Seventy-five years of Geneva Conventions, yet humanitarian crises continue
Despite widespread support for humanitarian law and a robust legal framework, non-compliance persists worldwide, with Africa no exception.
PSC Report asked Patrick Youssef, International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) Regional Director for Africa how implementation of the Geneva Conventions could be enhanced.
How does Africa fair in the implementation of the Geneva Conventions?
While the Geneva Conventions are only 75 years old this year, their fundamental principles of humanity are deeply rooted in ancient African traditions and practices. The rules of war are not a foreign concept. They have long existed in the cultural norms and traditions of many African societies, well before the adoption of the conventions. That several African countries were among the first to ratify both additional protocols further demonstrates their proactivity in infusing humanitarian law into national policies. Many have also taken steps to incorporate these principles into their domestic legal frameworks, thereby ensuring alignment with international standards.
The African Union (AU), as did its predecessor the Organisation for Africa Unity, embedded numerous provisions into the foundational Protocol of the Peace and Security Council (PSC). It also developed groundbreaking instruments such as the world’s first legally binding convention to protect and assist internally displaced persons in Africa – which marks its 15th anniversary this year. Moreover, humanitarian concerns and the call to uphold international humanitarian law (IHL) are now regularly reflected in the PSC’s deliberations on country-specific conflicts and during several of its thematic sessions.
The Geneva Conventions’ principles are deeply rooted in ancient African traditions and practices
Yet, despite widespread support for IHL and a robust legal framework to protect the most vulnerable, troubling non-compliance persists throughout the world, with Africa no exception. Its consequences are devastating resulting in widespread human suffering, undermining development and eroding the very foundations of societies.
This year also marks the 25th anniversary of the first United Nations Security Council Resolution 1265 on the Protection of Civilians and the 20th anniversary of the creation of the PSC. These commemorations highlight pivotal moments in our commitment to safeguard human dignity amid the atrocities of war.
How can African countries emphasise the importance of the Geneva Conventions given current multilateralism?
We have reached a defining moment at which the world is not only grappling with the rhetoric of war and conflict but witnessing extreme human suffering caused by severe violations. In a fragmented and polarised world, global consensus on what constitutes gross violations and breaches of IHL is increasingly tenuous. However, we must acknowledge that the Geneva Conventions remain the only rules universally agreed on to preserve humanity from the ravages of war.
Experience has shown that for IHL to prevent or alleviate the immense suffering caused by armed conflicts, it must be faithfully and effectively implemented in practice. It cannot be the law merely on paper – it must be the law in action. The erosion of the protective force of IHL must be urgently addressed by making it a global political priority and reinforcing its enforcement, ensuring it remains a unifying standard of humanity in an increasingly divided world.
The ICRC's operational work in Africa accounts for 37% of its field budget, CHF718 million
States hold the primary responsibility for IHL and are clearly obligated to adopt both legal and practical measures to ensure full compliance. Renewed commitment will require states to ratify treaties, pass legislation, integrate IHL into military doctrines and provide comprehensive education and training for military personnel, while raising awareness among civilians. Additionally, the state and the AU must ensure accountability for violations to reinforce compliance with these laws.
What are the ICRC’s priorities and what urgent actions are needed to address crises effectively?
The humanitarian outlook on the continent is dire, given war, food insecurity and climate change. While humanitarian needs continue to increase, scaling up the delivery of assistance remains a major challenge, as observed in contexts where humanitarian access is completely blocked.
Among the current conflicts, Sudan stands out, with millions deprived of essentials such as food, water and healthcare. Nearly a quarter of the country’s population has been displaced, with people losing their homes and livelihoods at unprecedented levels. The fighting shows no signs of abating, with grave repercussions felt in neighbouring countries. The Sahel region remains a significant concern, as it is marked by rising violence that disproportionately affects civilians and by worsening food and climate crises. Exacerbating the continent's humanitarian landscape, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Lake Chad Basin continue to be pressing issues.
In response, states and all parties must uphold their IHL obligations, ensuring the protection of civilians and humanitarian workers, healthcare and essential infrastructure. Where access is restricted, securing safe and voluntary passage for aid is crucial. Where conflict is worsened by the climate crisis, donors must prioritise long-term solutions by providing adequate funding for comprehensive responses. Emergency aid alone will never come close to meeting these growing challenges.
Considering global financial limitations, what alternative sources and options of financing could Africa explore?
