Potential harm to human rights and the environment, including by corporate actors, is amplified in situations of conflict. This article focuses on applying the right to a healthy environment in relation to armed conflicts and corporate responsibility. In particular, it analyzes and compares due diligence requirements in the European Union Conflict Minerals Regulation and the International Law Commission's Draft Principles on Protection of the Environment in Relation to Armed Conflicts and examines how these align with the right to a healthy environment.

This article examines international humanitarian law (IHL) and human rights guarantees of equality and non-discrimination applicable to cases of belligerent occupation. Capitalizing on the responsibilities of the Occupying Power with respect to different categories of persons living in the occupied territory distinguished by their nationality, it looks at the contents of obligations stemming from relevant norms of the two regimes and their interplay. It also addresses questions of the adequacy, utility and limits of IHL and human rights in according protection from discrimination and inequality to the inhabitants of the occupied territory.

Disability inclusion has become a crucial issue for humanitarian action, at least at the international policy level. However, little is known about how humanitarian actors are “doing inclusion” in practice. With a case study on South Sudan, this article examines whether the increase in publications, policy tools and guidelines has made humanitarian action more inclusive for persons with disabilities, and how stakeholders can overcome persisting barriers for persons with disabilities. The article demonstrates noticeable progress in data collection, capacity-building, the removal of barriers and meaningful participation, but humanitarians still lack the skills, confidence and resources to address many persisting barriers. To advance inclusion, donors and humanitarian organizations must invest more time and resources in capacity-building and coordination.

This article argues that the growing involvement of civilians in activities on the digital battlefield during armed conflicts puts individuals at risk of harm and contributes to the erosion of the principle of distinction, a cornerstone of international humanitarian law (IHL). The article begins by outlining the ongoing trend of civilianization of the digital battlefield and puts forward brief scenarios to illustrate it. It then examines the narrow circumstances under which such forms of civilian involvement may qualify as direct participation in hostilities under IHL, and discusses what this means for the individuals concerned, particularly from the perspective of their loss of protection under the law. The analysis shows that certain types of State conduct which put civilians in harm's way by inducing them to directly participate in hostilities may constitute standalone violations of IHL and human rights law obligations. Beyond these specific prescriptions, the encouragement of civilian involvement undermines the principle of distinction, with dangerous ripple effects on the interpretation of those rules of IHL that flow from it. Accordingly, the article concludes that States should act to reverse the trend of civilianization of the digital battlefield and refrain as much as possible from involving civilians in the conduct of cyber hostilities.

The challenge faced by Somalia's newly established National Disability Agency (NDA), along with other emerging actors in the disability arena, is how to address the perception that disability is primarily a humanitarian issue in a country that not only is in conflict but also faces cyclical humanitarian crises. A further challenge for the NDA is how to ensure that the humanitarian architecture put in place facilitates non-discrimination, as well as the inclusion of and participation by persons with disabilities. While a typical humanitarian architecture can inadvertently reinforce an already stigmatizing charity or welfare approach towards persons with disabilities, Somalia's experience demonstrates that humanitarian actors can do a lot with leadership, a willingness to leave agency branding behind, and an active committed partner such as the NDA. Nevertheless, genuine inclusion in Somalia's overall State-building project needs also to be the remit of development, reconciliation and similar actors, with access to and participation of persons with disabilities guaranteed in their range of processes and frameworks.

Contemporary ecological and climate crises have thrown into sharp relief debates around what roles and responsibilities, if any, international security bodies ought to have in addressing environment-related matters. Building on a wider catalogue of the United Nations Security Council's practice concerning the environment, in this article, we provide a snapshot of the Council's practice pertaining in particular to the environment and armed conflict. In addition to setting out key aspects relating to the personal, geographical and temporal scope of that practice, we identify four armed-conflict-related substantive themes arising in the Security Council's actions in this area: (1) relations between conflict and natural resources; (2) relations between conflict and adverse environment-related phenomena; (3) relations between conflict and chemical and biological weapons; and (4) adverse impacts of conflict on the environment. Through this examination, we aim in part to provide stakeholders with a more extensive and detailed basis on which to evaluate what actions the Council has taken – and, by inference, which actions it has not taken – with respect to the environment and armed conflict.

This article critiques the articulation of the legal framework applicable to Australian Defence Force operations in Afghanistan found in the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force Afghanistan Inquiry Report (Brereton Report). In particular, using the Australian experience in Afghanistan as a case study, the article argues, on the basis of the rules of treaty interpretation, that where a foreign State party to Additional Protocol II (AP II) intervenes in a non-international armed conflict (NIAC) to which AP II applies, that foreign State is bound by AP II, in addition to the host State and non-State armed actors that are parties to the NIAC. The article concludes by outlining the reasons why the Brereton Report's silence in relation to AP II matters.

