LEGAL PROTECTION
and the
PROTECTION OF CIVILIANS AND AID WORKERS
By Lucy Lindale Brown, American Red Cross, 2025 E St., NW, Washington, DC 20006; 202/728-6644; fax: 202/728-6437; e-mail: brownlu@usa.redcross.org

Goal: To increase security and protection for civilians and aid workers through an understanding of the legal framework of protection, and to provide an introduction to protection strategies.

Objectives: After completing this module, you will be able to:

1.	Describe under what circumstances humanitarian agencies/NGOs are legally entitled to deliver assistance and how this affects security.

2.	Discuss the relationship between international humanitarian law (IHL) and human rights law, and when each is applicable.

3.	Identify four major groups protected under IHL and the types of protection they are entitled to.

4.	Explain how humanitarian workers/NGOs are covered under IHL, and the significance of “privileged” or “protected” status.

5.	Discuss generally the protection mandates of the ICRC and UNHCR.

6.	Discuss options available to NGOs in deciding what role they should play in responding to humanitarian and human rights abuses, and the accompanying security considerations.

7.	Identify three strategies that potentially enhance the protection of civilians at risk.

Key Learning Points:

1.	NGOs do not always have a legal right to deliver humanitarian assistance.

2.	Primary responsibility for providing assistance belongs to the state, and the law contemplates assistance coming from elsewhere only when the state is unable or unwilling to provide it.

3.	An NGO must meet the twin requirements of impartiality and consent in order to be entitled to provide humanitarian assistance. Neutrality may be an implicit requirement.

4.	If NGOs act without meeting the requirements of impartiality and consent, the security risks increase not only for NGO staff, but also for those who rely on them for assistance.

5.	How you are perceived is one of the most crucial determinants of safety.

6.	Human rights law and IHL are part of the spectrum of protection that covers both peacetime and armed conflict, and includes humanitarian assistance as one aspect of that protection.

7.	Human rights law primarily concerns itself with an individual’s rights (political, economic, physical, etc.) in relationship to the state, while IHL seeks to address the humanitarian needs of those not taking part, or no longer taking part in the hostilities, through attempting to regulate the behavior of parties to an armed conflict.

8.	IHL seeks to protect all those who are not directly involved in combat, and its coverage includes: wounded, sick or captured combatants, civilian non‑combatants, medical personnel and humanitarian workers.

9.	Humanitarian workers/NGOs as a rule receive only the general protections accorded civilians. Few attain the “privileged” official status of medical or relief personnel, with the accompanying right of access.

10.	The ICRC’s explicit mandate is to provide protection and assistance to victims of armed conflict, functioning as a neutral intermediary between warring parties or factions. The UNHCR’s primary mandate is to provide international protection and seek permanent solutions for the problems of refugees.

11.	NGOs must determine what role they will play along the “protection continuum” — including whether or not to report abuses, and whether to do so openly or through confidential channels. In deciding, the NGO must ask whether the accompanying security risks will be acceptable.

12.	The security of aid workers is linked to the protection of the at‑risk civilian population.

13.	Strategies which may enhance protection include: creating regional and locally based protection working groups, strategic placement of distribution centers, monitoring of vulnerable populations by trained staff, and strengthening the capacity of at‑risk civilians themselves in determining the most beneficial protective actions.

1. Is there a right to humanitarian assistance under international law?

Although international law does provide for humanitarian assistance to vulnerable populations under certain circumstances, there is no absolute right to assistance. In considering the security implications of providing relief, NGOs cannot automatically assume that their services, however “humanitarian,” are entitled to protection under the law.

Some human rights treaties assert the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living, including adequate food and the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health (for example, see the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Arts.11, 12). However, not all sovereign states have become parties to these treaties, nor have all those who have, necessarily taken steps to implement them. In time of war, the Geneva Conventions stipulate that occupying powers are to provide food and medical supplies as necessary to the population, and when that is not possible, facilitate relief shipments by impartial humanitarian organizations. Art. 59 of GC IV. Under the Protocols, starvation of civilians as a method of warfare is prohibited. Art. 54 of Protocol I, Additional to the Geneva Conventions, and Art. 14 of Additional Protocol II. Although the Geneva Conventions enjoy almost universal ratification, even here certain rights of sovereignty and, sometimes, military necessity, act as a check on any absolute entitlement to assistance by the civilian population, as will be discussed below. See Arts. 3, 23, 55 of GC IV. Arts. 69 70, 71 of Protocol I. Art. 18 of Protocol II.

