A group of experts, professionals and students gathered last Wednesday evening, 27 March, in Dublin to discuss IHL and Cyber Operations – where something old meets something new.  The discussion was facilitated by Lt. Col. Jerry Lane, Irish Defence Forces but as always participants provided many lively and thought provoking comments throughout the evening.

The first issue addressed was the question of when can IHL apply?  In a world with increased reliance on computers and networks in all aspects of life, when does a cyber attack cross that threshold from being a matter of criminal law to being an act of ‘cyber warfare’?  And even if we can agree on this, can a body of law as old as IHL really be expected to cope with the rapidly evolving technology used in cyber operations?  The general feeling in the room was that by and large, yes IHL is up to the task, especially if we consider the consequences of the attack.  Art 49 (1), Additional Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions defines an attack as “act of violence” but does not explicitly provide for how that violence is instigated.  The underlying principles of IHL remain constant – it is unlawful to target civilians or cause unnecessary suffering or to be disproportionate in the force used.

Cyber operations, however have created a fifth domain of warfare, the first four being land, sea, air and space and as such does present a number of ‘grey areas’ where the law may need to be developed further.  The lack of a concrete geographical dimension for the mode of attack may raises interesting legal questions regarding jurisdiction, however it should also be borne in mind that the perpetrators, themselves are nonetheless not in cyber space!

Nonetheless, if we focus on the consequential force of the action the full body of IHL can be applied.  Another area which raises potential controversy however, is the issue of attribution of attacks.  As with the general debate sounding non state actors and the notion of direct participation in hostilities, questions remain.

If you would like more information about our IHL Dissemination Activities or how to register for future IHL Roundtable discussions please visit http://www.redcross.ie/our-work-overseas/international-humanitarian-law/ or email me on lscollins@redcross.ie

Louise Sarsfield Collins

Thursday last, 10 January 2013 a group of students, experts, and professionals gathered in Dublin to discuss what protections, if any, are afforded to the natural environment during armed conflicts be they international or non-International in character.

The discussion was facilitated by Dr Heike Spieker, German Red Cross and Ms Tara Smith, Irish Aid and the Irish Centre of Human Rights, NUI Galway, both of whom have particular research interests in this area.

While the natural environment is often not at the forefront of people’s minds when considering the effects of armed conflict and war, it nonetheless is always impacted to some degree. This can be anything from damage to fields by heavy tanks from which the ground can recover in a few months, nudification of plant life from herbicides or other harmful chemicals, or the long-lasting effects of nuclear weapons.

The audience were reminded that in the case of international armed conflicts between states there are a number of articles in treaty law which seek to protect the environment. Of specific relevance is the Environmental Modification Convention, 1976 (ENMOD) as well as Articles 35 and 55 of Additional Protocol I, 1977. However, there is no specific mention in Additional Protocol II not does the ENMOD Convention have effect in non-international armed conflict.

Even within international armed conflicts, the threshold of damage required to be in violation of international humanitarian law (IHL) is quite high and there are no universally agreed upon definitions of what exactly is meant by terms such as “wide-spread”, “long-term” or “severe”. Even amongst scientists there are varying opinions in this regard.

In practice, much of the protection afforded the natural environment during armed conflicts, especially during non-international armed conflicts spring from its quality as a ‘civilian object’ or ‘civilian property’. Civilians and civilian objects are protected against being the direct target of attack during armed conflict. Unfortunately this does not protect the environment (or other civilian object) from becoming collateral damage or from losing their protected status if used by armed groups. Furthermore, resources contained within the natural environment such as diamonds, oil, or even water are contributing factors in armed conflicts across the globe.

Throughout the lively discussion, many questions were asked and issues raised about how the law might be further developed to protect the environment during war or how existing laws might be used to better protect through indirect application. Unfortunately, no ready solutions were discovered although most in attendance did feel that there is a lacuna in the law that might be worth addressing in the future.

If you would like more information about our IHL Dissemination Activities or how to register for future IHL Roundtable discussions please visit www.redcross.ie-IHL or email me lscollins [@] redcross.ie

Only one more day until the Irish Red Cross IHL Conference ‘Reporters Lives on the Line’ …time to address the all important question… Who exactly is protected by IHL?