Despite increasing awareness and high-level commitments on disability inclusion by humanitarian donors and actors, persons with disabilities continue to be ignored from humanitarian assistance. Rights and inclusion of persons with disabilities are a foreign policy priority for the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland, including in humanitarian assistance. The primary means for donors, such as Finland, to promote disability-inclusive humanitarian action are funding and advocacy. Trade-offs between flexible and earmarked funding for disability inclusion are challenging when reporting on results is inadequate. This article shares examples on how the Ministry promotes inclusion of persons with disabilities in humanitarian action and explores challenges that need to be resolved by stakeholders.

In this iteration of the Review's “Beyond the Literature” series, we have invited Ezequiel Heffes to introduce his recent book Detention by Non-State Armed Groups under International Law, before then posing a series of questions to Tilman Rodenhäuser, René Provost, Mariana Chacón Lozano and Katharine Fortin, who have agreed to serve as discussants of the book. Tilman Rodenhäuser is a Legal Adviser at the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), with particular expertise in non-State armed groups (NSAGs) and detention. René Provost is the James McGill Professor of Law at McGill University and has written extensively on public international law, including his recent monograph Rebel Courts: The Administration of Justice by Armed Insurgents.1 Mariana Chacón Lozano has served as the Operational Legal Coordinator for the ICRC in Colombia since October 2020 and has worked for the ICRC since 2011. Katharine Fortin is Associate Professor at the Netherlands Institute of Human Rights within the Faculty of Law, Economics and Governance of Utrecht University. The Review team is grateful to all four discussants, and to Ezequiel, for taking part in this engaging conversation.

Despite the thousands of pages written and words said about the Holocaust, I still am at a loss in trying to understand it. How a European people with a rich cultural tradition that produced some of the world's greatest composers, philosophers and poets could invent, enforce and docilely follow the first industrial genocide in human history remains, for me, an enigma. This essay focuses on the Jews, both numerically and ideologically the principal, but not the only, victims, the Roma being the other principal victims.

Mental disorders have high prevalence for disability and almost 80% of the global burden occurs in low- and middle-income countries. The impacts of mental health conditions can affect many sectors of society and threaten peace, human rights and development. However, international law jurisprudence has not sufficiently developed to guide mental health governance. This paper reviews the international legal protections for people who experience mental health conditions, including mental disorders and psychosocial disabilities. It focuses on State application of legal instruments in particularly vulnerable contexts, namely, least developed countries and situations of armed conflict. It argues that relying on existing treaties and soft-law instruments from the health and human rights angles is inadequate, and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities is not the right fit. New hard- and soft-law instruments are urgently needed to meet positive obligations and safeguard rights in these vulnerable contexts. Some suggestions for the contents of future instruments are made.

Aerial visuals play a central – and increasing – role in military operations, informing military decision-makers in real time. While adding relevant and time-sensitive information, these visuals construct an imperfect representation of people and spaces, placing additional burdens on decision-makers and creating a persuasive – yet misleading – virtual representation of the actual conditions on the ground. Based on interdisciplinary analysis of critical security studies, behavioural economics and international law literature, as well as rich data from US and Israeli military investigations into four military operations spanning from 2009 to 2021, this article identifies three types of challenges stemming from the mounting reliance on aerial visuals to inform military operations: technical challenges, relating to the technical capabilities and features of aerial vision technologies; cognitive challenges, relating to decision-making biases affecting human decision-makers; and human-technological challenges, relating to the human–machine interaction itself. The article suggests ways to mitigate these challenges, improve the application of the law of armed conflict, and protect people, animals and the environment during armed conflicts.

Endless armed conflicts against terrorist groups put civilian populations at risk. Since France has been involved in the Sahel from 2013 onwards, transnational non-international armed conflicts (NIACs) of extended geographical and temporal scope against groups designated as terrorists are not a US exception anymore. NIACs against terrorist groups, conducted not only by the United States but also by France, persist and have been reconfigured around threat anticipation. How can anticipatory warfare be best constrained? This article argues that it can be best done through more constraining rules regulating target selection in NIACs and, in particular, by redefining the notion of continuous combat function (CCF). Many elements explored in this article indicate that the United States and France select targets that they pre-designate as terrorists, before these targets are engaged in hostilities. Instead of responding to the observed participation of these individuals in hostilities, strikes are based on contextual and behavioural elements ahead or outside of such moments. This paper argues that when war consists of threat anticipation, it becomes very extensive and particularly risky for civilians. Furthermore, recent State practice in the counterterrorism context reveals the pitfalls of the notions of direct participation in hostilities and CCF as defined in the 2009 International Committee of the Red Cross Interpretive Guidance. Outside this context, the interpretations proposed in the Interpretive Guidance might seem sufficient to constrain target selection processes and to protect civilian populations. However, when applied to armed conflicts that are driven by threat anticipation, the pitfalls of these interpretations emerge. I formulate a critique of these interpretations as being partly responsible for anticipatory warfare and propose an alternative theory for the CCF test.

