Challenges … The Geneva Conventions and International Humanitarian Law

It is well-known that the only branch of public international law which faces various challenges is international humanitarian law. One of the most significant issues is the conflict between the rule of law and the rule of force, as well as the struggle between the claims of justice and the reality of power. This conflict may stem from the intersection of politics and law, the presence of double standards, and the selective application of rules. At the international level, international humanitarian law encounters diverse challenges that vary from one country to another. In particular, the Geneva Conventions face obstacles related to their definition, awareness, dissemination, teaching, and implementation at the national level within each country. As the cornerstone of international humanitarian law, the four Geneva Conventions and their associated protocols confront common challenges. The need for clarification has intensified with the passage of time since their adoption in 1949, particularly given the significant evolution in armed conflict dynamics. This development has not been matched by corresponding advancements in the provisions of the Geneva Conventions. Consequently, this overarching challenge has spawned various other obstacles that must be addressed, including the following:
1)    One of the most significant challenges encountered by the Geneva Conventions at the domestic level is their limited inclusion in early or university-level curricula for in-depth study. It is observed that in many developing countries, the Conventions are offered as an elective course, and school curricula often lack sufficient coverage of this subject.
2)    Another obstacle is the lack of a legal culture surrounding these Conventions, stemming from a confusion between the concepts of international humanitarian law and international human rights law. Additionally, many societies do not prioritize these laws as significant factors.
3)    The absence of a database containing the names of experts and specialists in the field of international humanitarian law presents a challenge when assessing the Geneva Conventions for dissemination purposes.
4)    The National Societies for International Humanitarian Law, which are expected to play a crucial role in promoting compliance with the provisions of these Conventions, have not fulfilled their intended purpose due to insufficient capabilities and financial resources allocated to them, particularly in countries experiencing armed conflicts. 
5)    The institutions involved in disseminating and reinforcing the rules of international humanitarian law outlined in the Geneva Conventions lack a cohesive media strategy to achieve this objective. They rely on visual, print, and audio media; however, most media outlets do not dedicate adequate coverage to this cause, often prioritizing profitability over promoting the provisions of the Geneva Conventions. The International Committee of the Red Cross stands out for its efforts in this regard, as evidenced by its global missions.
6)    The institutions operating in this sector lack training programs for personnel in the field of international humanitarian law related to the Geneva Conventions. If such programs do exist, they often lack a defined target audience for the training.
7)    The lack of a collaborative approach or efficient coordination between government institutions and National Red Crescent and Red Cross Societies in numerous countries. It is evident that each entity operates independently, leading to duplicated efforts and wastage of resources, time, and energy.
8)    The disparity between theoretical endorsement and practical implementation. While most countries worldwide have ratified the majority of the Geneva Conventions, which mandate the dissemination and promotion of these Conventions as widely as possible, there is a discrepancy in fulfilling these obligations on the ground in a manner commensurate with the responsibilities imposed on the States parties to these treaties.
9)    Many countries have not adequately aligned their national laws with the ratified Geneva Conventions. Where legislative reviews are conducted, they typically progress slowly and are stretched over extended periods.
10)    One of the key challenges currently facing the Geneva Conventions, seventy-five years on, is the rapid evolution of social interaction platforms, enabling regular citizens to raise numerous inquiries concerning inconsistencies in implementation and standards. There is evident difficulty in addressing queries from ordinary citizens, such as why these Conventions are enforced in small nations but not in larger countries or those responsible for widespread breaches of international humanitarian law. This issue was highlighted notably in the context of the aggression in Gaza. This perspective is not that of the writer, but rather reflects the sentiments expressed by the public or students during the writer’s classes on international humanitarian law.
11)    The institutions in operation do not completely fulfill their obligations concerning raising awareness and disseminating information about the Geneva Conventions. For instance, when the Geneva Conventions specify that "international humanitarian law should be disseminated as widely as possible," we observe that this is only carried out in specific sectors. The efforts are restricted and lack comprehensive programs for certain groups of military personnel and civilians.
12)    Up to this point, the institutions operating in the realm of international humanitarian law have not been able to enhance their performance through the development of programs and plans, mainly because of the absence of performance metrics and the lack of annual work plans.
13)    The prevalence of armed conflicts, particularly in our region, has significantly impacted the implementation of the Geneva Conventions. This is largely due to emerging practices involving excessive use of certain weapons and tactics that lack adequate legal frameworks, such as the utilization of drones, the presence of foreign fighters, deployment of cluster bombs, and the usage of internationally prohibited weapons and their consequences. Modern technologies have reshaped the nature of warfare, necessitating a reassessment of these Conventions to address the aforementioned developments.
14)    With multiple entities involved in this domain, including governments, national societies, national committees, the Red Cross, certain civil society organizations, the International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent, the fundamental issues and challenges stem from the lack of coordination and collaboration in disseminating information and bolstering adherence to the provisions outlined in these Conventions.
15)    One of the prominent challenges encountered by the Geneva Conventions is that the dissemination of these conventions and the promotion of compliance with their provisions should not solely target the military and civilian sectors directly involved in this legal realm. In today's society, it is vital for all individuals to partake in these efforts. This necessitates substantial endeavors, encompassing the provision of resources and financial support to effectively share the core principles outlined in these Conventions and to foster a culture of awareness surrounding them, particularly focusing on international humanitarian law at large.
16)    The Geneva Conventions also encounter additional challenges due to the intersection of concepts, including the complexity of differentiating between the legitimate resistance of people seeking self-determination and acts of terrorism. Furthermore, there is a lack of precise and universally accepted definition of terrorism, alongside the introduction of novel concepts and terminologies previously unfamiliar in international humanitarian law, such as preemptive war and foreign fighters. Balancing freedom and security presents a notable challenge as well, leading to new repercussions and hurdles for those tasked with upholding these Conventions.
17)    Institutions engaged in international humanitarian law are increasingly susceptible to attacks, as illustrated by incidents targeting ambulance teams, aid workers, and hospitals, such as those witnessed in Gaza. These attacks have occurred in various conflict zones, despite the protected status of medical personnel and relief workers under the provisions of the Geneva Conventions.
18)    Recent wars and conflicts in certain regions have witnessed deployment of destructive weapons resulting in widespread and unjustifiable suffering. Evident examples include the situations in Gaza, southern Lebanon, Yemen, Libya, and Syria, highlighting the inability of human rights institutions to adequately address the extensive harm inflicted on individuals and infrastructure by certain conflicting parties. This failure to hold perpetrators accountable constitutes a blatant breach of the Geneva Conventions' principles, as those responsible for these violations have gone unpunished.
19)    One of the challenges confronting the Geneva Conventions is the potential threat posed by modern weapons like robots and drones to the tenets of international humanitarian law, particularly the principle of distinction. This is due to the autonomous operation of some of these weapons without human oversight, raising concerns about susceptibility of their technical to hacking. Addressing these issues necessitates a careful reassessment of the Geneva Conventions to integrate the implications of this technological advancement.