People who are protected by IHL include wounded and sick combatants who have essentially been removed from the fight, Prisoners of War, and civilians. As already mentioned civilians are protected from being the target of attack. They are also protected from forced displacement however an important caveat here is that civilians may be forced to move if they are in danger OR it is militarily imperative. Therefore it is likely that even if an armed group is respecting IHL, they could lawfully displace a population on the basis that it was either for their own safety or essential for military reasons. The length of this displacement should be kept as short as possible and the return of people displaced in such a manner should be facilitated under IHL. As we all know, population displacement is a major problem around the world and even if an armed group doesn’t force people from a village, the people may feel they have no choice but to flee if they know that opposing armed groups are fighting close by.

A photo journalist jumps over a smoke canister at a demonstration. REUTERS M. del Pozo courtesy the Thomson Reuters Foundation – Alertnet

The torture or inhumane treatment of civilians and combatants alike is prohibited under IHL. Civilians are also protected from discrimination, coercion, collective punishment or reprisals. In occupied territory, civilians are protected from being conscripted into the armed forces of the occupying power.

Detention is however not prohibited in certain circumstances. For example during occupation, criminal detention may continue so long as judicial procedures are fair and obviously prisons must reach certain minimum levels. In the case of internment for military reasons, there are various rules which govern how internees must be treated.

Aside from the general protection as civilians a number of provisions are specifically applicable to female civilians and children. Hospitals, medical transports, humanitarian relief and personnel and journalists are all also mentioned specifically as having protection.

If you are interested in finding our more about IHL why not join our IHL mailing list or come along to our conference Reporters Lives on the Line taking place in Dublin next week.

Follow the Irish Red Cross IHL Conference ‘Reporters Lives on the Line  live on Twitter ‘#IHL2012‘ – Thursday Octiber 25th from 10am

By Louise Sarsfield Collins, International Humanitarian Law Dissemination Officer with the Irish Red Cross.

Tweet Louise @Louise_Scollins

Read more about International Humanitarian Law on the Irish Red Cross Blog

Read Violence and Conflict Force 43 Million to Migrate

As I prepare for this week’s Irish Red Cross IHL Conference ‘Reporters Lives on the Line’ I thought I’d address some of the most common question I comes across in my role as International Humanitarian Law Dissemination Officer with the Irish Red Cross.

So, today we look at just how does IHL limit the effects of armed conflict and are there different types of armed conflict?…

How does IHL limit the effects of armed conflict?

IHL is based around a number of key basic principles namely that a distinction must be made between combatants and civilians , a prohibition on attacking those not taking direct part in hostilities, a prohibition on the infliction of unnecessary suffering, for example exploding bullets or blinding lasers.  The principle of necessity must be balance with the principle of proportionality, i.e. does the military necessity of this action outweigh  the damage that will be done and lastly Martens Clause [LSC1] which essentially says that even if you are not protected by any specific rule you are protected by the dictates of humanity and the requirements of the public conscience.

The key legal instruments that we have for IHL include the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 which as mentioned above are universally ratified.  Each speaks to the protections of certain groups of people, the first is concerned with the sick and wounded in the armed forces in the field, the second with the sick, wounded and shipwrecked armed forces at sea, the third with prisoners of war and the fourth with the protection of civilians.  In addition to these we have Protocols Additional I and II from 1977, a wide array of weapons treaties, treaties relating to the protection of cultural property, Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child,  Protocol Additional III, 2005, and the law is still developing.

Are there different types of armed conflict?

IHL applies to all armed conflicts, including partial or total occupation even if that occupation met with no armed resistance.  Likewise, the state or states involved in the conflict do not have to recognise there is a conflict taking place for IHL to apply.  Within IHL a distinction however is made between International Armed Conflicts (IAC), so conflicts that take place between two or more States, and non-international armed conflicts (NIAC) which occur on the territory of one State between either the forces of the States and a non-state organised armed group or between two or more such groups.  This distinction is important because certainly as far as treaty law is concerned there are far more provisions regarding international armed conflict than non-international armed conflict.  However, this is tempered to some degree by the fact that many customary international humanitarian laws have been shown to apply to NIAC, and the basic principles outlined above apply at all times.  Nonetheless, some protections are not as well developed in NIAC as in IAC.  One clear example is that the status of POW (prisoner of war) is not available in NIAC.