Persons with disabilities are at higher risk of injury or death during an armed conflict, either as specific targets or through inability to protect themselves. Humanitarian responses concentrate on meeting the immediate basic needs of an average population. Yet historically, the situation of persons with disabilities during armed conflict, as well as peacebuilding processes, has been largely absent in the discussion at the Security Council. On 20 June 2019, the United Nations Security Council unanimously passed Resolution 2475. This groundbreaking text marks the first time the Council has dedicated an entire resolution to the situation of persons with disabilities in situations of armed conflict. The resolution has significantly raised the attention and understanding of the situation of persons with disabilities in the context of the armed conflict in the Security Council and beyond. This article details the process that led to Resolution 2475, as well as what has happened since.

Over the last decade, social and behaviour change strategies have increasingly been used to address human rights and child protection concerns, including harmful practices such as child marriage, female genital mutilation and violent discipline. Social and gender norms have also been recognized as key drivers of child recruitment. Nonetheless, the use of social and behaviour change strategies to prevent and respond to the recruitment and use of children in armed conflict has not yet been systematically explored or applied. Building on academic and practical sources, including findings from studies by the International Committee of the Red Cross and United Nations University, social and behavioural science theory, experiences from the Monitoring and Reporting Mechanism on grave violations against children, and academic literature, this article explores how social and behaviour change approaches can inform prevention of and response to the recruitment and use of children in armed conflict. The article concludes that social and behaviour change approaches can effectively inform prevention and reintegration efforts and can facilitate responses that bridge the humanitarian, development and peace nexus. Using social and behaviour change approaches can help to reveal why children are recruited from the perspective of key actors and entities across the socio-ecological framework in order to prevent the practice from becoming more accepted.

There are thousands of families of missing persons around the world who search for answers as to the fate and whereabouts of their loved ones, hoping to be reunited with them, or in the event that they are deceased, to be able to mourn and grieve their death with dignity. In practice when authorities speak with families to confirm that the missing person is deceased, two initial questions frequently arise. First, families generally want to know, “did you identify the body of my relative?” The second question, once they receive information that their loved one has been positively identified as deceased, is usually, “how did they die?” This article examines whether international humanitarian law requires providing families of the missing, who may know or believe that their relative is deceased, with an answer to this second question of “how did they die?” The article argues that under certain circumstances, it is a requirement of international humanitarian law to provide some information about the cause, manner and circumstances of death to families. It also argues that the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement can strengthen the rights of families of the missing by engaging confidentially (directly or indirectly) with judicial bodies that are charged with both identification of the missing and accountability for violations of international humanitarian law. While this is challenging, it is argued that it is often possible to do so while respecting and adhering to the fundamental principles of the Movement, and, in turn, advancing the fundamental principle of humanity.

The United Nations Disability Inclusion Strategy establishes the first-ever framework for the United Nations system to advance disability inclusion across all pillars of the Organization's work, including the peace and security pillar, and to measure the progress made across the system. Evidence reported since the launch of the Strategy in 2019 demonstrates that the Strategy has provided a clear impetus among United Nations entities and peace operations working in the sector to address the rights of persons with disabilities, who are among the most marginalized in any crisis-affected community. However, the evidence also reveals that while humanitarian entities have made progress since the launch of the Strategy, disability inclusion remains an emerging area of work for peace operations in the field. The article argues that the Strategy's accountability framework has provided a much-needed blueprint and ability to monitor progress across the system, yet far more needs to be done to ensure that the United Nations system is equipped to respond to complex situations and reach the furthest behind first.

This article invites the reader on a journey through the legal arguments that would confirm the application of the United Nations (UN) climate change regime to belligerent occupations. Although the regime is silent on this issue, its application should not be limited to peacetime due to the seriousness of global climate change and its adverse effects on the environment and living entities. A harmonious interpretation and application of the UN climate change regime and the law of occupation would allow Occupying Powers to ensure the safety and well-being of the civilian population and contribute to the protection of the Earth's climate system.

The “State Expert Meeting on International Humanitarian Law: Protecting the Environment in Armed Conflicts”, organized by Switzerland and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) for States party to the Geneva Conventions, was held in early 2023. The meeting brought together nearly 400 experts from ministries of defence, the environment and foreign affairs from over 120 countries to share national experiences, challenges and good practices related to the protection of the environment in armed conflicts. In addition, expert resource persons from the UN Environment Program, the UN International Law Commission and the International Union for Conservation of Nature supported the exchanges. The meeting's purpose was to progress on the national implementation of international humanitarian law relating to the protection of the natural environment in armed conflicts. The Chair's Summary prepared by Switzerland and the ICRC reviews the contents of the meeting, including the good practices shared, and can be drawn upon to enhance environmental protection in war. It can be found in Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish at: www.icrc.org/en/document/chairs-summary-report-state-expert-meeting-ihl-protecting-natural-environment-armed.