ICRC Humanitarian Law and Policy Blog

For as long as humans have existed, stories have been our bridge to one another. Today, in a world shaped by digital networks, synthetic media, and hyperconnected feeds, that bridge is under unprecedented strain. Storytelling remains one of the most powerful ways to counter division and remind us of our shared humanity, yet it is also increasingly manipulated, dismissed, or drowned out in a noisy and polarized information landscape. The risk is not simply losing narratives but losing the very empathy and recognition that underpin humanitarian action. In this post, ICRC Communications Coordinator Najum Ul Saqib Iqbal argues that in an age of competing truths and rising dehumanization, telling stories of dignity and resilience is not a luxury but a moral necessity, an act of resistance against apathy, and a vital means of reconnecting us across divides.

The waters stretching from the Eastern Indian Ocean through Southeast and East Asia to the Western Pacific sustain global trade, host abundant marine resources vital to the livelihoods of many, and power regional economies. They are central to the national security of many states and are also home to major powers, vast archipelagic states, and many smaller states, including small island nations. These waters are also marked by overlapping maritime claims, strategic maritime chokepoints, and a growing military presence, including states from outside the region. Tensions rise when maritime incidents occur and there is an ever-present risk of miscalculations spiraling into broader confrontations. While armed conflict is not inevitable, if it were to occur it would likely unfold with considerable intensity, scale and tempo, with far-reaching and severe humanitarian consequences. Preparing for such a scenario requires not only preventing escalation but also ensuring that humanitarian impacts are mitigated and that impartial humanitarian action can take place, even in complex maritime environments where neutral states would also be called upon to shoulder important responsibilities. In this post, part of the “Complying with IHL in large-scale conflict” series, ICRC Legal Advisers Ansha Krishnan and Eve Massingham explore some of the humanitarian challenges posed by potential large-scale conflict in the Asia-Pacific region. The maritime nature of the region, together with its vast geographical scope and the present geo-political realities means aspects of conflict preparedness bear specific consideration because of the practical measures required to comply with IHL obligations and prepare for likely humanitarian consequences.

As many states, especially those with large and resourceful militaries, are exploring the potential of using artificial intelligence (AI) in targeting decisions, there is an urgent need to understand the risks associated with these systems, one being the risks of bias. However, while concerns about bias are often mentioned in the military AI policy debate, how it manifests as harm and what can be done to address it is rarely discussed in depth. This represents a critical gap in efforts to ensure the lawful use of military AI. To help bridge this gap, Laura Bruun and Marta Bo from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) unpack the humanitarian and legal implications of bias in military AI. They show how bias in military AI is likely to manifest in more complex and subtle ways than portrayed in policy debates, and if unaddressed, it may affect compliance with IHL principles of distinction, proportionality, and, especially, precautions in attack.

Brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) are no longer speculative technologies of future warfare – they are being field-tested by countries such as the United States and China. As BCI technologies transition from the laboratory to the battlefield, they bring both significant risks and potential advantages for future warfare. In this post, Dr. Anna M. Gielas, an affiliated researcher with the Centre for Global Knowledge Studies at the University of Cambridge, explores how BCI may challenge international humanitarian law (IHL) and international human rights law, requiring closer scrutiny and deeper debate on the development of national and international BCI regulations.

How AI learns, and what it misses: why data selection matters in humanitarian action by ICRC Law and Policy

On August 6th and 9th 1945, Hiroshima and Nagasaki became the first – and so far only – targets of nuclear weapons in warfare, killing over 100,000 people instantly and devastating countless lives for decades to come. The humanitarian consequences of such weapons are unmatched in scale and severity. While legal and ethical arguments against the most horrendous weapons have existed since the 19th century, nuclear arsenals remain active and are even expanding, as global discourse shifts away from nuclear disarmament toward renewed reliance on deterrence. In this post, ICRC Policy Adviser Dominique Loye traces the evolution of legal and humanitarian objections to nuclear weapons, from the 1868 Saint Petersburg Declaration to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW). He argues that despite hopeful legal and diplomatic milestones, the world is once again drifting towards catastrophe. With the 2026 Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) Review Conference on the horizon, the time is now to reframe global security around humanity – not annihilation – and to take urgent, collective steps to reduce nuclear risks and prevent their use.