There are additional considerations from a security standpoint. If, for instance, it takes armed intervention under Chapter VII of the UN Charter to provide humanitarian assistance, then the security risks for NGOs associated with the operation may be too high for many to accept. This was the case for many agencies in Somalia during the early 90's.

2. When do humanitarian agencies/NGOs have a right to deliver humanitarian assistance?

Primary responsibility for providing food, medical supplies, etc. needed by the population in an emergency belongs to the state, or perhaps the occupying power in time of conflict. As mentioned above, only when that is not possible does the law envision assistance coming from elsewhere.

Because international law is essentially consensual and concerns itself in large part with protecting the interests of sovereign states, few states would be inclined to sign treaties that did not acknowledge their rights along with their responsibilities. This means that humanitarian needs are continually weighed against a state’s concerns with national security and its perception of military necessity. One practical consequence of this balancing process is that a state’s “consent” is necessary before a humanitarian organization can provide assistance to a needy population. 

If a conflict exists, and an occupying power is unable to adequately supply the population’s needs, it is required to facilitate relief schemes by states or “by impartial humanitarian organizations such as the International Committee of the Red Cross.” It is an organization’s impartiality and neutrality, as exemplified by the Red Cross, that is required as protection against violation of a state’s sovereign interests. As an example, under the Geneva Conventions, the authority granting free passage to relief shipments is given the right to search as well as regulate the times and routes of shipments, and to be “reasonably satisfied” that they are not used for the military or economic benefit of an enemy. Arts. 23, 59 of GC IV, Arts. 69, 70, 71 of Protocol I. Similar provisions are made for relief shipments during situations of internal (non‑international) armed conflict. Art. 18 of Protocol II, see also Art. 3, GC IV.

In order to maintain legal protection for their operations, NGOs should keep in mind the twin requirements of impartiality and consent in seeking to gain access to vulnerable populations. As a practical matter, they may also have to establish that they are neutral before they will be trusted to carry out these services. Although NGOs may choose to act without meeting these requirements, they must seriously consider the consequences of the higher security risks they will be facing, as well as the prospect of undermining the legitimacy of their operations as the issue of their respect for legality is brought into question. The increased risk exists not only for NGO staff, but also for those who rely on them for assistance. From a security standpoint, how you are actually perceived is clearly one of the most crucial determinants of safety.

3. What is the relevant legal framework for protection?

Legal protection for aid workers and civilian populations is found piecemeal in human rights law, international humanitarian law (IHL) and refugee law. It may help to think of these bodies of law as part of the spectrum of protection that covers both peacetime and armed conflict, and includes humanitarian assistance as one aspect of that protection.

Major legal instruments
 under human rights and international humanitarian law

Human rights law primarily concerns itself with an individual’s rights — political, economic, physical, etc. — particularly in relationship to the state. Largely a phenomenon of the 20th century, human rights laws are widely applicable in peacetime, but not universally accepted or ratified. On the other hand, the humanitarian tradition, as addressed in IHL, is a much older and more narrowly focused branch of the law. In attempting to regulate the behavior of parties to an armed conflict and provide protection and assistance to the vulnerable, the Geneva Conventions of 1949 enjoy almost universal ratification, if not universal adherence. Refugee law concerns itself with the plight of those who, generally speaking, because of humanitarian or human rights violations, have been forced to flee across the borders of their countries and seek protection elsewhere.

Major instruments in human rights law include the UN Charter, as well as the 1948 Declaration of Human Rights, which provides a standard for international human rights (although being a declaration, is not legally binding.) The 1966 Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the 1966 Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights are binding on those parties who have ratified them. The 1948 Genocide Convention and the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child provide important additional protection. These instruments, and in particular the two Covenants of 1966, establish a right to life and, with some conditions, a right to adequate food, shelter and clothing, thus providing a human rights foundation for relief. However, humanitarian needs are not the primary focus of human rights law, and states may “derogate” (suspend) all but the most fundamental of these rights in times of public emergency which threaten the life of the nation. This often occurs, for instance, during armed conflict.

