Eva Svoboda worked with the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) from 1999 to 2011 in Kashmir, Sudan, Myanmar, Iraq, East Timor, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Algeria as Protection Coordinator, Head of Office and Head of Sub-Delegation, as well as Head of Delegation. Prior to joining the ICRC, she worked for the Swiss Development Agency and various non-governmental organizations. From 2012 to 2018 she was a Senior Research Fellow with the Humanitarian Policy Group at the Overseas Development Institute in London. Between 2016 and 2017 she worked as the Senior Expert for Detainees and the Missing at the United Nations (UN) Office of the Special Envoy for Syria.

International humanitarian law (IHL), also known as the law of armed conflict, seeks to limit the humanitarian impact of war by regulating the conduct of hostilities and protecting those not or no longer participating in combat. IHL does not prevent war, nor is that its role. IHL is only one part of the fabric of international law, other parts of which (jus ad bellum) govern the legality of war itself. However, IHL plays an essential role in mitigating suffering and fostering conditions that may facilitate a return to peace. This article examines the long-standing debate over whether IHL inadvertently legitimizes war or whether it can actually contribute, indirectly, to peace by imposing humanitarian constraints on conflict. It explores how adherence to IHL can preserve human dignity and support post-conflict reconciliation. Ultimately, while IHL does not prevent war, its strict application helps to reduce war's brutality and create pathways for sustainable peace.

This year marks the 160th anniversary of the original Geneva Convention and the 75th anniversary of the four Geneva Conventions of 1949. Together, they have come to embody our common humanity. Alas, recent history teaches us that nothing can be taken for granted – whether people's basic rights or peace.

Franz Perrez is Director-General of the Directorate of International Law at the Federal Department of Foreign Affairs (FDFA), Switzerland. He is responsible for the development and interpretation of international law and ensuring that Switzerland's strategic rights are respected abroad. As a member of the FDFA senior management, Mr Perrez is also jointly responsible for the FDFA's strategic approach and advises the Federal Council, Switzerland's representatives abroad and other Federal Administration offices on international law issues.

Prior to his new role Mr Perrez was appointed Switzerland's Ambassador for the Environment and Head of the International Affairs Division at the Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN) in 2010. In this capacity, he headed the Swiss delegations to international environmental and climate negotiations for thirteen years.

After studying law in Bern and Paris, Mr Perrez worked at the FDFA's Directorate of International Law from 1993 to 1995. He went on to study at New York University, where he gained a master of laws focusing on international law and completed a PhD thesis on the topic of sovereignty as a principle of cooperation. On returning to Switzerland, he took up a position at the World Trade Organization (WTO) Division of the State Secretariat for Economic Affairs, before joining the FOEN in 2001.

Mr Perrez has proven expertise in international law. He has widely published in the area of international environmental law, international environmental governance, the relationship between trade and the environment, and public international law. Since 2008, Mr Perrez has also lectured on international environmental law at the University of Bern School of Law. He served as a panellist on the newest WTO tuna–dolphin dispute between Mexico and the United States, and as Switzerland's Ambassador for the Environment and Chief Negotiator for Environmental Issues, namely climate change, biodiversity, chemicals and waste, he led the Swiss delegation to the Rio+20 conference and to the Paris Climate Change Conference in 2015. He was President of the Basel Convention (COP 11 in 2013) and President of the Rotterdam Convention (COP 8 in 2017) and facilitated the negotiations on mitigation of the Paris Agreement. Through his work within and outside of Switzerland, he has built strong networks around the world and within the Federal Administration.

Itonde Kakoma is the President and CEO of Interpeace. Prior to Interpeace, he served as the Permanent Representative of the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC) to the African Union and International Organizations (2021–23). Previously, Mr Kakoma served in various leadership capacities on matters of international peace mediation, including as Director for Global Strategy and member of the leadership team at CMI – Martti Ahtisaari Peace Foundation. Additionally, Mr Kakoma was Assistant Director for the Conflict Resolution Programme at the Carter Center, managing a portfolio of the Center's peace initiatives and supporting former president Carter's back-channel diplomatic efforts. He is an experienced facilitator and moderator for high-level peace processes and dialogue fora and has expertise in mediation, negotiation, process design, humanitarian diplomacy and transitional justice.

This article examines the links between the concept of peace and international humanitarian law (IHL). It takes a closer look at how the originator of IHL, the International Committee of the Red Cross, justified the existence of this body of law, which was supposed to regulate war, in the face of those who wanted to see war abolished once and for all. The article also questions the attitude of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, which, while wanting a peaceful society, did not give itself the means to achieve one.