Considering the aforementioned points, we find that the challenges confronting the Geneva Conventions after over seven decades are substantial. Failure to address these challenges could lead to a scenario where these Conventions necessitate periodic reassessment. Several recommendations need to be put forth, as outlined below:
1.    Creating a comprehensive strategy to promote and reinforce the principles and concepts of international humanitarian law outlined in the Geneva Conventions on a broad scale, aiming to elevate understanding and awareness of these principles and concepts.
2.    The diverse institutions tasked with upholding the Geneva Conventions (international, governmental, civil) should serve as proactive guardians, focusing on practical efforts rather than mere rhetoric. They must adopt a collaborative approach and foster coordination to prevent redundant efforts and optimize the use of energy and resources. This coordination should encompass relevant entities working within this domain.
3.    As education plays a crucial role in disseminating awareness of international humanitarian law, the principles and concepts of the Geneva Conventions should be incorporated into diverse educational curricula.
4.    Governments should allocate the required financial resources to ensure widespread dissemination of these Conventions.
5.    We also suggest establishing a legislative review process of national texts embedded in domestic laws to ensure consistency between the content of the Geneva Conventions and local legislation.
6.    Each country should establish a national database that encompasses institutions, experts, and consultants specializing in international humanitarian law. Additionally, a documentation center should be set up to house the rules and principles of international humanitarian law.
7.    For the purpose of elevating the capabilities of institutions and enhancing their performance, donors and international bodies such as the United Nations, the International Committee of the Red Cross, and international humanitarian relief organizations must establish training programs aimed at assisting organizations in the realm of international humanitarian law to understand the Geneva Conventions better and improve adherence to their provisions.
8.    When establishing national committees for international humanitarian law, membership should not be limited to government agencies; instead, civil society organizations and experts should be involved in their individual capacities.

In summary: I consider it crucial and essential to recognize the issues and obstacles, as acknowledging a problem is a vital step towards finding a solution. This is particularly significant in our region, plagued by diverse armed conflicts. Enhancing the capacity of institutions operating in this domain may be one of the primary factors to be addressed, as these organizations often exhibit more agility and efficacy than governments. While governments may not prioritize this area at an official level, it remains a paramount concern for institutions dedicated to international humanitarian law, as demonstrated by practical evidence.