“Without information and telecommunication, people don’t know where to go for safety,” the ICRC reported from an ongoing armed conflict. Another humanitarian worker recalled that when connectivity is down and “a bombing happens, especially in the night, you cannot reach ambulances”. The importance of connectivity for people affected by armed conflict is further exemplified when displaced people ask humanitarian organizations for Wi-Fi or a ‘hot spot’, as connectivity provides the most direct contact to their loved ones. Yet, disruptions of connectivity are frequent in today’s armed conflict, at times part of incidental damage caused by hostilities, at other times presented as a measure necessary to impact an enemy’s operations. In this post, ICRC Legal Adviser Tilman Rodenhäuser discusses some of the limits that international humanitarian law (IHL) imposes on connectivity disruptions in armed conflict. The notion ‘connectivity disruptions’ is used to describe operations by belligerents that make digital connectivity or tele-communications unavailable or otherwise disrupted, temporarily or in the longer term.

As people around the world become increasingly reliant on digital and telecommunications networks to access essential services, contact loved ones, and seek help, the rising number of connectivity disruptions in armed conflicts is a growing source of concern for their safety and dignity. In this post, ICRC Protection Specialist Cléa Thouin reflects on the humanitarian consequences of such disruptions – situations in which digital or telecommunications become partially or completely lost – and on the need to address their causes and mitigate their impact, especially in contexts where connectivity can mean the difference between life and death.

When a powerful earthquake struck Myanmar on 28 March 2025, it tore through communities already living under the shadow of armed conflict and chronic instability. In the tangle of collapsed homes and fractured lives, it laid bare the brutal convergence of natural hazard-induced disaster and manmade violence – a crisis within a crisis, testing not only the resilience of survivors but also the principles that guide humanitarian response. In this post, ICRC Communication Delegate Stephanie Xu reflects on what it means to photograph humanity at the intersection of conflict and catastrophe. Her lens captures both the visible wreckage and the quiet dignity of those rebuilding amid despair. Marking three months since the earthquake – and in a year marking the 60th anniversary of the Fundamental Principles of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement – she shows how the principle of humanity continues to illuminate and inform the work of humanitarian actors responding in some of the world’s most complex emergencies.

In contemporary humanitarian crises, handling the dead presents significant practical and ethical challenges. With a significant number of armed conflicts occurring in Muslim contexts, understanding how Islamic law mandates dignified treatment of the deceased is essential to ensure that forensic interventions align with cultural and legal norms. In this post, Dr Ahmed Al Dawoody, ICRC Legal Adviser for Islamic Law, examines how Islamic legal traditions address matters such as collective burial, rapid interment, exhumation, autopsy, burial at sea, and gender sensitive handling of remains. He argues that these rules both reinforce and complement international humanitarian law (IHL), offering forensic practitioners culturally grounded pathways to uphold the dignity of the dead while navigating operational realities in Muslim majority settings.

The universality of international humanitarian law (IHL) assumes that its principles transcend cultural, geographical, and political boundaries. However, this presumption is challenged by the complexities of how IHL is perceived and implemented across different sociocultural contexts. Bridging the gap between theoretical universalism and practical application requires strategies that are sensitive to local cultural and normative particularities. In this post, part of the Emerging Voices series, Ayan Abdirashid Ali explores how Somali literary traditions, particularly Sugaanta Soomaaliyeed, offer a unique and effective means of aligning IHL’s ethical framework with local cultural narratives, thereby enhancing its legitimacy and effectiveness. By weaving together legal and cultural perspectives, she highlights how such traditions can serve as powerful tools for fostering peace and reconciliation in conflict-prone regions.