Neutral States must abstain from supporting a party to a conflict with military equipment and assistance. This core aspect of the law of neutrality has not changed with the adoption of the UN Charter in 1945, or with the brutal Russian aggression against Ukraine. That said, by reviewing the changes to neutrality law over time, this article finds plausible reasons to believe that neutrality has – for better or worse – become optional for the vast majority of States, which can today opt to be non-belligerent States – i.e., States that are neither neutral nor parties to the armed conflict. All States have to cooperate to bring to an end serious violations of international law, including humanitarian law, and this duty of cooperation has abolished “sitting-still neutrality”, but it does not render neutrality law moot. This reading of “optional but not qualified” neutrality maintains the core neutrality idea of abstaining in military matters. In this article, I argue that views of “obsolete” or “qualified” neutrality are not new at all but depart from well-accepted rules of legal interpretation and raise concerns about double standards. Viewing neutrality as optional but unqualifiable offers greater conceptual clarity, is more honest than alternative views, and comes with advantages for humanitarian action.

Neutrality, a foundational principle in humanitarian efforts and peace mediation, encounters significant practical challenges in the modern landscape of armed conflicts, particularly in the intermediary role of humanitarian organizations. This study examines the role of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) as a neutral intermediary in Yemen, focusing on the release and repatriation of detainees during the 2016–20 peace efforts. Drawing on the ICRC's experience, the analysis highlights the evolving understanding of neutrality from a rigid concept to a more flexible, context-sensitive approach. The findings emphasize the importance of neutrality in fostering trust and facilitating dialogue while acknowledging the operational complexities and strategic considerations involved. This study provides insights into enhancing the contributions of neutral intermediaries to sustainable peace processes.

In an era marked by growing conflicts, prolonged humanitarian needs and less donor funding, collaboration between the humanitarian and peacebuilding sectors is essential for more effective responses. This paper examines the complexities of fostering such collaboration, emphasizing the importance of integrated multisectoral approaches capable of addressing both immediate necessities and long-term peace and development objectives. While recent initiatives such as the humanitarian–development–peace nexus framework and the United Nations Secretary-General's Agenda for Humanity reflect progress toward integrated approaches, substantial collaborative challenges persist. This paper identifies three key entry points for mutual learning between humanitarian and peace actors. Firstly, it discusses a “peace-responsive” approach to humanitarian activities that proactively contributes to “peace-positive” outcomes. Secondly, it emphasizes the need for the peace sector to learn from humanitarian efforts regarding accountability to affected communities. Thirdly, it underscores the need to understand the normative foundations of each sector and their implications for joint action. Drawing on these insights, the paper offers recommendations for policy-makers and practitioners to help them advance joint approaches to humanitarian assistance and peacebuilding in conflict-affected contexts.

International humanitarian law (IHL) provides the normative foundation for efforts to address the issue of missing persons during and after armed conflict. Whilst IHL does not engage with how parties to an armed conflict may go about restoring peace, there has been speculation that resolving the missing issue, by bringing answers to families about the fate and whereabouts of their missing relatives, can potentially play a role in building peace. This article represents an effort to compile existing evidence in academic and practice literature that supports an understanding of how addressing the missing issue relates to peacebuilding. In so doing, the article seeks to lay out a research agenda to understand how addressing the issue of the missing can serve to advance peacebuilding, and proposes avenues for further research.

This article explores the role of Article 6(5) of Additional Protocol II to the Geneva Conventions in balancing justice and peace during transitions from armed conflict to peace. It argues that the provision, which encourages the granting of broad amnesties at the cessation of hostilities, requires a re-evaluation of the obligation to investigate, prosecute and punish under international law. By analyzing the legal context and scope of Article 6(5), as well as its application in transitional justice models such as in Colombia, the article highlights how the principle of peace can be prioritized alongside justice without undermining victims’ rights. The discussion critically addresses maximalist interpretations of justice, presenting a nuanced approach that foregrounds restorative justice and the importance of reconciliation in post-conflict societies.

When do non-international armed conflicts (NIACs) end? Determining the existence of a NIAC requires a detailed, fact-intensive inquiry. Since the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia's seminal decision in the Tadić case, international courts and tribunals have evaluated the existence of NIACs under the Tadić test's two-pronged inquiry into intensity and organization. Although that decision also pronounced that international humanitarian law (IHL) continues to apply until a “peaceful settlement is achieved,” neither international tribunals nor scholars have articulated a comparably widely accepted and well-developed test for determining the end of NIACs.

