Implementation of International Humanitarian Law

The law of armed conflicts is valid — and meaningful — only to the extent that it is implemented. Pacta sunt servanda. This axiom should be engraved in the conscience of mankind. Undeviating compliance with it should go without saying, since what is at stake is no less than the protection of victims of armed conflict and the limitation of the violent effects of war. Yet it must be acknowledged, in sorry repetition, that this is not always the case. First of all, international humanitarian law (IHL), which is a compromise between military and humanitarian imperatives, is often respected only when it overlaps with State interests. Secondly, the violence inherent in situations of conflict is not particularly conducive to meticulous respect for the principles and rules of IHL. This does not mean that the progress made to date in the area of IHL is not commendable. No less than 100 States are now party to Additional Protocol I and 99 to Additional Protocol II. Moreover, the dissemination of IHL has become a standard practice and, in many cases, a recognized field of study, particularly among military and government personnel and National Red Cross and Red Crescent staff. Despite these achievements, however, the implementation of IHL continues to be impeded by indifference, scepticism and ignorance. It is therefore important to determine how IHL's extensive legal resources can be used more effectively to overcome such obstacles, and how the relevant preventive measures and monitoring mechanisms can be brought to bear to ensure its more widespread implementation. The International Review of the Red Cross attempts to answer these important questions in the present and next issue in a series of articles focusing on various aspects of the implementation of IHL. The Review first deals with preventive measures, namely the measures taken by States at the national level in peacetime, i.e. before the provi-