It also should be noted that a certain threshold must be reached before we can apply IHL, especially when we are talking about NIACs.  The Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) is very clear where it states that IHL does not apply to situations of internal disturbances and tensions, such as riots, isolated and sporadic acts of violence or other acts of a similar nature.  However, it is difficult even in hindsight to pinpoint an exact moment when the threshold is reached and a conflict transformed from internal tensions with rioting to armed conflict.  For this reason, at the ICC and the ad hoc tribunals for Rwanda and former Yugoslavia the situation in each case is taken separately to determine firstly if an armed conflict was ongoing at the time of the alleged war crime in the area where the alleged war crime is said to have occurred before then going to determine the legality or not of the action.

Louise Sarsfield Collins, Irish Red Cross – @Louise_SCollins

As I prepare for this week’s Irish Red Cross IHL Conference ‘Reporters Lives on the Line’ I thought I’d address some of the most common question I comes across in my role as International Humanitarian Law Dissemination Officer with the Irish Red Cross…

What is International Humanitarian Law aka IHL?

Essentially, IHL demands that even wars have limits by regulating behaviour during wars and armed conflict. The basic aims of IHL are to limit the effects of violence and spare the lives of people not taking part in the conflict. A common misconception is that IHL is about promoting peace however this is not technically true.

International law as it relates to the use of force clearly makes the waging of war illegal except in very exceptional circumstances as laid out in Chapter VII of the UN Charter. However, IHL sits separate from this area of international law and is not informed by it. Instead it is approaches armed conflict from a highly pragmatic viewpoint i.e. that wars are unpleasant, and sadly result in death, destruction and injury that IHL attempts to keep to a minimum. Bearing this in mind, IHL applies to all belligerents in an armed conflict and should be respected by all. It does not care who started the war. It simply wouldn’t work if it took any other stance as generally speaking people on both sides of a conflict tend to be convinced that they are right, their war is just and it is the other side that are wrong.

Where does IHL come from?

While modern IHL didn’t really begin to be codified in a form that we would recognise until the late 1800s those rules emerged from customary law and norms. The concept of regulating behaviour during war is as old as war itself and can be found in some shape or form in every ancient civilisation and culture around the globe. In ancient texts such as the Iliad from 8th century BC Greece the treatment of Hectors body after he is killed by Achilles, where he is dragged around the city horrifies the people suggesting that some moral code of battle and care for the dead has been broken.

In 4th Century BC China Sun Tzu laid out many rules on war including “treat all captives well”; 3rd Century BC India, the leader Asoka was so overcome with remorse for how he had behaved when conquering a particular region that he created a set of rules that he would live by from that day forward and had them inscribed on Pillars for all to see. Some of these Asoka pillars can still be seen in northern India today.

The ancient Roman’s also had rules about not killing the women and children of the enemy. In many African traditions it was against the law to poison the well of the enemy. Here in Ireland we had the Cáin Adomnáin which laid out the ‘Law of Innocents’ and was agreed in Birr in 697AD. It stated that it was illegal during war to kill women, children or priests and anyone doing so would have to pay a penalty. The Jewish, Christian and Islamic traditions also all laid out rules governing warfare. This is of considerable significance because not only is IHL universal in that the Geneva Conventions enjoy universal ratification but the rules themselves are universal in nature, having developed through time in every culture that engaged in war.

From Louise Sarsfield Collins, International Humanitarian Law Dissemination Officer with the Irish Red Cross

UN Member States are currently in New York to negotiate a treaty to regulate international transfers of conventional weapons. I previously blogged about the need for an effective arms trade treaty here and over the coming month will be watching the progress in New York and hopefully blogging some more on the issue.