The ICRC's operational work in Africa accounts for 37% of its field budget, CHF718 million. This reflects our commitment to remaining as close as possible to communities to understand and respond appropriately to their needs. Currently, our largest operations are in Ethiopia, Somalia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Nigeria, South Sudan, Sudan, Mali, Burkina Faso and the Central African Republic where we respond to critical humanitarian needs with national Red Cross and Red Crescent societies. Our approach combines emergency interventions with longer-term resilience-building, including supporting livelihoods.
It is essential for the AU humanitarian agency and other stakeholders to collaborate effectively
As with many organisations, the ICRC is not immune to the financial constraints facing the humanitarian effort. The widening gap between resources and needs on the continent requires urgent attention. We must broaden the resource base by collectively exploring innovative financing approaches and models that foster collaboration and partnerships across humanitarian, development and private sectors. Equally important is how the generated funds are used. A shift in mindset is required, moving from focusing solely on emergencies to investing in people and basic services. For instance, in fragile contexts affected by conflict and climate change, it will be key to leverage development and climate-adaptation funds.
How can the AU and its member states leverage the newly established AU humanitarian agency in Kampala, Uganda to ensure respect for the Geneva Conventions?
I congratulate the AU on setting up such an agency, as it is an important milestone in enhancing humanitarian response across the continent. We firmly believe that this agency will add value and we recognise its potential to improve coordination, mobilisation and capacity-building among African member states and humanitarian actors, particularly in preparedness and early response. The landscape has room for all role-players, but it is essential for the agency and other stakeholders to collaborate effectively, each fulfilling its distinct roles in preventing and alleviating suffering and fostering stability.
Achieving meaningful outcomes depends on effective cooperation at all levels and a mindset focused on building alliances for both impact and capacity enhancement through a common framework. Our approaches should prioritise the primacy of local contexts and actors while being supported by a neutral and impartial agency.
Misinformation, disinformation and hate speech are major challenges to contemporary humanitarian action. What should be done to address these challenges?
The dimensions of conflict have moved increasingly into the digital realm, where harmful information can spread faster and more widely than ever before, making it challenging for individuals to make informed decisions.
For organisations such as ours, which rely on trust, the proliferation of disinformation – especially amid heightened tensions – can severely hinder efforts. It can prevent personnel from leaving their offices, distributing life-saving assistance, visiting detainees or reconnecting families that have lost contact. Furthermore, misinformation can lead to poor decision-making on shelter and security, ultimately undermining our operations. This erosion of trust and acceptance negatively affects our ability to provide humanitarian aid.
The PSC should be applauded for requesting a common African position on IHL and AI
Thus, it is essential for states and authorities, including non-state armed groups, to ensure that information during conflicts adheres to IHL and other legal frameworks. Enhanced due diligence and measures to prevent and mitigate misinformation and disinformation are also paramount, as is the development of conflict-specific and localised responses. Tech and social media companies must help in preventing and interdicting misinformation, disinformation and hate speech by adopting a conflict-sensitive approach and through stronger due diligence policies and practices.
The PSC has expressed concern about cybersecurity and the use of autonomous weapons and new technologies in warfare. What should be the response for sustainable peace?
Armed conflicts are rapidly changing, with increasing digitalisation and methods of warfare emanating from technological advancements enabling action at speeds far exceeding human capabilities or carrying out attacks in communications-denied areas. This has a profound impact on how wars are fought, presenting new dangers for societies. Emerging autonomous weapon systems are particularly concerning, as, once activated, they select and attack targets without human intervention. Their development raises legal, ethical and societal questions.
While developments such as advanced surveillance systems and combat drones are gradually making their way into Africa, the potential and probably far-reaching legal, ethical humanitarian and other implications are not yet fully known. However, military applications of artificial intelligence and machine learning can have negative implications.
IHL sets limits on how warring parties fight each other, whatever technologies they use. Therefore, the law applies to all technological developments in warfare. It imposes longstanding limits essential to protect civilians and their infrastructure against harm, including in the digital age. Thus, we must adopt a human-centred approach to the development and use of new technologies to ensure that victims of armed conflicts continue to be protected. We cannot allow new warfare approaches to replicate, indeed amplify, unlawful or otherwise harmful effects at faster rates and on larger scales.
The PSC must be strongly commended for calling on member states at its 1 214th session on 13 June 2024 to consider the application of IHL in the use of artificial intelligence. It must also be applauded for tasking the AU Commission special rapporteur on international law and cyberspace to prepare a common African position on the rules of IHL governing the use of artificial intelligence in armed conflict.