Over time, certain practices and principles become so established that regardless of whether they are codified, they are considered “customary law,” binding on all states. The Geneva Conventions of 1949 embody many provisions of such customary law with respect to IHL, regulating behavior of belligerents in times of armed conflict. Unlike in human rights law, these provisions, although subject to some conditions associated mostly with the rights of sovereignty, on the whole cannot be derogated. 

On the other hand, the extensive protections provided under the four Geneva Conventions are not available to nearly such an extent in an internal armed conflict, such as a civil war. That is because they were enacted at a time when it was contemplated that conflicts would mostly be between states. In the case of an armed conflict “not of an international character” (which is what most armed conflicts are these days), one article, Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, is always applicable, but provides only the most basic human rights guarantees, such as prohibitions against violence to life and person, and the taking of hostages. As these protections are non-derogable, even during internal armed conflict, many regard Common Article 3 as customary law. Additional Protocol II of 1977 was developed to expand the protections of Common Article 3. Unfortunately, Protocol II only becomes effective if a state has ratified it, (some have not), and if the conflict meets the high threshold requirements of an actual civil war.

Compliance

Compliance and enforcement of these laws is always a challenge. Although both IHL and human rights law contemplate that states themselves will take the primary role in suppressing violations, in practice states have been slow to pursue violators. In addition, there has been no single court or universal enforcement mechanism to deal with abuses of international law. Although the establishment of a permanent International Criminal Court (ICC) should help remedy this situation, it is too soon to say how effective an ICC would be. Under the ICC, attacks on humanitarian workers would be considered war crimes. While the UN Security Council may order armed intervention under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, it may only do so if it perceives a threat to international peace and security. At any rate, as mentioned earlier, such armed intervention is of questionable value if used to provide humanitarian assistance. How, for instance, is the security of relief workers to be ensured if assistance is delivered against the express wishes of local authority? And what will be the impact of such action on program recipients and their safety?

(Practical measures for encouraging compliance with humanitarian and human rights laws will be discussed in upcoming sections.)

4. Who is protected under international humanitarian law and to what extent?

International humanitarian law seeks to protect all those who are not, or are no longer, directly involved in combat. In armed conflict, your role determines your protected “status.” Status under IHL has evolved from wartime experience and is based on the three distinct roles that have been identified and accepted for individuals and organizations: combatant, non‑combatant and impartial party (or organization.) Certain protections, privileges and responsibilities flow from “status.” A brief summary follows:

Wounded, sick or captured combatants — are protected from harm, must be treated humanely, and have the right to receive medical and other types of humanitarian assistance under Geneva Conventions I, II and III.

Geneva Conventions I and II cover wounded, sick and shipwrecked soldiers. These Conventions recognize the right of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) to assist the wounded and sick, and provide that Red Cross and Red Crescent national societies, and other authorized impartial relief organizations may, subject to the consent of the Parties to the conflict, also provide relief. Art. 9 of GC I and II.

The Third Geneva Convention consists of 143 articles covering the treatment of prisoners of war (POWs). Its provisions establish guidelines covering such areas as labor, discipline, recreation, and criminal trial. Article 125 of GC III grants the ICRC special rights to carry out humanitarian activities on behalf of POWs. It further provides that the ICRC or other impartial humanitarian relief organizations authorized by parties to the conflict must be permitted to visit with prisoners privately, examine conditions of confinement to ensure the Conventions’ standards are being met, and distribute relief supplies.

Civilians — are protected by 159 articles in the Fourth Geneva Convention. Protections include that civilians must be treated humanely, that they receive food, medical care and communication with family members, and that except for imperative security reasons they not be deported or interned but allowed to lead normal lives. Article 59 requires that occupying powers provide food and medical supplies as necessary, and when that is not possible, that they facilitate relief shipments by impartial humanitarian organizations such as the ICRC. Article 85 of Protocol I and Article 17 of Protocol II severely limit the displacement or transfer of civilian populations for reasons connected to the conflict.

