This year marks the 60th anniversary of the Fundamental Principles of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement – humanity, impartiality, neutrality, independence, voluntary service, unity and universality. Proclaimed in Vienna in 1965, they were born not as abstract ideals but as the direct result of over a hundred years of humanitarian action. They have enabled aid to cross frontlines, families to be reunited, and hope to reach places of despair. Yet today, the world in which they must operate is under extraordinary strain: conflicts drag on for years, humanitarian workers face record levels of attack, climate shocks compound existing crises, digitalization reshapes the battlefield, and politicization erodes the fragile space where help can reach those who need it most. The human consequences of war remain devastatingly constant, and the Principles- that have guided the Movement since 1965 are under growing pressure.

In this post, ICRC’s Director General Pierre Krähenbühl reflects on the enduring relevance and importance of the Fundamental Principles in a rapidly shifting world. He argues that they are not self-sustaining ideals to be admired from afar, but living commitments that must be exercised and defended. Drawing on his three decades of humanitarian work, he makes the case that the Principles resist the dangerous normalization of war, safeguard access to people in need, and fuel the courage necessary to channel indignation into lifesaving action. At sixty, the Principles will only remain vital if we choose to live them, and in so doing, keep humanity alive in the darkest of times.

Following five years of research and consultations, the ICRC has published a new, updated Commentary on the Fourth Geneva Convention (GC IV) of 1949. GC IV is the cornerstone of protection for civilians in international armed conflict and occupation – protections that remain urgently relevant amid patterns of urban warfare, strikes on essential services, and persistent harm to people who are not, or are no longer, taking part in hostilities. The 2025 Commentary consolidates seven decades of practice, jurisprudence, and operational experience into a practical guide to applying GC IV’s safeguards effectively today.

In this post, Jean-Marie Henckaerts, the head of the ICRC project to update the Commentaries on the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their Additional Protocols of 1977, situates the updated Commentary in contemporary conflict realities and explains why GC IV’s protective purpose must steer its interpretation. He argues that good faith interpretation – required by the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties – means reading GC IV in a way that realizes its humanitarian object and purpose, not hollowing it out through technical argumentation that defeats protection in practice.

The impact of armed conflict on mental health is increasingly evident. According to data from the World Health Organization, one in five people who have experienced armed conflict in the last ten years suffers from some form of mental health condition. With an estimated two billion people living in places affected by war, the scale of the problem is staggering. Yet, despite its magnitude, the legal protection of mental health during hostilities remains largely overlooked by both academics and practitioners.

In this post, part of the Emerging Voices series, Giulia Bosi, Postdoctoral Researcher in International Law at Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna in Pisa, Italy, examines whether and how international humanitarian law (IHL) seeks to safeguard mental health. Her analysis shows that the drafters of IHL treaties were, at least to some extent, aware of the importance of mental health, that several IHL norms aim to protect it, and that the growing recognition of mental health as an integral part of health is shaping contemporary interpretations of IHL.

For groups involved in long-running non-international armed conflicts, the decision to end the use of violence poses significant challenges – even when it is no longer recognized to be an “effective” means of achieving organizational objectives.

In this post, independent researcher Dr Thomas Evans argues that exploring the cultural perspectives, influences, and identities within non-state armed groups and their members is vital to understanding the continued usage of, and disengagement from, political violence.

The number of conflicts continues to rise – with the ICRC currently classifying some 130 armed conflicts worldwide – while at the same time, they are rarely brought to an end. The human suffering they cause is devastating and hard to comprehend. But wars are not inevitable – and the best way to end the suffering they cause is to end conflicts or prevent them from breaking out in the first place. In the absence of effective efforts to find sustainable political solutions, humanitarian organizations like the ICRC are often left to manage the suffering caused by these conflicts, which affect civilians most of all. Political will to reinvest in international cooperation, conflict prevention, and resolution is urgently needed. While humanitarian action cannot substitute for political action, humanitarian actors can contribute to the prospects for peace.

In this post, ICRC Policy Advisers Ariana Lopes Morey and Avigail Shai outline key reflections on the ICRC’s direct and indirect contributions to an environment conducive to peace. Drawing on case studies and other research, they identify three primary areas of the ICRC’s humanitarian action – its work with communities, in dialogue with parties to conflict and other influential actors, and in building respect for human dignity through laws, norms and institutions – which can strengthen prospects for peace. While focused on the ICRC’s own work, many of these reflections can apply more broadly to other organizations who strive to address the humanitarian impacts of conflict on people.

Across contemporary armed conflicts, the presence of civilian groups who take up arms to defend their communities raises enduring and complex legal challenges. At what point do these groups become parties to an armed conflict or otherwise bound by IHL? Do civilians who participate in hostilities lose protection against attack, and if so, for how long? Who bears responsibility for ensuring that they, and other civilians drawn into conflict, respect IHL?

In this post, ICRC Legal Advisers Jelena Nikolic, Tilman Rodenhäuser and Thomas de Saint Maurice examine these questions in the context of non-international armed conflicts, seeking to help in the analysis of determining whether and at what point groups of civilians become parties to armed conflicts, what their legal obligations are, and who is responsible for their conduct.

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.