“Closely associating the National Societies with ICRC's operational activities (either via seconded staff contributions, or through project delegations or bilateral projects), on the one hand to increase the Movement's operational capacity in the face of growing needs, and on the other to respond to the National Societies' desire to intensify their international activities and make them better known.”

International humanitarian law does not deal directly with the right to information, but it is useful to highlight some of the law's features in considering people's right to information in wartime.

The right to indispensable items

International law stipulates that civilians have a right to items indispensable to their survival. This entails an obligation for the parties to the conflict, both in enemy territory occupied by them and in their own territory, to allow international action to provide these items if they themselves are unable to do so.

We should start by noting that, even today, not all post-conflict situations are marked by a return to true peace. A situation of latent conflict often persists, ranging from isolated hostile acts, sometimes terrorist in nature, to sporadic military operations which maintain a climate of aggressivity. In such situations, it may be hard to ensure the security conditions which are so vital to the proper functioning of justice. Effective justice is thus conditioned by an essentially political factor: without a real consensus on ending armed conflict, it is impossible to restore an order in which justice can be seen as a realistic goal. However, if there is no political will to punish those responsible for behaviour that is morally unacceptable, quite apart from being legally criminal, it will be impossible to pave the way for authentic peace.

Over the past fifty years, the struggle against torture has become a central concern of human rights law. The first international legal text specifically outlawing “torture” was the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 5). The first treaty prohibiting torture — the European Convention on human rights (Article 3) — was adopted soon afterwards, in 1950. In 1984, the United Nations Convention against torture became the first binding international instrument exclusively dedicated to the struggle against one of the most serious and pervasive human rights violations of our time.

During World War I, chemical warfare agents were widely used for the first time on all major fronts with an unprecedented number of casualties, and immediately after the war attempts were made to outlaw this latest weapon. Responsibility for the drafting of specific laws fell to the League of Nations, reflecting the belief that this was a matter of concern for the whole world, not just for the victors in the war. On 17 June 1925, the Geneva Protocol for the prohibition of the use in war of asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases and of bacteriological methods of warfare was signed by 26 States.3 It contained a categorical prohibition to resort to chemical and biological warfare. The signature of the Protocol raised high hopes of an effective ban on chemical warfare, but adherence progressed slowly. A number of States, visibly not trusting the Protocol to be implemented in the forthright manner suggested by the text, made major reservations.

In 1948, when the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted, human rights and humanitarian law were treated as separate fields. Since the 1968 Tehran International Conference on Human Rights, the situation has changed dramatically and the two subjects are now considered as different branches of the same discipline. A number of factors have contributed to this merger, including the growing significance of international criminal law and the criminalization of serious violations of human rights. This is the theme of the present comment.

For the outside world, images of division, conflict and suffering today largely sum up the African continent. Even when these images do not reflect Afro-pessimistic cliches, they fail — deliberately or not — to take account of the secular traditions of respect for the individual and the enlightened humanity that exist virtually throughout Africa.

The break-up of Yugoslavia and the war in Bosnia-Herzegovina represented the first major conflict on European soil since the end of the Second World War. It confronted politicians, military planners, journalists and aid workers alike with daunting challenges that often posed acute dilemmas. In many ways, the war threw into question the international community's ability to respond to the issues at hand and meet the needs encountered. The International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement was not spared this challenge.

Cooperation between the International Committee of the Red Cross and the British Red Cross has traditionally been limited to the National Society providing cash, delegates and contributions in kind for ICRC programmes. At most, actual Society involvement in ICRC operations has extended to earmarking contributions for a particular country or programme; the Society has not been involved in planning, implementing or reviewing ICRC work. However, it has consistently contributed at least 25% of its budget for international activities to the ICRC and provided it with field delegates. The proportion is growing and, over the past three years, British Red Cross contributions to the ICRC have increased to over 50% of its international budget, more than £15 million in 1996. In addition, the Society currently provides 12% of the ICRC's delegates.

Many States have in the course of their history faced internal tension and strife, sometimes so serious as to threaten their fundamental interests. These situations, characterized as they are by acts of revolt and violence committed by more or less organized groups fighting either the authorities or amongst themselves, are distinct from those termed non-international armed conflicts, in which the violence is more intense. In order to bring these internal confrontations to an end and restore order, the authorities frequently make massive use of police force or even the armed forces. The inevitable result is a weakening of the rule of law, marked by serious, large-scale human rights violations causing widespread suffering among the population.

On 26 July 1953, a group opposing the regime of General Fulgencio Batista, led by Fidel Castro, made an abortive attempt to storm the Montecada barracks at Santiago de Cuba. Castro was captured and sentenced to 15 years in prison. In May 1955 he was released under a general amnesty; he left Cuba and emigrated to Mexico.

