Contemporary armed conflicts are increasingly complex and, through rapid technological development, increasingly remote. This calls into question the capacity of a machine to apply human emotional traits such as empathy and caution, crucial for effective judgement and evaluation in challenging situations. Despite the precision and reliability that might be achieved through the increased automation of military activities such as target identification, from a humanitarian perspective, outsourcing such high-stakes decisions to machines is highly problematic.

In this post, Dr Joanna Wilson, Lecturer in Law at the University of the West of Scotland, calls for the urgent ‘rehumanization’ of military decision-making. Emotions play a key role in this. While sometimes blamed for unpredictable, erratic human behaviour, for which a machine might therefore be viewed to be a welcome alternative, emotions are indispensable for effective and flexible moral reasoning, intuition, and self-regulation. The use of artificial intelligence (AI) should thus be exclusively limited to effectively supplementing and facilitating human agency and decision-making: a technological means for strictly human ends.

In today’s multilateral disarmament, peace and security, and humanitarian fora, a key responsibility of states – and a challenge for their lawyers and policy makers – is to find common understandings on the international legal limits on information and communication technology (ICT) activities during armed conflicts. Following over two decades of discussions – and gradual progress – in UN General Assembly mandated groups of governmental experts and open-ended working groups on the use of ICTs, multilateral efforts to agree to such limits have reached an important juncture.

In this post, the ICRC’s Laurent Gisel and Tilman Rodenhäuser highlight the significant progress achieved on the protection of civilian populations against ICT activities through the adoption of ‘the first humanitarian ICT resolution’ at the 34th International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement in October 2024. The authors discuss the trajectory that this resolution sets for multilateral work in the UN Open-Ended Working Group that concludes this year, for the ICTs workstream of the Global Initiative on IHL, and the ICRC’s project on a digital emblem.

As the devastating impacts of armed conflicts continue to mount, civilians are enduring unimaginable suffering. Violations of international humanitarian law (IHL) are compounding these crises, while emerging threats such as autonomous weapons and cyber warfare add new dimensions to the challenges facing humanity. Despite the universal ratification of the Geneva Conventions, the erosion of respect for these fundamental rules of war endangers lives, infrastructure, and the fragile prospects for peace.

In this post, ICRC President Mirjana Spoljaric outlines the pressing need for states to join the Global Initiative on international humanitarian law. By reaffirming their commitment to this much-needed body of law, states can ensure the protection of civilians, restore dignity to those affected by conflict, and build a pathway toward sustainable peace. The time to act is now, and the Global Initiative offers a platform for collective action to uphold the rules that safeguard humanity.

Canada recently published its first voluntary report on the implementation of international humanitarian law (IHL), highlighting its efforts to comply with IHL rules. However, the report overlooks key challenges and critical issues, leaving gaps that future reports should address.

In this post, Professor Tiwa Fomekong examines the achievements described in Canada’s report alongside its omissions, arguing that for such reports to reach their full potential as tools for enhancing respect for IHL and accountability, future efforts must be more comprehensive and transparent in addressing shortcomings, detailing corrective actions, and tackling emerging issues.

In an era of rising geopolitical tensions, terms like ‘hybrid threats,’ ‘grey zones,’ and ‘proxy warfare’ are frequently used to describe covert and ambiguous operations, suggesting they blur the lines between peace and armed conflict. From cyberattacks on civilian infrastructure to the damaging of undersea cables, these acts are often labeled as ‘hybrid warfare,’ raising questions about their legal and political implications.

In this post, and drawing from the ICRC’s 2024 report on contemporary challenges to international humanitarian law (IHL), ICRC Legal Advisers Samit D’Cunha, Tristan Ferraro, and Tilman Rodenhäuser clarify how legal criteria – not political narratives – determine whether a situation constitutes an armed conflict, highlighting the importance of accurate classification to uphold the protections afforded by IHL.

Around the world, civilians in cities at war face immense risks. Urban warfare devastates lives and livelihoods, as people are killed and injured, critical infrastructure such as hospitals and water systems are damaged or destroyed, and entire communities are forced to flee. Disruptions to essential services amplifies the suffering of civilians and poses significant humanitarian challenges. As urbanization grows, the impact of conflicts in cities demands urgent and coordinated action to reduce harm and uphold the protections afforded under international humanitarian law (IHL).

At the 34th International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent in October 2024, this pressing issue was raised through the adoption by the Council of Delegates of a Solemn Appeal on War in Cities. The resolution reflects a shared recognition by the RCRC Movement of the human cost of urban warfare and a commitment to improving the protection of civilians. To mark this moment, the resolution was read aloud during the conference, underscoring its importance and the collective responsibility it calls for. Today, we share both the transcript and video of the reading as a reminder of the need for action to safeguard human lives and preserve dignity in urban conflict settings.

Members of armed forces receive international humanitarian law (IHL) training as a matter of course, but they are not the only actors who must apply this body of law; lawyers within governments, international organizations, and NGOs all have roles in this regard. Did they have the opportunity to study IHL? And contemporary armed conflicts have made IHL compliance an issue on university campuses around the world. But do students have access to IHL courses?

In this post, international law professor Marina Sharpe answers these questions in relation to Canadian law schools, finding that while IHL is not widely offered, student interest in the subject is strong.

During 2024, efforts to address the governance of military artificial intelligence (AI) have gained momentum. Yet in the same year, we have also witnessed the growing use of AI decision support systems during armed conflict, and it is becoming clearer that such systems may pose a significant challenge to peace and stability. These developments raise questions about the current approach toward military AI governance.

In this post, Elke Schwarz, Professor of Political Theory at Queen Mary University London, argues that efforts toward governance are complicated by a number of factors intrinsic to contemporary AI systems in targeting decisions. She highlights three in particular: (1) the character of current AI systems, which rests on iteration and impermanence; (2) the dominance of private sector producers in the sector and the financial ethos that grows from this; and (3) the expansive drive implicit in AI systems themselves, especially predictive AI systems in targeting decisions. These realities of AI suggest that the risks are perhaps greater than often acknowledged.

When discussing the measurement of sexual- and gender-based violence (SGBV) prevention in humanitarian settings, reactions often polarize around two main arguments: that measurement is impossible (“How can we measure what hasn’t happened?”), or that prevalence alone signals success (“Do you have data showing decreased perpetration?”). Both perspectives overlook the complexity of SGBV prevention – and the valuable insights gained from measuring it through alternative approaches.

In this post, Zuleyka Piniella, ICRC’s Global Coordinator for the Prevention of Sexual Violence Programme, and Jessica Lenz, Senior Protection Advisor for InterAction, explore new ways to capture the nuanced impacts of prevention efforts, moving beyond prevalence data to understand what truly drives change.

The development of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies brings significant opportunities, and risks, for principled humanitarian action. While AI innovations advance at a pace that seemingly defies human capabilities to manage them responsibly, humanitarian organizations are chasing ‘AI for Good’, and struggling to find effective safeguards.

In this post, ICRC Senior Policy Adviser Pierrick Devidal reflects on some of the lessons from the ICRC’s experience in building its recently adopted AI Policy, with the hope that it can inform other efforts to build an ethical and responsible approach to the use of AI in the humanitarian sector.