In today’s armed conflicts, hospitals are increasingly being attacked or misused for military purposes, undermining one of international humanitarian law’s most fundamental protections. These strikes have devastating consequences for the people who rely on hospitals for life-saving care, from patients and medical staff to entire communities. When hospitals are damaged or forced to shut down, critical services like paediatric care or intensive care treatment vanish, often with fatal results. Despite clear legal safeguards granting protection to hospitals, cases indicate that hospitals are at times misused for military purposes and attacks regularly ensue. In many cases, core IHL principles are either deliberately ignored or applied in a permissive manner, threatening the very idea that hospitals must be specifically protected as neutral sanctuaries by all sides to a conflict. In this post, ICRC Legal Advisers Supriya Rao and Alex Breitegger explore how IHL’s specific protection of hospitals is both robust and comprehensive, grounded in a presumption of neutrality that can only be lost in narrowly defined cases. Even when misuse occurs, parties are required to issue a warning and give time for it to stop, striking as a last resort only if the hospital meets the definition of a military objective – and even then, the rules of proportionality and precautions apply to limit the harm. Upholding this framework is essential to ensuring that the wounded and sick can access care, and that humanitarian principles endure, even amid the horror of war.

This year marks eight decades since the Holocaust, a defining moment of human suffering and moral failure. The memory of six million murdered Jews, and millions of others persecuted and killed, remains a solemn imperative. It compels not only remembrance, but a reaffirmation of collective responsibility. The 1949 Geneva Conventions were born to serve as a legal and moral bulwark against such atrocities. Yet memory fades, and with it, vigilance. As civilians continue to suffer in today’s wars, the legacy of the Holocaust urges both commemoration and action: against dehumanization, against silence, and in defence of the rules meant to protect life and human dignity in conflict. This audio recording captures a discussion recently held at ICRC headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland, as part of an institutional event to mark the 80th anniversary of the Holocaust – a moment of remembrance and reflection. Thirty years ago, the ICRC publicly acknowledged its failure during the Holocaust: silence in the face of mass extermination. While not an exhaustive account of the ICRC’s actions and inactions, the conversation confronts a number of difficult truths to inform present and future action. It is not intended to offer comfort, but clarity. By revisiting parts of this painful history, the ICRC reaffirms its commitment to transparency, accountability, honoring victims, and the enduring relevance of international humanitarian law.

The accelerating integration of emerging technologies into armed conflict is transforming not only the tools of war, but its tactics, geography, participants and impact. Technological developments – from commercial drones to artificial intelligence, electronic warfare to the military use of civilian infrastructure – risk undermining boundaries between military and civilian domains. These changes challenge long-held assumptions about the character and conduct of warfare, how wars are fought in practice, while raising legal and humanitarian concerns for the protection of civilians and the preservation of the principle of distinction. In this post, Ruben Stewart, ICRC Adviser on New Technologies of Warfare, explores the drivers and implications of this transformation. He focuses on how evolving technologies and trends are influencing the conduct of hostilities and impacting the protection of civilians. He underscores the urgent need to uphold legal norms amid these shifts, particularly the principle of distinction, ensuring that complexity does not become a pretext for non-compliance. At the heart of his analysis is a call to reckon with the profound humanitarian consequences these changes impose on those caught in conflict.

Large-scale detention operations in international armed conflicts (IACs) pose significant humanitarian, legal, and operational challenges. International humanitarian law (IHL) provides detailed rules governing the treatment and protection of persons deprived of liberty, whether they are prisoners of war, other persons interned for security reasons, or other protected persons. These obligations, enshrined primarily in the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions, require not only compliance once the armed conflict begins, but advance planning during peacetime. Without the appropriate institutions, infrastructures, and trained personnel in place beforehand, states risk falling short of their legal obligations when hostilities erupt, to the detriment of detainees’ rights and dignity. In this post, ICRC Legal Advisers Sylvain Vité and Isabelle Gallino explore what it takes to comply with IHL in large-scale detention operations during IACs, focusing on the preparatory measures that states must undertake long before the first capture. Building on the previous post in this series, they highlight the critical need to establish functioning legal and administrative mechanisms, ensure the availability of adequate facilities and resources, and embed IHL training across relevant personnel.

