This ICRC article examines and rebuts the following five ‘myths’ about the GCs, and explains why they continue to remain relevant today: 1) There are no limits to human suffering in war; 2) Some groups cannot or should not be engaged with; 3) The Geneva Conventions are out of date; 4) We are unable to act together to solve the threats that face us;
This EJIL: Talk! blog post explains and provides further detail on the argument contained in a recent academic article by Neve Gordon and Nicola Perugini titled:‘Hospital Shields and the Limits of International Law’.
This event took place in Rwanda earlier this month. A summary of proceedings and the official Outcome Statement are available here.
The ICRC’s Customary IHL Database contains the 161 rules identified in the ICRC’s 2005 Study, the underlying practice, and regular updates. The latest update contains new practice from South Africa. See here.
This recent Just Security article observes the common absence of meaningful roles for civil society organisations (CSOs) in international policymaking and conflict prevention, noting that: “External interventions carried out in the name of security often end up undermining peace and security”. The author suggests that governments often fail to consider alternative ways of thinking about security and foreign […]
This blog post by recently-retired ADF Lieutenant Colonel Greg Rowlands examines the potential use of machine intelligence on future battlefields. The author argues that drones may likely come to hold a position of primacy in such conflicts:
What’s in Blue has prepared this informational article summarising key events in the UN Security Council’s programme of work for the month of August 2019 (with Poland as president). Highlights include: an open debate on the annual report of the Secretary-General on Children and Armed Conflict; the scheduled renewal of the UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNFIL) mandate; and […]
Entitled China’s National Defense in the New Era, the English version of this Paper is available here. The Center for Strategic and International Studies has a (US-centric) published analysis which highlights some of the papers main points here.
The Asia-Pacific Centre for Military Law is operated by the University of Melbourne and it is not an agent of, nor affiliated with, or part of, the Australian Government or the Department of Defence.