At the same time – and especially since 9/11 – States have increasingly relied on IHL to meet the threat posed by non-State actors, broadening the scope of conflict-related liabilities in armed conflict without conferring the privileges or immunities otherwise inherent in IHL. This one-sided approach twists the purpose of IHL and places members of organized armed groups into legal black holes without temporal limitations, as States resist the termination of “armed conflict” irrespective of the continuing intensity of violence or the level of organization of non-State actors. Ultimately, the current approach gives States broad discretion without appropriate safeguards, which undermines the proper application of human rights and humanitarian principles within conflict and prevents the establishment of a sustainable peace.

This paper argues that the most appropriate test for ascertaining the end of a NIAC is one that combines objective consideration of the diminution of organized and intense hostilities below the Tadić threshold with the likelihood that hostilities will not again rise above that threshold. It thus draws from but does not fully endorse the preferred approach of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), which focuses on the lasting termination of hostilities,1 while abjuring a general temporal limitation. Although commendable for its effort to avoid the legal uncertainty that attends the revolving conflict classification problem, the ICRC's approach unfortunately tends to encode existing uncertainty surrounding the termination of NIACs and to indistinctly prolong the application of IHL to erstwhile conflict situations. In contrast, the authors suggest that a test for the end of NIAC based on a specific period (five months following the diminution of organized and intense hostilities below the Tadić threshold), subject to an evaluation of the risk that those hostilities may resume, better balances certainty of legal application with the promotion of a return to peace. The authors will employ the facts of diverse case studies, including the FARC in Colombia, the LTTE in Sri Lanka, numerous armed groups in Mali, and the United States with Al-Qaeda, to build a legal standard that courts can use to determine IHL's continuing applicability to an erstwhile armed conflict.

Three decades after the United Nations Security Council invoked its Chapter VII powers to create the ad hoc criminal tribunals, there can be little doubt that the prosecution of individuals responsible for serious violations of international humanitarian law (IHL) contributes to restoring and maintaining peace. While there is little doubt that the reparatory function of justice is just as crucial as retribution, under international law today, reparations for IHL violations remain harrowingly insufficient or borderline non-existent. In scholarship and strategic litigation, various attempts have been made to distil an individual right to reparations from black-letter IHL. This article argues that such approaches are doomed to fail, as procedural aspects of international obligations rarely, if ever, emerge through the evolution of an existing customary international obligation, let alone via the crystallization of a new customary international norm. They are usually triggered by a political shift that makes States adopt novel regulations setting forth the jurisdictional ramifications of enforcing a pre-existing right or obligation. This article thus advances a two-fold argument. First, it asserts that States’ increased compliance with the obligation to provide compensation for violations of IHL attributable to them would contribute to “the restoration and maintenance of peace” just as much as the prosecution of persons responsible for serious violations thereof. Second, it argues that the individual right to claim reparations for IHL violations can only be established through a political decision of States, and that the establishment of an international mechanism for Ukraine might be an important precedent for the evolution of the current international system.

This article proposes a hybrid legal framework combining jus ad bellum and jus in bello to govern the attribution of State responsibility for reparations at the end of a war of aggression. To this end, the article considers former international mass claims processes and proposes a complementary approach that, on the one hand, acknowledges the role of the aggressor State in waging the war, and on the other, takes a cautionary approach to prevent a disproportionate burden of compensation being imposed on the aggressor State as a form of collective punishment. The consequences of respective violations of the prohibition of the use of force and the law of war are blurred in a war of aggression, resulting in complexities around liability for aggressor States. In response, this article concludes with a nuanced proposal to calculate compensation based on (1) the aggressor party's capacity to comply with jus in bello; (2) the extent of damage caused by the war of aggression, factoring in jus ad bellum considerations if a party is found to be intentionally maximizing destruction; and (3) the incorporation of tort law principles for equitable attribution of responsibility.