Medical personnel — have “privileged” status which confers certain RIGHTS, including the:
-	right of access to those needing care.
-	right not to be punished for having discharged medical functions compatible with medical ethics.
-	generally, a right not to be compelled to give information about those in their care.
-	right to use the protective emblem.

Privilege, however, also entails RESPONSIBILITIES OR DUTIES, and medical personnel:
-	must provide treatment to all on an impartial basis.
-	musts abstain from acts of hostility.
-	must be identifiable as medical personnel.
-	are authorized to carry only light weapons and use them for their own defense or in defense of patients.

“Medical personnel” are defined as: 
 
“...those persons assigned, by a Party to the conflict, exclusively to ...medical purposes...” Art. 8, Protocol I.

Military medical personnel are clearly covered under this definition, but civilian medical personnel are covered only if they received an assignment to carry out such tasks from a party to the conflict to which they belong. 

Relief personnel/NGOs — as a rule receive only the general protections of the civilian population. The label of “humanitarian” is insufficient to confer immunity, and few attain the status of “medical personnel” (see above). This means that NGOs will rarely have the rights accorded those with “privileged” medical status, and have no right of access to those needing medical attention in areas outside those for which they have the consent of the authorities. As discussed in #2 above, NGOs only have the right to provide humanitarian assistance if they meet the requirements of impartiality and consent.

The Red Cross, and in particular the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), is the only organization mentioned by name in the Geneva Conventions as having the right to provide assistance. This is based on its principles of impartiality and neutrality and a history of working on both sides of a conflict. But even the Red Cross must seek consent from the Parties before acting. Human rights advocates, although providing crucial service to victims of abuse, will rarely be seen as impartial by the Parties to a 

conflict, and for that reason may have great difficulty in obtaining their consent to be present. 

Individuals entitled to use the protective emblem — of the red cross or red crescent in time of armed conflict are limited by law to military and civilian medical and religious personnel who are recognized as such by the Party to which they belong, and components of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, such as the ICRC or the Federation (IFRC). (National Red Cross or Red Crescent Societies may only use the protective emblem when they are functioning as an auxiliary to the armed forces). Under IHL, these individuals may not be attacked, but must be respected, protected and allowed to carry out their responsibilities. The use of the emblem by national red cross societies in peacetime is not “protective,” but merely “indicative” of the personnel and property of a national society.

Civil defense personnel are entitled to wear the international distinctive sign of civil defense — an equilateral blue triangle on an orange ground. Art. 15 of Protocol I.

Although there are many logos and signs which are widely used and recognized in humanitarian work, they are not recognized as emblems nor do they have any protective attributes under international law. NGOs cannot assume that displaying their flag or logo provides any protection beyond that which accrues to them by reason of good will or a positive profile in the community. In fact, just as with the use of the protective emblem, NGOs need to recognize that under certain hostile circumstances the display of their logo may make them likelier targets of violence.

5. Who has responsibility for protection?

Although the UN Charter and IHL instruments require that the international community ensure that human rights and humanitarian laws are respected, NGOs, as a practical matter, may choose to explore whether local remedies are available to address their protection concerns. That said, before approaching local authorities or taking other action, it is crucial for NGOs to decide whether such action would be in the best interest of the affected party, themselves and the humanitarian community at large, or whether it would instead undermine their safety and/or effectiveness. If a government or its representatives are causing the abuse, it should first be determined whether the local authority responsible for protecting against these abuses is likely to help. The process would include identifying competent individuals to approach, for example, within the local police force, ministries, government, courts or armed forces.

If a non-state actor, such as a rebel force, is creating the protection need, then an appeal to the rebels desire for respectability or legitimacy may carry the most weight — if an appeal by NGOs is advisable at all given the particular circumstances. Finally, addressing violations within a collapsing state may present the greatest challenge of all, since the absence of reliable chains of command within a chaotic environment render it extremely difficult to make an effective appeal for protection. Two initiatives which have sought to address such difficulties are Operation Lifeline Sudan’s effort to promote humanitarian principles in southern Sudan, and the more recent attempt by INGOs in Liberia to adopt “joint operating principles” to promote respect for humanitarian and human rights principles. The effectiveness of these initiatives is still being evaluated. 

