the destruction and human cost can be prevented if the rules of war are respected.
The sheer scale of human suffering we witness in armed conflicts across the world – be it in the Middle East, Africa, East Europe and beyond – must never be accepted as inevitable. These are not unfortunate side effects of war, but the result of a failure to spare civilians and protect our shared humanity. This is the result of not complying with the letter and spirit of international humanitarian law.
Distinguished guests,
As conflicts escalate, so too does the weaponization of information. Today, wars are fought not only in the kinetic, but also in the digital space. Harmful narratives and incendiary rhetoric are used to inflame hatred and justify extreme violence. In a world increasingly interconnected, the speed at which harmful narratives can spread is unprecedented – with dangerous real-world consequences as dehumanizing the others creates an environment leading to all types of abuses and wars without limit.
Besides, cyber operations have been used to disrupt electricity and water systems, hospitals and other civilian infrastructure – often far from the frontlines. Let me stress that IHL applies to cyber operations in war just as it does to conventional means and methods of warfare.
With fast scientific and technological advances, one may ask how IHL applies to new means and methods of warfare, such as autonomous weapons systems. The ICRC has repeatedly called on states to swiftly regulate such systems that are capable of selecting and destroying targets without any human intervention. Life-and-death decisions must not be delegated to sensors and algorithms alone. An element of human control is critical to preserving appropriate judgement capacity and accountability. These are essential considerations to uphold the core IHL principles of distinction, proportionality and precautions in attack, together with concerns over predictability and explainability.
Adopting a legally binding instrument is critical to establish a clear framework with specific prohibitions and restrictions. Without it, we risk condemning future generations to a world where algorythms decide who lives and dies, and accountability is dangerously blurred.
International humanitarian law also applies to military activity in outer space in the context of armed conflict. The expanding role of space systems in military operations increases the likelihood of their being targeted, which puts at-risk essential services on Earth.
For example, disabling or destroying satellites can have serious humanitarian consequences. Satellites that provide navigation, communications, and remote sensing have become indispensable to the functioning of civilian life. Humanitarian organisations also depend on such services to reach people in need during armed conflict or disaster.
As hostilities risk extending beyond Earth – through the targeting of space-based assets – parties to conflict remain bound by IHL and the obligation to spare civilians and civilian objects.
Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen,
It is in the interest of no one to allow an erosion of IHL and the lowering of the norms of humanity that apply in war. This does not only cause immense suffering and widespread destruction. It also breeds instability and impairs peace efforts.
In this context, respect for IHL must become a political priority. Just a year ago, China, Brazil, France, Jordan, Kazakhstan and South Africa, together with the ICRC, launched an initiative to galvanize political commitment to uphold the rules of war. Since then, over 80 states have joined this effort.
Twenty-four of these states have stepped forward to co-chair seven thematic workstreams with a view to developing practical recommendations to strengthen respect for IHL.
These include:
- identifying good practices to prevent violations;
- exploring how IHL can contribute to peace;
- strengthening the protection of civilian infrastructure, notably hospitals;
- addressing challenges posed by communications and information technologies;
- examining the humanitarian impacts of modern naval warfare, and
- supporting the domestic implementation of IHL.
Since the beginning of the year, over 130 states have participated in consultations around these themes. The 24 co-chairing states are now working closely with the ICRC to present preliminary findings which will be shared in the coming months. The Initiative will culminate next year in a high-level meeting to uphold humanity in war.
It is encouraging to see these discussions revealing broad support for an effective and protective, rather than an overly permissive, interpretation of international humanitarian law.
To conclude, distinguished guests, let me end with a word on conflict preparedness. It is the ICRC’s mission to remind states that it does not equate solely with investment in firepower. Conflict preparedness actually demands sustained investment in international humanitarian law during peacetime in order to ensure compliance in wartime.
This includes integrating international humanitarian law into military doctrine and manuals, in military training curricula and operating procedures, alongside a robust system of oversight and accountability. The ICRC remains fully committed and available to support all states in this endeavour.
Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen,
In the context of rising geopolitical tensions, it is crucial that states join forces to reignite the vision of protecting civilians and critical civilian infrastructure from the effects of armed conflict –thereby contributing to an enabling environment for peace and stability.
