III-b. International Humanitarian Law
It is important to distinguish international human rights law from international humanitarian law (IHL). International humanitarian law is the branch of international law that is concerned with humanitarian action in armed conflict situations. Its origins trace back to a Swiss businessman, Henri Dunant. He was appalled at the neglect of battlefield casualties in the Battle of Solferino, in what is now Italy, in 1859, and started what were to become the national Red Cross societies. These agencies provided services for sick and wounded soldiers, and also lobbied for new international agreements regarding the care of soldiers. As a result, the first Geneva Convention for Victims of War was concluded in 1864.
Over decades of negotiation, the principles for care not only of soldiers but also of civilians were steadily refined. The four Geneva Conventions of 1949 are the major sources of the law of armed conflict. They are the Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War; the Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field; the Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea; and the Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. While the four conventions apply primarily in situations of international conflict, they have a Common Article 3 that extends their application to situations of internal (non-international) conflict.
After negotiations at the Geneva Conference on the Reaffirmation and Development of International Humanitarian Law beginning in 1974, two supplements, Protocols Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 were adopted in 1977. Protocol I applies to international armed conflicts, while Protocol II applies to non-international armed conflicts. The four Geneva Conventions of 1949 together with these two protocols comprise the core of international humanitarian law. Most states have by now become parties to the Geneva conventions and the two protocols.
Apart from the primary parties, the ratifying nation-states, there is a single distinct agent, the International Committee for the Red Cross (ICRC) that has responsibility for the implementation of international humanitarian law. Indeed, the 1949 conventions were initially drafted by the ICRC. In its own terms, the ICRC
. . . is an independent humanitarian institution. As a neutral intermediary in the event of armed conflict or unrest it endeavours, on its own initiative or on the basis of the Geneva Conventions, to bring protection and assistance to the victims of international and non-international armed conflict and internal disturbances and tensions.
The ICRC’s potentials are limited because of the inherent difficulties of dealing with armed conflict, especially when it involves major powers. Nevertheless, the ICRC generally commands great respect for its work.
The Geneva Conventions can be accessed through the website of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (www.unhchr.ch), but international humanitarian law is not human rights law. As one analyst points out:
The scope of the [Geneva] Conventions remains dependent on the objective concept of the protected person, defined according to his status in relation to the events of war (sick, wounded, prisoner of war, civilian), with very little room for the idea of attributing supreme subjective rights, without any distinction, deriving solely from the quality of being human (Kolb 1998).
The protections provided by IHL are required only in particular circumstances, while human rights are universal. With few exceptions (derogations), international human rights law is applicable not only in peace time but also in situations of armed conflict and other public emergencies (Rosas 1995).
Our work here on the human right to food and nutrition is based primarily on international human rights law. However, international human rights law is relevant in connection with food and nutrition rights in armed conflict situations as well as in peacetime. Under IHL, there are also some special provisions relating to food in conflict situations. As Asbj�rn Eide points out, with regard to the right to food . . .
Important provisions are also found in international humanitarian law as laid down principally in the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the two Additional Protocols of 1977. It prohibits the starvation of civilian populations, as well as the destruction of objects indispensable to their survival, such as foodstuffs, agricultural areas, crops, livestock, drinking water installations and irrigation works. It also prohibits methods or means of warfare likely to cause widespread, long-term damage to the environment, thereby jeopardizing the health or survival of the population. It contains provisions concerning humanitarian assistance and relief operations, including the free passage of such essentials as food, medicines and other goods of primary necessity.
Much of international humanitarian law was designed for an environment of armed conflict which has undergone significant changes in recent years, notably since the end of the cold war. There has been a shift from conflicts between States - the traditional focus of humanitarian law - to armed conflicts within States, and a rise in intra-State tensions and disturbances short of outright armed conflict. Human rights, including freedom from hunger, continue generally to apply also during armed conflict. The allocation of responsibility between the different actors involved in the conflict, as well as the rights, obligations and roles of international agencies, are matters of controversy in great need of clarification (Eide, Asbj�rn 1999, paras. 56-57; also see paras. 77-79 on sanctions)..
Thus, while separate, international human rights law and international humanitarian law are strongly linked, both require attention in situations of armed conflict.
Continue to III-c. The International Bill of Human Rights
Subsection III-b last updated on September 26, 1999