
Keeping in mind the horrors of the two world wars, a clutch of conventions were adopted six decades ago this month in Geneva, and these agreements still form a bedrock for the laws of war and the protection of non-combatants. The Economist raises important points about these in the present context.
“Do the old rules really apply in such conflicts? And if they still do, how can they be enforced more effectively, since all the evidence suggests they are not only not honoured but dishonoured in the breach? Can they be stretched to cover new threats, such as international terrorism and piracy?
“The chasm is still too wide between noble Swiss ideas and the hard reality of locations where war is hell. In a year that has already seen bitter fighting in Gaza and Sri Lanka, and a still mounting civilian toll in an eight-year-old battle against the Taliban in Afghanistan, some inevitably question whether the Geneva conventions and their later protocols are really suited to today’s conflicts.
“In any case, better than new rules would be more effective enforcement of those that already exist. For a while, after the horrors of the 1990s in Europe and Africa, there was hope that ending impunity for the worst offenders might curb the worst excesses in conflicts. Yet here the prospects seem again to be turning bleak.
“Walk the calm, well-heeled streets of Geneva and there seems little to connect this metropolis in neutral Switzerland with the genocidal slaughter in Rwanda and the rape camps of Bosnia in the 1990s, or the appalling violence lately inflicted on civilians caught up in fighting in Darfur, Chad or eastern Congo. Yet decisions taken in Geneva do have an effect, both legal and humanitarian, on people in benighted places—and the world would be much happier if the effect was far greater.”
More here…