Your Excellencies, distinguished co-chairs, distinguished founding members of the Global IHL initiative, dear colleagues,
It is an honour to be with you today at this milestone moment for the Global Initiative on International Humanitarian Law.
We meet today during a decade that is defined by war. The number of armed conflicts continues to rise, around 130 by the ICRC’s count last year. This is twice as many as we spoke about at the ICRC 15 years ago.
The trend is the wrong one, and we need to reverse it.
What we also know is that the consequences of today’s wars are not confined to the battlefield. They have a profound impact on your economies. But most of all, they corrode our sense of shared humanity. They hollow out what states came together to not repeat what happened in the Second World War.
Let me thank the 27 co-chairs for having committed to working tirelessly in making sure the world understands that IHL is not a theoretical issue but is implementable if the political will is attached to it.
I want to thank the six founding states because without their coming together a year ago, and without them saying, “Let’s try. We will support you in this,” we wouldn’t be here today. These states came together a year ago without much information, but on the mere acknowledgement that we have to raise the relevance of the rules of war to the political level in order to stem the tide of destruction and human suffering.
None of this would have been a success today if the 91 states that have formally joined the initiative haven’t remained committed, and if the 130 states hadn’t continuously participated in the consultations. I have deep appreciation and admiration for this.
The report we launched is a testament to what is possible when states choose dialogue over division and when they choose humanity over self-interest.
It reflects the commitment of governments, experts and civil society to confront one of the most defining challenges of our time: the frequent disregard and the hollowing out of international humanitarian law in contemporary warfare.
But this week in Gaza—and I am extremely proud of my team—we are conducting an operation that is extremely complex, sensitive, and relevant for the first steps that need to be taken in the Middle East. This operation proves that it is possible to respect the rules of war. It is possible to implement the rules of war. It is possible to bring back hostages and detainees to their families. It is possible to save lives.
These measures should encourage us to continue with this initiative because they also prove that what we what we do here, and what we have done in the course of the last months, is relevant. It is practical and it helps us proceed in the right direction.
The first progress report on the initiative highlights concrete proposals from states—not our proposals, your proposals—to strengthen respect for international humanitarian law. That includes updated military training, stronger national accountability mechanisms, identifying risk factors that heighten the likelihood of violations, and addressing them before or as they emerge.
IHL for me has become an issue of prevention because we want to prevent the death and destruction that we see in Gaza and elsewhere. We cannot say accountability matters when we could have stopped things from escalating.
States in the consultations also emphasized the importance of incorporating IHL rules into peace agreements and signalled readiness to respond to growing concerns about potentially unjustified attacks on medical facilities by exploring practical ways to strengthen precautions and verify allegations that hospitals are being used for military purposes. These are important, pragmatic steps that demonstrate how political will can translate into concrete action.
It's not about statements. It’s about the actions you can take.
For a nurse in a bombed-out hospital, for a father searching for food in a displacement camp, for a child sheltering in a tent when there is shelling all around, international humanitarian law is not a legal affair. It is the thin line between their lives and their death. It’s the line between dignity and dehumanization.
It's real. It’s very concrete. This is what we have to bear in mind. It’s evident that we are witnessing a growing tolerance and indifference for destruction and total victory. And don’t forget: IHL stands in the way of total victory. This is why it was created.
If this erosion of limitless warfare is not challenged, it will become the norm setting very dangerous precedents and deepening global insecurity at a scale that will inevitably affect us all.
Every state today, given the escalation of conflicts, has a stake and a responsibility in reversing the dangerous trend—the trend hollowing out the normative space that constitutes the basis for political interaction at national levels but also between states.
This is why the findings of this report matter.
They remind us that the rules of war are lifesaving and that states must defend a faithful interpretation of the law—and not one that warps the law to justify killing rather than prevent killing. Placing civilians, humanitarian personnel and vital infrastructure at excessive and avoidable risk cannot be disguised as military necessity. These are all violations of the law.
Ensuring a consistent and universal application of IHL means holding even our allies accountable when they cross the line. This is not about friends and enemies. This is about a universal set of rules that we all have to apply equally, and this is not transactional.
Let me share some of the key transversal takeaways from this report.
The first is we need to reaffirm the strength of IHL.
The second one is that we have to place protection of people at the centre. IHL must be rooted in the realities of those who suffer from conflict. IHL is not to serve in the pursuit of military objectives. IHL does not defy war, but it protects civilians in war, and it must be read and applied as such.
The third takeaway is that we have to make IHL a political priority. Making IHL a political priority also means budgeting for IHL. There is no respect for international humanitarian law if there is no political will, leadership and courage to follow through.
And again, we see this as a sign of encouragement that the six states, the 27 co-chairs, the 91 countries supporting the initiative formally, and the 130 states that have participated already.
The fourth takeaway is strengthening multilateralism. The core of IHL is multilateral because it combines a set of rules that go across all countries, societies, religions, and convictions. Its essence is multilateral—and the notion of IHL being non-transactional is also multilateral. It only functions if all states agree to follow the same rules at all times simultaneously. Don’t dismiss multilateralism because you need it to save lives because today’s wars are not confined within the borders of a state or a region.
The fifth takeaway is that you have to invest in behaviour change, in training, in education, and in communication. We have to make sure that the public realizes that this is not something for lawyers and courts. This is something that pertains to each and every one of us. This is something that corresponds to the essence of our everyday being that we treat each other with respect, and that we recognize that a human life is a human life.
And finally, you need to reinforce accountability. But accountability starts at home. It starts by budgeting and implementing IHL. If you do not do that, no international mechanism will be able to cope with the fallout. We at the ICRC can support processes, we can provide technical assistance, we can implement humanitarian measures in line with international humanitarian law—as we are doing now in Gaza—but we cannot compensate for the absence of national commitment and national implementation at national levels.
This initiative is not about politicising IHL. It is about elevating it to the political space.
I want to thank you all again and ask you to continue working with us, not only through the next year until we hold the international meeting but beyond next year. Similar to sustainable development, implementing and respecting IHL is not something that begins and ends at a certain point. It is something that we have to work on constantly. It is something that we have to keep as high on the political ladder as we can in order to prevent future wars.
Thank you.