When states adapt “total defence” strategies that mobilize entire populations in preparation for armed conflict, the line between civilian and combatant can become dangerously blurred. This raises pressing legal, ethical, and humanitarian questions about the risks to civilians in warfare. In this post, Ruben Stewart, ICRC Adviser on Technology in Warfare, traces the roots of “total defence” to the Napoleonic Wars, when conscription, guerrilla resistance, economic blockades, and propaganda drew civilians into the machinery of war. Through this historical lens, he shows how involving civilians in defence efforts – then and now – can expose them to harm, complicate their legal protection, and increase the burden on states to safeguard those not taking direct part in hostilities.

Amid the complexities of contemporary armed conflicts, damage to water infrastructure and the use of water as a means or method of warfare have devastating consequences for both civilian populations and the environment. Despite existing legal protections, gaps in compliance and enforcement leave water systems vulnerable, exacerbating humanitarian crises and ecological harm. Addressing these challenges requires a renewed focus on legal frameworks, accountability, and practical measures to strengthen the protection of water in conflict settings. In this post, part of the Emerging Voices series, Tadesse Kebebew, Researcher and Project Manager at the Geneva Water Hub, examines the severe consequences of attacks on water systems and the weaponization of water in armed conflicts. He assesses the strengths and limitations of current international legal protections and offers concrete recommendations to enhance safeguards for freshwater resources, emphasizing the need for stronger compliance with international humanitarian law.

Landmines, a persistent threat in post-conflict zones, pose severe risks to both human lives and the environment. These explosive devices, often buried underground, remain dormant for years, contaminating soil and water and causing long-term ecological damage. While robust legal frameworks governing landmines exist under international humanitarian law (IHL), landmine instruments have only recently begun to incorporate more explicit environmental protections. In this post, and as part of the Emerging Voices series, Goran Sandić, Researcher at the University of Belgrade and Coordinator of the Belgrade International Law Circle, argues that the “polluter pays” principle – originally formulated in international environmental law – can serve as an interpretive lens to reinforce the responsibility of states and other actors for environmental harm arising from landmine use. By weaving this principle into existing processes, we can more effectively address the ongoing costs of landmine remediation and underscore the responsibility of parties that violate fundamental obligations under IHL. This approach aims to support environmental justice while enhancing the legal framework for armed conflicts, which could influence post-conflict recovery efforts and mine action globally.

As public opinion is critical in shaping decision-making during armed conflict, engaging with and informing youth and the broader public about international humanitarian law (IHL) is essential for ensuring compliance with the law and promoting accountability. IHL education – both formal and non-formal – is key to this endeavor. Engagement across all generations and audiences – both military and civilian – is important to ensure a broad and enduring understanding of the goals of IHL and ultimately contribute to prevent and reduce suffering in armed conflict through an informed and motivated public. With over 42% of the global population under the age of 25, young people are especially critical to these efforts. In this post, Etienne Kuster, Catherine Gribbin, Jonathan Somer, Thomas Harper and Charlotte Tocchio share insights from IHL educators and IHL experts around the world on how IHL education needs further investment in order to build a universal culture of compliance.

As states increasingly focus on strengthening their defense capabilities, discussions on military preparedness are gaining prominence, particularly in relation to large-scale conflicts. Such conflicts, involving major powers, advanced weaponry, and extensive resources, would unfold with considerable intensity, scale, and tempo. The humanitarian consequences would be far-reaching and severe, potentially causing mass casualties, mass displacement, and the disruption of essential services. The Geneva Conventions, adopted in the aftermath of two world wars, were designed precisely to help mitigate the suffering in armed conflict. Yet ratification alone is not enough: for these rules to be upheld in practice, extensive legal and operational preparations must begin in times of peace. This introductory post sets the stage for a new series examining the steps needed to ensure compliance with international humanitarian law (IHL) in large-scale conflicts. Isabelle Gallino, ICRC Prevention Adviser, and Sylvain Vité, ICRC Senior Legal Adviser, argue that states must do more than recognize their legal obligations. Applicable rules must be understood, internalized, and backed by legal and practical measures today if they are to be effective once an armed conflict erupts. Ultimately, failure to prepare can undermine even the best-intentioned efforts to comply with IHL.