The attacks on New York and Washington on 11 September 2001 and the subsequent “war on terrorism” have suddenly brought international humanitarian law into the limelight and again highlighted the relationship between the causes of a conflict on one hand and the respect for rules on the conduct of hostilities and protection of victims of war on the other. The article traces the history of rules limiting violence and the interdiction of recourse to war. Despite the general banning of war in the Charter of the United Nations, the application of the jus in bello remains independent of the causes of war, even in a war against aggression, and every discriminatory application of international humanitarian Law has to be rejected. There are imperious reasons for maintaining the principle of egality of the belligerants with repect to the law of war. Whatever its moral and legal intentions, the theory of discriminatory application of the hws and customs of the war leads to the same unacceptable result, namely unrestricted warfare, as the conception that wars of agression are not covered by international humanitarian law. State practice and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, which entered into force on 1st July 2002, confirm the strict separation between jus in bello and jus ad bellum.

The fate of Afghan women during the Taliban regime and following the 11 September 2001 attacks has been the focus of considerable attention in both Western media and academia. There was a significant amount of debate in human rights and governmental circles about their suffering. Documentaries, at times produced at great personal risk to their authors, and even cinema productions such as Kandahar, the film by the Iranian director Mohsen Makhmalbaf, have dealt with their plight.

The fall of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan has opened the way for considerable debate on the country's future, and the part to be played by women in that future is now being widely analysed and discussed. Much has being written about the fate of women under the Taliban. This short article aims to review the activities of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) in Afghanistan during the Taliban rule, with particular focus on its impact on women to see what lessons could be learned in terms of how to provide the widest and most effective humanitarian assistance despite massive political and logistical constraints. Before continuing, it should be pointed out that prior to Taliban rule the situation of women in Kabul and other large towns (where their access to education and work and their freedom of movement were greater) differed considerably from that of women in rural areas (where the approach towards them was generally more conservative). So when the Taliban took power, their impact varied throughout the country.

“IHL takes a particular male perspective on armed conflict, as a norm against which to measure equality. In a world where women are not equals of men, and armed conflict impacts upon men and women in a fundamentally different way, a general category of rules that is not inclusive of the reality for women cannot respond to their situation.”

La mise en œuvre de la première disposition commune aux Conventions de Genève a récemment connu un développement dans le contexte des violations du droit international humanitaire liées au conflit israélo-palestinien. Ce conflit, qui a donné lieu à de nombreuses résolutions et décisions sur le plan politique, en particulier au sein de l'ONU, a également fait l'objet d'une action multilatérale des États parties en tant que tels, sur la base de l'article premier commun. Entre 1997 et 2001, s'est déroulé dans une certaine discrétion un processus qui, sur le plan juridique, a montré voire ouvert une voie, peut-être nouvelle, sur la manière dont les États parties, compte tenu de leur obligation première en matière de mise en œuvre des Conventions de Genève, comprennent leur rêle, y compris face à l'ONU, aux parties à un conflit et aux acteurs humanitaires (en particulier le CICR).

The Advisory Service on International Humanitarian Law of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) organized a Regional Expert Meeting for Latin American Countries on 13 and 14 May 2002 in Lima (Peru) on the subject “To protect cultural property in the event of armed conflict: implementation of international regulations in this field at national level”. The meeting was held with the support of the Peruvian authorities, the National Institute of Culture and the National Commission for the Study and Application of International Humanitarian Law. After a previous expert meeting on the protection of cultural property during hostilities, which took place in Chavannes-de-Bogis (Geneva) on 5 and 6 October 2000, this was the first decentralized meeting.

The Law of the Republic of Armenia on the use and protection of the emblems of the red cross and red crescent was adopted on 5 February 2002, was promulgated on 2 March 2002 and entered into force the same day. It sets out rules for the emblem's use as a protective device (by the medical and religious personnel of the armed forces, troops of the Ministry of the Interior, border guards, other military formations and public authorities responsible for action in emergencies, civilian medical units, and the medical personnel of the Armenian Red Cross Society and other National Red Cross or Red Crescent Societies) and as an indicative device (by bodies belonging to the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement and, in peacetime, by authorized ambulances and aid stations providing free treatment to the injured and sick). The law also mentions the use by organizations that do not need any special authorization (the International Committee of the Red Cross and the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies) and includes rules on the distinctive emblems and the names “Red Cross” and “Red Crescent”. It states that any person who violates the law will be held accountable by virtue of the legislation of Armenia. In the event of contradictions between the law and treaties listed in the law itself, the treaties take precedence.