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.

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.

This article argues that a joke about the demagogue Hyperbolus in Aristophanes’ Peace (685–7) can be illuminated by a reconsideration of the meaning of the little-attested word περιζωσάμενος in the Aristotelian Constitution of the Athenians (Athênaiôn Politeia 28.3), where it describes how Cleon dressed in an unconventional manner when appearing before the assembly. In recent translation of and commentary on the Aristotelian text there appears to have been no investigation of the meaning of περιζωσάμενος in Greek comedy: readers are informed that Cleon either hitched up his (unspecified) clothing or somehow fastened his cloak to allow him to make gestures with both hands. However, the philological and material-cultural evidence presented here points to something more specific and more dramatic. Elsewhere in classical and later Greek the word περιζώννυσθαι means belting or knotting something around the waist and is most frequently found in contexts of manual labour. Here, it is argued that the import of Athênaiôn Politeia 28.3 is that Cleon spoke to the assembly dressed for work in his family’s tannery—a powerful symbol of his allegiance to the manual-labouring demos and his antagonism towards the aristocratic elite. It is to his unconventional self-fashioning that Aristophanes alludes in Peace when he jokes that after Cleon’s death the naked demos has wrapped itself (περιεζώσατο) in Hyperbolus, the new leader of the people.

The 5th International Polar Year (IPY-5) in 2032–2033 represents an important next step in the legacy of the oldest continuous climate research program created by humanity, which intentionally began during a Solar Maximum with IPY-1 in 1882–1883, following the Little Ice Age. Current IPY-5 planning by the International Arctic Science Committee (IASC) and Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR) is “From IPY-4 to IPY-5” with scope since 2007–2008, considering relevant large-scale polar process, international activities and UN decades. Additionally, there are essential features to incorporate into IPY-5 planning with Indigenous knowledge as well as next-generation leadership along with international science connections across the United Nations, involving core integration of data system and Earth–Sun system research, which accelerated with the International Geophysical Year (IGY) in 1957–1958 that was renamed from IPY-3. As memorialized in the 1959 Antarctic Treaty: “the International Geophysical Year accords with the interests of science and the progress of all mankind.” Importantly, at the height of the Cold War with “forever” legacy, the 1959 Antarctic Treaty became the first nuclear arms agreement, applying science diplomacy among allies and adversaries alike based on “matters of common interest.” Recognizing current challenges to enable inclusive dialogues – especially in the Arctic – planning for IPY-5 is far enough into the future to be imaginative and hopeful but close enough to be practical, especially to produce synergistic outcomes that inspire and empower next-generation leaders across the International Decade of Sciences for Sustainable Development from 2024 to 2033. Planning “From IPY-3 to IPY-5” – this invited Cambridge Prisms Perspective extends and amplifies the IASC-SCAR concept with its visionary principles – “striving for holistic, systemic, transdisciplinary research approaches” – for the benefit of all on Earth across generations.

This article interrogates three claims made in relation to the use of data in relation to peace. That more data, faster data, and impartial data will lead to better policy and practice outcomes. Taken together, this data myth relies on a lack of curiosity about the provenance of data and the infrastructure that produces it and asserts its legitimacy. Our discussion is concerned with issues of power, inclusion, and exclusion, and particularly how knowledge hierarchies attend to the collection and use of data in relation to conflict-affected contexts. We therefore question the axiomatic nature of these data myth claims and argue that the structure and dynamics of peacebuilding actors perpetuate the myth. We advocate a fuller reflection of the data wave that has overtaken us and echo calls for an ethics of numbers. In other words, this article is concerned with the evidence base for evidence-based peacebuilding. Mindful of the policy implications of our concerns, the article puts forward five tenets of good practice in relation to data and the peacebuilding sector. The concluding discussion further considers the policy implications of the data myth in relation to peace, and particularly, the consequences of casting peace and conflict as technical issues that can be “solved” without recourse to human and political factors.

The international community, and the UN in particular, is in urgent need of wise policies, and a regulatory institution to put data-based systems, notably AI, to positive use and guard against their abuse. Digital transformation and “artificial intelligence (AI)”—which can more adequately be called “data-based systems (DS)”—present ethical opportunities and risks. Helping humans and the planet to flourish sustainably in peace and guaranteeing globally that human dignity is respected not only offline but also online, in the digital sphere, and the domain of DS requires two policy measures: (1) human rights-based data-based systems (HRBDS) and (2) an International Data-Based Systems Agency (IDA): IDA should be established at the UN as a platform for cooperation in the field of digital transformation and DS, fostering human rights, security, and peaceful uses of DS.

This article addresses power-sharing constitutions that include powers of veto wielded by discrete ethnonational groups. Such constitutional arrangements – seen, for example, in Northern Ireland and Bosnia – have often prompted severe deadlock, a problem that in turn threatens democratic functioning and raises the risk of renewed communal violence. We consider the use of ‘umpires’ of power-sharing constitutional systems to vet the use of vetoes and (potentially) to prevent their overuse or misuse. Power-sharing umpires are not uncommon in practice. However, as yet there is little scholarship evaluating how, in substance, power-sharing veto umpires should approach their task. Relying on deliberative democracy theory, the article outlines three forms of ‘deliberative agreement’ that, in principle, deeply divided groups may reach in the course of policymaking. It goes on to explain how existing proportionality doctrines drawn from federalism and rights cases can be imported into the power-sharing context to ‘scaffold’ these broad ideals. This approach, it is argued, may provide a more detailed, coherent and practically workable approach to umpiring power-sharing constitutions.

This article addresses the recent interest in Black Internationalism in the history of political thought and related fields by engaging with a portion of W. E. B. Du Bois’s (1868–1963) work. It examines in particular how Du Bois treats Africa in his published and unpublished writings from the 1910s to the 1940s in light of the challenges of world war and continued imperial expansionism in the global South. I argue that through a rhetorical framing of problems on the continent, and by situating Africa in relation to global economic problems as well as the goal of long-lasting peace, Du Bois comes up with novel approaches to war and empire, as well as solutions to the problems that they pose. I conclude by reflecting on how he can contribute to debates on Black Internationalism today.

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.

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.

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.

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.