The International Committee of the Red Cross is deeply concerned about the increasing number of children recruited or volunteering to take part in hostilities throughout the world. Such children are exposed to the worst dangers and the most horrible suffering, both psychological and physical. What is more, they are easily manipulated and encouraged to commit grievous acts which they are often unable to comprehend.

After years of relentless effort and five weeks of intense and difficult negotiations, the Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) was adopted and opened for signature in Rome on 17 July 1998. This historic event represents a major step forward in the battle against impunity and towards better respect for international humanitarian law. For too long it has been possible to commit atrocities with total impunity, a situation which has given perpetrators carte blanche to continue such practices. The system of repression established by international law clearly has its shortcomings, and the time has come to adopt new rules and set up new institutions to ensure the effective prosecution of international crimes. A criminal court, whether at the national or international level, does not put a stop to crime, but it may serve as a deterrent and, consequently, may help reduce the number of victims. The results achieved in Rome should thus be welcomed, in the hope that the new Court will be able to discharge its mandate to the full.

In 1945, at the end of the Second World War, the British government clearly stated its intention of granting independence to India.

The conflict between the British and the Indian nationalists receded into the background, while the increasing antagonism between Hindus and Muslims came to the fore. The Hindus, centred round the Congress Party led by Jawaharlal Nehru, wanted to maintain the unity of India by establishing a government made up of representatives of the two communities. The Muslims, under the banner of the Muslim League and its President, Mohammed Ali Jinnah, demanded the creation of a separate Muslim State, Pakistan. The problem was further complicated by the fact that the approximately 300 million Hindus, 6 million Sikhs and 100 million Muslims in British India were not living in geographically distinct regions, especially in Punjab and Bengal, where the population was mixed.

This past April the Representative of the United Nations Secretary-General on Internally Displaced Persons, Francis M. Deng, presented to the UN Commission on Human Rights, at its 54th session, a report with an addendum entitled Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement (hereinafter “Guiding Principles”). The Commission adopted by consensus a resolution co-sponsored by more than 50 States which, inter alia, took note of the decision of the Inter-Agency Standing Committee welcoming the Guiding Principles and encouraging its members to share them with their Executive Boards, and also of Mr. Deng's stated intention to make use of these principles in his dialogue with governments and intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations. These principles are an important milestone in the process of establishing a generally accepted normative framework for the protection of the estimated 20 to 25 million internally displaced persons worldwide.

The very intense international debate that has taken place in recent years on the subject of internally displaced persons has recently undergone a major development — the drafting of the Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement (hereinafter referred to as the “Guiding Principles”). The distinguishing feature of these Guiding Principles is that they incorporate elements of three branches of public international law in a single document: international humanitarian law, human rights law, and refugee law. This combination calls for special comment.

On 17 December 1996, the delegate of the International Committee of the Red Cross was one of the 600 guests at a reception hosted by the Japanese ambassador in Lima. When the commando unit of the Túpac Amaru Revolutionary Movement (Movimiento Revolucionario Túpac Amaru — MRTA)carried out its spectacular hostage-taking operation and the ICRC delegate made himself known to the commando unit, wondering whether in so doing he was acting as an intermediary was hardly at the forefront of his mind: he was content to take action because the situation so demanded and because the physical integrity of hundreds of people was under threat. I was that delegate. In doing what I did at that moment, I was merely repeating the humanitarian act performed by hundreds of ICRC delegates throughout the world, that of Henry Dunant at Solferino and of many others elsewhere — that is, helping the victims of violence. This is what being a neutral intermediary is all about: placing oneself voluntarily in the midst of a confrontation and lending a helping hand. In that sense, the term “intermediary” is perfectly suited for defining the action of the ICRC per se and its humanitarian base. Within the organization, the term means something more specific, as distinguished from protection and assistance, and designates a function which involves serving as a messenger between conflicting parties, for humanitarian reasons and in the absence of any other intermediary. This is where a certain amount of confusion and a number of difficulties arise, some inherent in the very role of intermediary and others arising from the circumstances themselves.

The International Committee of the Red Cross has witnessed in its work for war victims throughout the world the increasingly devastating effects for civilian populations of the proliferation of weapons, particularly small arms. The difficulties of providing humanitarian assistance in an environment where arms have become widely available to many segments of society are well known to most humanitarian relief agencies today. However, until recently the relationships between the availability of weapons, the worsening situation of civilians during and after conflict and the challenges of providing humanitarian assistance have not been addressed directly.