HUMANITY must prevail in times of conflict.
This is the central message conveyed by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), a neutral, impartial, and independent humanitarian organisation committed to protecting and assisting victims of armed conflicts worldwide.
Speaking at a recent media briefing in Suva, Dr Eve Massingham, the newly appointed Regional Legal Adviser for the Pacific at the ICRC, stressed that even when peace is unattainable, measures must be taken to preserve human dignity during armed conflict.
Dr Massingham, a seasoned expert in international humanitarian law, reminded participants that the goal is always to achieve peace.
However, when conflicts arise, the international community must ensure that the consequences of war are limited.
“Even if we cannot prevent war, we must ensure that humanity prevails during war,” Dr Massingham said.
Introduction to International Humanitarian Law
International Humanitarian Law (IHL), often referred to as the law of armed conflict or the law of war, is a set of rules that seeks to limit the effects of armed conflict.
Its primary aim is to protect individuals who are not, or are no longer, participating in hostilities, such as civilians, wounded soldiers, and prisoners of war and to restrict the means and methods of warfare.
According to Dr Massingham, the main instruments of IHL are the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their Additional Protocols.
“The history of the Geneva Conventions actually came from a battle.
“A Swiss banker in the 1860s came across a battlefield in northern Italy, a place called Solferino and saw the aftermath of a battle where soldiers lay injured.
“It was a battle on land and it was back in the day where armies lined up and fought each other, it wasn’t in a civilian area, but soldiers had engaged in battle and then had moved on and people had been left dying on the battlefield.
“And so the local town folk came in and provided assistance to them, and that’s where this idea of protecting those people who are not, or who are no longer taking part in the fight.
“The way in which it does that is by restricting the types of actions you can take in warfare.”
These conventions, ratified by every country in the world, establish fundamental rules for the humane treatment of individuals during war.
The Geneva Conventions and their protocols dictate how wars should be fought and how civilians and combatants must be treated under international law.
Relevance to the Pacific
Addressing the question of why International Humanitarian Law remains important in the Pacific, Dr Massingham outlined three key reasons during her briefing.
Firstly, she noted that the region has experienced instances of internal conflict, including coups and unrest in the Solomon Islands and ongoing violence in parts of Papua New Guinea.
While not all situations meet the threshold of armed conflict under IHL, the potential for future disruptions highlights the need for Pacific countries to be prepared.
“There is a reality that it has happened and it could happen again,” she said.
“There are actions that need to be taken in peacetime so that you’re basically organised as a country.”
Dr Massingham said early preparation and adherence to legal frameworks during conflict can significantly improve the prospects for long-term peace and reconciliation.
Secondly, she pointed to Fiji’s prominent role as a troop-contributing country in international peacekeeping missions.
Fiji’s participation in operations abroad places a responsibility on its military forces to be thoroughly trained in IHL, which serves as their core legal framework.
“The Government of Fiji, particularly through the Fiji military, has an obligation to make sure that Fiji’s soldiers, sailors, airmen and women are well-versed in these rules.”
The third reason relates to the Pacific’s collective influence in the global arena.
Dr Massingham highlighted the region’s strong contributions to international treaties, particularly those aimed at prohibiting certain types of weapons.
With countries like Australia and New Zealand included, the Pacific represents 16 votes at the United Nations, reinforcing a powerful regional voice in upholding humanitarian principles.
“Being a strong regional voice on a lot of these treaties makes a really significant contribution to the global norm that people who are not taking part in fighting should be protected.”
The Laws of Wars
The traditional notion of clear distinctions between military and civilian targets in conflict is far more complicated in modern warfare.
Speaking on the complexities of the laws of war, Dr Massingham explained that although International Humanitarian Law (IHL) sets a balance between military necessity and civilian protection, real-world application is rarely straightforward.
“If that was clear-cut, that would be really easy and we could all go home and it would all be fine.
“But unfortunately, it’s not really easy.”
While certain objects such as tanks, submarines, and fighter jets are clearly military targets, and others such as schools and hospitals are clearly protected, much of the infrastructure in contemporary conflicts fall into a grey area.
Civilian and military users often rely on the same resources, such as electricity grids, satellite communications, and bridges, complicating decisions about lawful targeting.
Dr Massingham outlined three key legal principles that militaries must assess before launching an attack: distinction, proportionality, and precautions.
The first step, she said, is distinction — determining whether the target is a legitimate military objective.
If so, forces must then consider proportionality, asking whether attacking the target would cause excessive civilian harm relative to the expected military advantage.
The final consideration is the need for precautions. These include measures such as giving warnings, choosing a different time of attack, or using different methods or weapons to reduce civilian harm.
Dr Massingham also illustrated how infrastructure such as bridges can pose complex legal challenges.
A bridge linking two military bases may be a valid target, but if it also connects a civilian community to a hospital, attacking it could have devastating humanitarian consequences.
“This is a very quick summary of what is 506 clauses of legal text.”
The Impartiality of the Committee
The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) maintains its ability to assist people affected by conflict worldwide through its strict adherence to neutrality, impartiality, and independence.
Dr Massingham explained that neutrality is one of the seven fundamental principles of the Red Cross Movement and is critical to the ICRC’s operational success.
“We don’t take sides,” Dr Massingham said.
“The ICRC has confidential bilateral conversations with all parties to a conflict, whether they are states or non-state actors, to secure access and provide assistance.”
According to Dr Massingham, around 120 million people globally live under the control of non-state armed groups.
Neutrality allows the ICRC to engage with all sides, ensuring that humanitarian support can reach those who need it most, regardless of political or military affiliations.
The ICRC’s confidentiality is protected by international law. Even during war crimes trials before international courts such as the International Criminal Court or the earlier tribunals for Rwanda and Yugoslavia, the ICRC cannot be compelled to give evidence.
“The fact that a conversation happens is not a secret.
“But the content of those conversations remains confidential, preserving the trust necessary to continue our work.”
Dr Massingham stressed that maintaining neutrality ensures the ICRC can “help everybody and do it quietly.”
Climate Responsibility
While climate change is considered one of the Pacific’s greatest threats, the ICRC focuses its efforts on conflict-related humanitarian issues rather than directly addressing climate change.
The Political & Humanitarian Affairs adviser at the local ICRC office, Gillian Hickes, explained that while the organisation previously worked on climate change issues through a program with four Pacific national societies, this initiative was eventually phased out to prioritise ICRC’s core mission of addressing conflict-related humanitarian crises.
“When you talk about climate change, it’s really a natural disaster, which falls under a different category,” Ms Hickes said.
“For ICRC, it’s about conflict, so that’s not our mandate.”
However, Ms Hickes noted that climate change-induced displacement could fall under the ICRC’s broader mandate if conflict arises as a result.
She referred to the potential relocation of Kiribati nationals due to rising sea levels as a scenario that could trigger conflict, making it a matter of concern for the ICRC.
While climate change alone does not fall under the ICRC’s mandate, Ms Hickes highlighted the organisation’s Protection of Families program, which assists families separated by conflict or natural disasters.
The program, which has been crucial in places like the Solomon Islands and Vanuatu, could also help families displaced by climate change-related events.
“If families are displaced due to climate change and become separated, we can certainly provide support in reestablishing or connecting them.
“But climate change on its own? No, it’s not our primary mandate.”
