One of the fundamental rules for the protection of health-care personnel in any circumstance, including contexts of armed conflicts, provides for a prohibition on punishing medical professionals who merely act in accordance with medical ethics. However, although the reasons for this prohibition may seem obvious, in contexts of non-international armed conflicts the provision of medical care to wounded and sick members of non-state armed groups can expose medical personnel to accusations of participation in criminal activities. Based on the Colombian domestic legislation and jurisprudence on the matter, this article aims to propose elements of analysis on the apparent contradiction that exists between, on the one hand, the prohibition against punishing medical personnel for merely providing health care to the wounded and sick who need it, and on the other, the prerogative of the state authorities to restore order and security within their territory through the imposition of criminal sanctions on members of non-state armed groups or their aiders and abettors.

Among the increasingly frequent acts of non-compliance with, and grievous violations of, international humanitarian law around the world, especially in non-international armed conflicts, attacks on objects and persons enjoying special protection, and their abuse, as well as the misuse of the distinctive emblems of the Red Cross and Red Crescent, come as no surprise. Although a repressive approach to the problem – through the prosecution and punishment of perpetrators – cannot completely prevent such occurrences, an effective and appropriate judicial stigmatisation can significantly contribute to making them as rare as possible. In this regard, the court proceedings held before the War Crimes Chamber in Belgrade and the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in The Hague in connection with the events in and around the Vukovar Hospital and Ovčara farm have provided an appropriate judicial response. This is notwithstanding the fact that, at least for now, not all perpetrators have been prosecuted for their acts (or failure to act) at the time of the commission of these grave crimes.

Many aid agencies and commentators suggest that humanitarian principles are of little value to the humanitarian crises of today. However, through profiling the experience of the Lebanese Red Cross, this article highlights the enduring value and impact of the application of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Fundamental Principles as effective operational tools for acceptance, access and safety. Having suffered a series of security incidents during the civil war and subsequent disturbances and tensions, this National Society deliberately sought to increase its acceptance amongst different groups. One of the approaches used was the systematic operational application of the Fundamental Principles. Today, the Lebanese Red Cross is the only public service and Lebanese humanitarian actor with access throughout the country. This article seeks to address the relative absence of attention to how humanitarian organisations apply humanitarian principles in practice – and their responsibility and accountability to do so – by describing the systematic approach of the Lebanese Red Cross.

The aim of this article is to carry out a preliminary analysis of issues relating to the types of violence that are directed against humanitarian medical missions. Starting from the observation that violence can cause some degree of disruption for a medical organisation such as Médecins Sans Frontières, despite its wide experience which has brought it much wisdom and generated numerous and sporadic responses to such events, the article offers a more subtle analysis of terms and of situations of violence so as to contribute to the establishment of a research project and, in a second phase, to an awareness-raising campaign focusing on these complex phenomena.

Attacks on health workers, clinics, hospitals, ambulances and patients during periods of armed conflict or civil disturbance pose enormous challenges to humanitarian response and constitute affronts to the imperatives of human rights and civilian protection. Violence inflicted on humanitarian aid workers is gaining the global attention it warrants. While the number of attacks on aid workers has decreased in recent years, in a handful of places, notably Sudan, Afghanistan, and Somalia, they have become more spectacular and frightening, with aid agencies targeted for kidnapping and subjected to use of explosives because of their perceived affiliation with Western governments. The assaults have galvanised the humanitarian aid community to track attacks and to engage in intensive and sophisticated discussion of means to increase operational security. After worldwide consultation, in 2011 the United Nations (UN) Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) issued a report that summarised the fruits of experience and stimulated consideration of security strategies for aid providers. By contrast, however, until very recently the far larger number of incidents of violence inflicted on and interference with indigenous health services and on international and local development agencies by state and armed groups has received comparatively little attention.

In 2011, the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement launched the Health Care in Danger project, a global initiative with an ambitious objective: to improve the security of health-care delivery in armed conflicts and other emergencies. Two years later, Pierre Gentile, the ICRC's Head of Project, speaks about the achievements, the challenges and the way forward to make this intention a reality.

In view of the challenges frequently encountered in providing assistance to civilians in opposition-held territories, consideration is sometimes given to cross-border relief operations. Such operations raise numerous legal questions, including whose consent is required; what constitutes arbitrary withholding of consent; what the consequences of withholding of consent are, both for those wishing to provide assistance and for the parties withholding consent; and what alternatives exist for providing assistance in such circumstances.

This article provides a first attempt at analysing the complex set of issues around remote management practices in insecure environments and their increased use. It looks at definitions and reviews existing published and grey literature on remote management and related practices. It tries to situate remote management in the evolving context of post-Cold War strategies of dealing with conflict and crisis. On the basis of interviews with a cross-section of aid workers, senior headquarters managerial and policy staff, donors, and research institutions, it provides an assessment of current remote management practices, with a particular focus on Afghanistan and Somalia, and their implications for the future of humanitarian action.

In his article ‘Challenges to international humanitarian law: Israel's occupation policy’, the president of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), Mr Peter Maurer, addresses the challenges that the application of international humanitarian law (IHL) faces in the Middle East in general and in the context of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in particular. Mr Maurer focuses on three main issues in relation to Israel's military occupation of the Palestinian territory: East Jerusalem, settlements and the Annexation Wall. Furthermore, he touches on the ICRC's confidentiality policy and suggests that the ICRC engage in public dialogue with parties to the conflict, especially when confidential dialogue fails to improve the lives of the affected people.