The debates over the relationship between International Humanitarian Law and International Human Rights Law, have often focused on the question of whether human rights law continues to apply during armed conflict, and if so, on how these two bodies of law can complement each other. This article takes the continuing applicability of human rights law as an accepted and welcome starting point, and proceeds to lay out some of the challenges and obstacles encountered during the joint application of IHL and Human Rights Law, that still need to be addressed. These include extra-territorial applicability of human rights law; the mandate and expertise of human rights bodies; terminological and conceptual differences between the bodies of law; particular difficulties raised in non-international armed conflicts; and the question of economic, social and cultural rights during armed conflict.

Decree No. 138 on implementing the Law on the use of the red cross and red crescent emblem and other emblems protected under the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols was adopted on 25 January 2005 and published in the official gazette on 27 January 2005. The Decree regulates the use of the emblem as a protective device by the medical and religious personnel of the armed and police forces and by civilian medical personnel when so authorized by the Ministry for Social Protection. It provides for disciplinary sanctions in cases of misuse of the emblem and requires that measures be taken by the Ministry of National Defence and the Directorate-General of the National Police to spread knowledge of the rules on the use and protection of the red cross emblem and other distinctive signs, and to incorporate those rules into policy and military doctrine.

Deprivation of liberty for security reasons is an exceptional measure of control that may be taken in armed conflict, whether international or non-international. Administrative detention of persons believed to represent a threat to State security is also being more and more widely practised outside of armed conflict situations. This paper argues that both internment and administrative detention are insufficiently elaborated from the point of the view of the protection of the rights of the persons affected. Drawing on international humanitarian law and on human rights law and standards, the paper proposes a set of procedural principles and safeguards that should — as a matter of law and policy — be applied as a minimum to all cases of deprivation of liberty for security reasons.

The Council of Delegates,

reaffirming the undertaking of all States and parties engaged in armed conflict to respect and ensure respect for international humanitarian law,

recognizing the importance of working toward the universal ratification of treaties on international humanitarian law,

considering the continued importance of customary international humanitarian law in the light of the fact that not all humanitarian treaties have been universally ratified,

noting that treaty law governing non-international armed conflicts is not well developed although these conflicts predominate today,

recalling Resolution 1 of the 26th International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent and the mandate entrusted to the ICRC to prepare a study on customary rules of international humanitarian law applicable in international and non-international armed conflicts,

noting with great appreciation the extensive efforts undertaken by the ICRC to prepare this study in accordance with the above-mentioned mandate,

1. welcomes the study on customary international humanitarian law published by the ICRC as an important contribution to the protection of war victims;

2. recommends the study to all components of the Movement as a basis for discussion, where relevant, with national authorities, armed forces, academic circles and parties to an armed conflict;

3. invites National Societies, to the extent of their capacities, to disseminate the findings of the study as widely as possible.