2024 will mark seventy-five years since the adoption of the 1949 Geneva Conventions. Despite the drafters’ efforts to mitigate the worst horrors of armed conflict, contemporary conflicts continue to witness the death and suffering of millions. This raises fundamental concerns over the ability of international law to alleviate the harm caused to those caught up in armed conflict, to redress violations and to prevent their recurrence. In international policy, international humanitarian law (IHL) is increasingly intertwined with transitional justice and in particular its emphasis on the centrality of human rights. This article focuses on the intersection between IHL and transitional justice in protracted conflicts, interrogating their increasing overlaps, complementary intersections and even tensions. In particular, the article examines the importance of the temporal dimensions of humanity and justice in prevention of violations. In doing so, the article concentrates on the impact of time on those harmed by armed conflict and the repercussions this has on the law and justice efforts. The article argues that time can be weaponized to frustrate accountability and prevent interference with belligerents’ behaviour. Victims in war cannot wait until the end of fighting to seek the recovery of the remains of their loved ones, for those responsible to be brought to justice, and for redress of their continuing suffering. Indeed, such delays amount to violations of victims’ right to an effective remedy and fail to stop the continuation of violations or the re-victimization of civilians and their communities. The article suggests the need for “provisional justice”, whereby, in the increasing number of situations of protracted conflict, efforts to redress conflict-related violations should be, at least in part, dealt with at the time, rather than waiting until the end of hostilities, so as to mitigate harm to victims and to correct belligerents’ behaviour in order to prevent recurrence.

This article aims to highlight the importance of determining the temporal scope of the transition from armed conflict to peace. It will also consider the emergence of a new legal paradigm, jus post bellum, applicable to the post-conflict period, and the associated need for an appropriate regulatory framework. Given the unavoidable impact of armed conflict, the post-conflict period deserves particular attention, especially with regard to the need for a legal framework to facilitate the sustainable reconstruction of communities torn apart by conflict and ensure a lasting peace. After any kind of armed conflict, a solid legal framework is essential to finalize the end of hostilities, begin a sustainable peace process, build a united society and address the rifts caused by armed violence.

International law began as a discipline concerned with the goal of peace, seen as the ideal state of relations between States, focusing on the potential for peaceful settlement of disputes, arms control and disarmament, and the prevention of war. International humanitarian law (IHL) emerged as the first significant development in international law addressing issues of peace and security. The subsequent development of international criminal law (ICL) following World War II has enabled the criminal prosecution of war crimes (serious violations of IHL) as well as crimes against the peace, crimes against humanity and genocide. This article argues that IHL, as it was developed to regulate the conduct of war (jus in bello) as a means of preventing unnecessary suffering, should be considered as separate yet integrally linked to the pursuit of international criminal justice as part of transitional justice in the context of jus post bellum, defined as “the set of norms applicable at the end of armed conflict … with a view to establishing a sustainable peace”. The article analyzes existing scholarship and emerging ideas about the relatively old yet underdeveloped concept of jus post bellum, and what this concept means in practice since the rapid increase in international interventions in peacebuilding and transitional justice in non-international armed conflicts. Applying the author's theory of transformative justice along with jus post bellum principles to the case study example of Cambodia, the paper discusses the complexities, uncertainties and apparent contradictions of establishing a “just peace” that builds on, yet goes beyond, the intersecting norms and practices of IHL and ICL. The article concludes by proposing the need for a radical reconceptualization of jus post bellum in order to support a more sustainable, transformative and emancipatory peacebuilding agenda.

Olivier Ray has been Director of Mobilization, Movement and Partnerships at the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) since July 2022. Before joining the ICRC, he was the Senior Adviser for Global Affairs to President Emmanuel Macron, leading on multilateral issues (UN, G7 and G20), global health and environment, humanitarian issues, development and human rights. He has worked for the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs (policy planning and foresight division) and Ministry of Health and Social Affairs (Diplomatic Adviser to the Minister). He held various positions at the French Development Agency, including Head of the Crisis Prevention and Post-Conflict Recovery Unit, Director for Lebanon and Syria, and Regional Director for the Middle East. He holds an MA in international relations from Columbia University, an MA in public affairs from Sciences-Po, and a BSc in international relations from LSE. He is the co-author of Africa's Moment (2011, initially published in French in 2010) and Le Grand Basculement: La question sociale à l’échelle mondiale (2011), as well as many articles on international development.

Eva Svoboda is Director of International Law, Policy and Archives at the ICRC. She worked with the ICRC from 1999 to 2011 in Kashmir, Sudan, Myanmar, Iraq, East Timor, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Algeria as Protection Coordinator, Head of Office and Head of Sub-Delegation as well as Head of Delegation. Prior to joining the ICRC, Eva worked for the Swiss Development Agency and various non-governmental organizations. From 2012 to 2018 she was a Senior Research Fellow with the Humanitarian Policy Group at the Overseas Development Institute in London. Between 2016 and 2017 she worked as the Senior Expert for Detainees and the Missing at the United Nations Office of the Special Envoy for Syria.