Organizations with protection mandates — ICRC and UNHCR

There are many occasions when it is impossible or inadvisable for an NGO to directly address the protection needs of the vulnerable; however, there are organizations with protection mandates under international law that are in a better position to do so. The ICRC and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) are the two major organizations with such protection mandates.

The ICRC’s explicit mandate is to provide protection and assistance to victims of armed conflict, functioning as a neutral intermediary between warring parties or factions. It is the ICRC’s use of neutrality (not taking sides) as an operating principle that allows it to work on both sides of a conflict to gain the confidence of opposing belligerents. Neutrality in this sense does not imply moral passivity. On the contrary, partiality towards the victims often requires an aggressive use of operational neutrality to gain access. Although it will bring violations of human rights and humanitarian standards to the attention of the authorities in control and seek to have them remedied, as a rule it does this confidentially, and without exposing these violations in public. The role of the ICRC requires discretion and “quiet diplomacy,” as continued access is emphasized as a major priority. (This is in contrast to the role often played by human rights agencies or advocates, whose strategy in pursuit of justice generally requires open condemnation in order to bring public pressure to bear on the perpetrators.) 

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees’ (UNHCR) primary mandate is to provide international protection and seek permanent solutions for the problems of refugees, although it also coordinates assistance to refugees, generally through contracts with NGOs. In its protection role it seeks to secure recognition of refugee status and the legal rights which flow from that status, including the right to non‑refoulement — or the right of refugees not to be forcibly returned to a place where their life or freedom would be threatened.

Although the ICRC’s protection mandate extends to all civilians, including internally displaced persons (IDPs), during armed conflict, the UN has also frequently called on the UNHCR to take care of IDPs on an ad hoc basis, as it did with the Kurds in Iraq. While both organizations have extended protection to IDPs, the particular needs of this group are not fully addressed under the law, and protection “gaps” have caused increasing international concern as the number and problems of IDPs has multiplied in recent years. The recent “Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement” by Francis Deng, the Representative of the Secretary General for IDPs, are helpful in clarifying the existing law in this field.

6. What role can humanitarian NGOs play in responding to humanitarian and human rights abuses?

Protection takes many forms and occurs along a continuum that includes such varied activities as providing humanitarian relief, monitoring the conditions of imprisonment, and engaging in armed intervention. Although most often spoken of in terms of “assistance,” relief amounts to protection when it seeks to redress the violations of basic humanitarian and human rights, such as the right to humane treatment, and the right to adequate food, shelter and medical attention. 

In recent years humanitarian NGOs have increasingly been asked to cooperate more closely with human rights organizations, for example by reporting incidents of abuse that they are in a unique position to witness in the course of their field work. While cooperation is crucial to the overall improvement of protection for civilians at risk, NGOs must exercise great care in determining what kinds of cooperation are likely to result in increased danger to themselves and others. Some humanitarian agencies use informal, discreet channels, both within their agencies or with other organizations, to minimize the negative repercussions of reporting violations. Some speak out more openly, calculating that the need to do so is greater than the risk. Others, however reluctantly, choose to remain quiet with the belief that, in the balance, greater harm would occur if they were expelled from the territory or denied access to the community for which they provide service. In arriving at a decision on how best to respond, an NGO must consider its goals and mission as well as the likely security consequences of its choice, and ask itself the questions: Will protection be enhanced by my decision? Will the security risks for aid workers be acceptable? Will the decision endanger those receiving assistance? What ultimately will best serve the needs of the population at risk?

There are different roles to be played by a variety of organizations along the protection continuum. Each role is crucial and no single organization can fulfill them all. In determining what their most effective contribution can be, NGOs need to be realistic about the potential security consequences of high risk protection activities. There is one crucial contribution all NGOs should make. When aid workers demonstrate an understanding of, and a respect for, human rights and humanitarian standards, they increase the chances for everyone that these standards will be applied and protection enhanced.

7. Enhancing protection for civilians and aid workers.

Increasingly, the protection of civilians is being viewed as entwined with the provision of humanitarian assistance, and some have proposed that a “protection assessment” be a required part of any needs assessment. At the same time, a key concept of this NGO security course is that the security of one is related to the security of all. Put another way, it needs to be recognized that the security of aid workers is linked to the protection of the at‑risk civilian population, and visa versa. 