Read the rest of this entry »

There has been a lot in the news lately about the campaign across the globe for marriage equality.  In the United States, Barrack Obama recently said in an ABC interview that he personally believed that “same sex couples should be able to get married”.  Sadly, incidences of discrimination and even violence against LGBT people continue to occur on a daily basis around the world.

Today [17 May] is International Day against Homophobia – a day that I hope in the future will become obsolete.  In Ireland, I think we are moving in the right direction but we still have a long way to go.  Research shows that homophobic bullying continues to be a major problem especially for young LGBT people.  Four out of every five people interviewed for Supporting LGBT Lives: A study of the mental health and well-being of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people* had been verbally abused because of their LGBT identity and 25 per cent had been physically assaulted because of their LGBT identity.  In other countries around the world, being LGBT remains a criminal offence and many LGBT people live in fear for their lives simply because of who they are.

People facing persecution because of their sexual orientation can claim asylum in Ireland (and other countries).  However, agencies working with LGBT asylum seekers, report that people unfortunately are afraid to talk about these issues and often don’t initially disclose this reason for their asylum application.  Migrants, especially vulnerable migrant groups such as asylum seekers often face numerous difficulties and obstacles.  The experience of being an asylum seeker coupled with the experience of being LGBT can be extremely arduous for people to cope with.

At Irish Red Cross, guided by our fundamental principles we are committed to fostering openness, understanding and diversity.  Irish Red Cross Youth has a number of initiatives aimed a tackling homophobia either directly or indirectly through our Positive Images Project [LSC2] and our Anti-bullying Campaign[LSC3] .

For the first time, IRCY will take part in Dublin’s PRIDE parade in June this year.  A self-nominated group of youth members and youth leaders from all over Ireland will join members of the National Youth Working Group and the Youth Department on an open-top bus for the parade.  A number of IRC youth and adult members are part of Ireland’s LGBT community and I for one am proud to stand up against homophobia and celebrate the identity of my LGBT friends and colleagues.

The acceptance of all young people, regardless of race, religion, gender or sexual orientation, is in line with the fundamental principles and values of the Red Cross.  This message also underpins the work of the Positive Images Project which aims to create awareness amongst young people of the difficulties faced by vulnerable migrant groups which as outlined above can include LGBT people fleeing persecution because who they love.

Happy International Day against Homophobia and if you would like any more information about anything in this blog please don’t hesitate to contact me directly or comment below.

*Mayock, et al. Supporting LGBT Lives: A study of the mental health and well-being of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people (2009) was commissioned by BeLonG To Youth Services and GLEN (Gay and Lesbian Equality Network), funded by the HSE’s National Office for Suicide Prevention and conducted by the Childrens’ Research Centre, Trinity College Dublin and the School of Education, University College Dublin.

International justice as exemplified by the decision in the Charles Taylor case at the Special Court for Sierra Leone late last month [26 April] highlights once more how the proliferation of arms in areas of conflict around the world is a significant contributor to the displacement, injury, rape, and terrorisation of civilians. Small arms and a ready supply of ammunition are particularly problematic. The ICRC reports that in some areas of the world, even after a conflict has ended, weapons are so easy to obtain and violence so prevalent that civilians continue to face many of the same threats as during it.

When listening to the Taylor decision being delivered, one of the things that struck me was the significance of the trade in weapons to what occurred in Sierra Leone. Without a supply of arms and ammunition, many of the horrific violations of international humanitarian law (IHL) against civilians may not have occurred.

This July, members of the United Nations, including Ireland, will meet in New York for the UN Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty. Hopefully by the end of this conference, a treaty text will have been agreed. Underpinning such a treaty must be a desire to reduce the human cost of the availability of weapons by setting clear norms for the transfer of conventional arms and ammunition.

Under the Geneva Conventions, States are obliged to ensure respect for IHL. Inherent with this obligation is a duty to make every effort to ensure that the arms and ammunition they transfer do not end up in the hands of persons likely to use them in violation of IHL.

Until weapons are less easily available, serious violations of IHL are likely to continue around the world and provision of humanitarian assistance to effected populations will continue to be endangered.