For example, as controlling, targeting, or eradicating civilian populations becomes more and more an objective of belligerents, aid workers are increasingly viewed as key players to be manipulated in achieving these ends. While NGO resources attract the unwanted attention of resource‑hungry fighters, their clinics and feeding centers may also serve to concentrate or contain large portions of the population in certain geographic areas, thereby playing a role in the strategic plans of various hostile groups. Although the presence of aid workers in the community may provide some measure of protection for local civilians, at times security risks for NGOs may actually be increased if they are viewed as unwelcome witnesses to humanitarian or human rights abuses.

This does not imply that NGOs hands are tied when it comes to enhancing the protection of at‑risk civilians. On the contrary, risks are lowered when NGOs are able to articulate the basic humanitarian and human rights standards under international law. At times this may include bringing abuses to the attention of local authorities or confidentially passing along information about violations to others who can use the information effectively. 

 Protection is enhanced when aid workers take protection and security implications into consideration in developing and implementing their programs. (See section___by KVB). NGOs can also create regional and locally based protection working groups to pool resources, information and strategies. They can, when appropriate, use relief aid to gain access and increase “humanitarian space” by the strategic placement of their distribution centers. Trained staff can monitor vulnerable populations through regular visits or presence at a site, and help strengthen the capacity of the at‑risk civilians themselves to determine which protective actions would be most beneficial, and help them set those actions in motion.

8. Conclusion

However well intentioned or “humanitarian,” NGO staff cannot assume that their services are automatically protected under international law. There is, however, much they can do to increase protection for themselves and others. At a minimum, NGOs must meet the requirements of impartiality and consent if they wish to maintain legal protection for their operations and personnel. In reality, how aid workers are actually perceived is perhaps the single most crucial factor in determining their safety. 
GLOSSARY:

derogation — the partial suspension or repealing of a law.

international humanitarian law (IHL) — the body of laws and principles that seeks to save lives and alleviate suffering of combatants and non-combatants during armed conflict. Its principle legal documents are the Geneva conventions of 1949, and their additional Protocols of 1977.

international human rights law — the body of international law that deals with the protection of individuals and groups against violations by their governments of their internationally recognized civil, political, economic, social, and cultural rights, and with the protection of those rights. The basic sources of this law are the United Nations Charter and the “International Bill of Rights,” which includes the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the 1966 International Covenants on Civil and Political Rights and Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

Baccino‑Astrada, Dr. Alma. Manual on the Rights and Duties of Medical Personnel in Armed Conflicts. ICRC, Geneva, 1982.

“Code of Conduct for the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement and Non‑governmental Organizations (NGOs) in Disaster Relief.” See World Disasters Report, 1996, or IFRC’s Internet Web site (http://www.ifrc.org).

Darcy, James. “Humanitarian rights and international legal standards: what do relief workers need to know?” Relief and Rehabilitation Network Paper #19, Overseas Development Institute, UK, February 1997.

Deng, Francis. “Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement.” Report of the Representative of the Secretary-General, pursuant to Commission on Human Rights resolution 1997/39, addendum. February 1998.

Haroff‑Tavel, Marion. “Promoting norms to limit violence in crisis situations: challenges, strategies and alliances.” International Review of the Red Cross, March 1998.

ICRC. “Protecting the Victims of Armed Conflict,” Chapter 9 in War and Public Health: Handbook on War and Public Health. Geneva 1996.

Levine, Iain. “Promoting humanitarian principles: the southern Sudan experience.” Relief and Rehabilitation Network Paper #21, Overseas Development Institute, UK, May 1997.

Paul, Diane. “Beyond Monitoring and Reporting: Strategies for the Field‑level Protection of Civilians Under Threat.” Paper presented at the Jacob Blaustein Institute for Human Rights ‑ Expert Consultation, Washington, DC, November 1996.

Slim, Hugo. “Positioning Humanitarianism in War: Principles of Neutrality, Impartiality and Solidarity.” Paper presented to the Aspects of Peacekeeping Conference, Sandhurst, UK, January 1997.

Stroun, Jacques. “International criminal jurisdiction, international humanitarian law and humanitarian action.” International Review of the Red Cross, Nov.‑Dec. 1997.