World Order (HSC SSCE Legal Studies): Revision Notes

Contemporary Issues Concerning World Order

The principle of 'responsibility to protect'

What is R2P?

Responsibility to Protect (R2P) is an international security and human rights principle designed to address the global community's repeated failure to prevent and stop mass atrocity crimes such as genocide and war crimes. The principle emerged in response to controversies surrounding humanitarian intervention in conflicts like Rwanda, Bosnia and Kosovo.

R2P originated from the 2001 report by the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty titled The Responsibility to Protect. After several years of negotiations, world leaders unanimously accepted R2P at the World Summit in September 2005, and the UN Security Council has also endorsed this principle.

Legal responses to R2P

R2P places specific obligations on different actors in the international community:

For individual states, R2P means:

• The responsibility to protect their own citizens from mass atrocity crimes
• The duty to help other states build their capacity to protect their populations

For international organisations (including the UN), R2P means:

• The responsibility to warn about potential crises
• Generating effective prevention strategies
• Mobilising military action when necessary

For NGOs and individuals, R2P means:

• Drawing policy-makers' attention to situations requiring action
• Identifying who should act and when

Non-legal responses to R2P

Responsibility to Protect – Engaging Civil Society (R2PCS)

In 2003, the World Federalist Movement–Institute for Global Policy launched the R2PCS project to build support for R2P. The project's goals include:

• Engaging civil society and educating NGOs about R2P principles
• Effectively lobbying governments to respond promptly to humanitarian crises
• Strengthening acceptance of R2P with governments and international organisations
• Raising awareness and building NGOs' advocacy skills
• Promoting R2P implementation by the United Nations

International Coalition for the Responsibility to Protect (ICRtoP)

Launched in January 2009, ICRtoP is supported by major NGOs including Oxfam International, Human Rights Watch, the International Crisis Group and Refugees International. The Coalition aims to raise awareness about R2P, educate NGOs on forming partnerships and apply the norm to specific regions.

Implementing R2P effectively

More than five years after its adoption, several priorities emerged for making R2P more effective:

1. Careful labelling: Not all conflicts are R2P situations. Gareth Evans estimated that of approximately $60$ conflicts at any time, only about $12$ to $15$ would qualify as R2P situations. R2P does not apply to all human security situations.

2. Focus on prevention: R2P should emphasise prevention rather than narrow focus on military action.

4. Regional capacity building: Greater emphasis is needed on building the capacity of regional organisations like the African Union and NATO so they have a variety of options available and are prepared to mount military operations.

5. Political will: World leaders must demonstrate the political will to make difficult decisions. People who believe in R2P must pressure their governments to be involved.

Regional and global situations that threaten peace and security: The nuclear threat

The scale of the nuclear threat

The presence of nuclear weapons represents the greatest threat to global peace and security. At the height of the Cold War, there were $58\,000$ nuclear warheads. This number has now been reduced to $27\,000$ warheads, with thousands still on a $20$-minute alert status.

While there have been numerous bilateral nuclear weapons treaties and some multilateral treaties to address the threat of nuclear war, the world still has a long way to go before the threat is removed.

Legal responses: Bilateral treaties

The thaw in relations between the superpowers led to substantial progress in nuclear disarmament. Key bilateral developments include:

• 1983: The USA and USSR began talks on nuclear arms reduction
• 1991: The USA and Russia signed START I, beginning reduction of nuclear arsenals from $58\,000$ warheads with an aim to reduce to about $5\,000$ each. The total is now about $11\,000$ between the two countries
• 2002: US President Bush and Russian President Putin signed the SORT treaty, agreeing to reduce nuclear weapons to between $1\,700$–$2\,000$ each. However, SORT was widely criticised because it omitted tactical nuclear weapons, only included deployed warheads (allowing parties to simply store them) and omitted verification procedures
• 2010: US President Obama and Russian President Medvedev signed New START to replace the expiring START I and SORT treaties. New START requires a reduction in deployed nuclear warheads to $1\,550$ combined, down two-thirds from START I and one-third from SORT. The treaty has been welcomed but some commentators suggest it could have gone further

Legal responses: Multilateral treaties

Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)

The NPT was signed in 1968 in Washington, London and Moscow, entering into force in 1970. The treaty is based on a bargain between the five nations that possessed nuclear weapons at the time (USA, Russia, China, Britain and France) and all other nations that do not possess them.

At the 1995 conference, parties committed to adopting the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) by 1996. This treaty would ban the production of weapons-grade fissile material, eliminate nuclear weapons, support nuclear-free zones and give security assurances to all nations. The Australian government took the treaty to the General Assembly where it was adopted, and the CTBT entered into force in 2007. As of March 2010, there were $182$ signatories and $151$ ratifications, though the United States had not ratified the treaty at that time.

In 2000, nuclear weapons states declared their unequivocal desire to accomplish the total elimination of nuclear arsenals. However, at the same time, the USA announced its intention to abandon the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM) of 1972, which was seen as ominous by other major powers who feared this signalled the first stage of the US putting weapons into space. Also disturbing was the United States' 2002 announcement that it was prepared to use 'pre-emptive' action to strike an enemy first, representing an abandonment of basic UN principles.

The UN Security Council and nuclear disarmament

While the General Assembly has concerned itself with general disarmament and supporting treaties, the Security Council was hamstrung during the Cold War. However, since the Cold War ended, the Security Council has been able to work together on specific cases, tending to act on a case-by-case basis.

North Korea

In 1993, North Korea was referred to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) for violating its safeguards. The IAEA is an independent organisation within the UN that promotes safe, secure and peaceful use of nuclear technologies and verifies countries' compliance with these principles.

In 1994, North Korea and the United States signed an 'Agreed Framework' – a non-binding political commitment noted by the UN Security Council – under which North Korea agreed not to manufacture nuclear weapons and to remain a party to the NPT. However:

• In 2003, North Korea withdrew from the NPT
• In 2006, it detonated a nuclear bomb, allegedly as a test
• After further Security Council pressure in 2007, North Korea agreed to abandon its nuclear weapons program
• As of 2010, this had still not been achieved

Iran

From 2006, the Security Council has been putting pressure on Iran, which appears determined to develop a nuclear bomb. However, as of 2010, the Security Council remained divided on how to deal with Iran's violations of the NPT.

Conclusion on the Security Council's role

The International Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission was established in 2003 to identify the most effective ways the international community can cooperate to reduce the danger of such weapons. The Commission's 2006 report, Weapons of Terror: Freeing the World of Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Arms, states that the Security Council has not fulfilled its role of establishing 'a system for the regulation of armaments' to promote peace and security, as set out in Article 26 of the UN Charter.

Only time will tell whether the leaders of the Permanent Five can work together and provide leadership in this area, which represents perhaps their most important responsibility. One hopeful indication was the historic resolution passed by the UNSC on 24 September 2009.

UN Security Council Resolution 1887 (2009)

US President Barack Obama chaired a meeting attended by the leaders of all the Permanent Five. All fifteen Security Council members voted unanimously for Resolution 1887, which pledged the UNSC to:

• Restart stalled talks on strengthening measures against proliferation
• Make massive reductions in nuclear stockpiles
• Reaffirm strong support for the NPT
• Call on states not yet signatories (such as India, Pakistan and Israel) to sign the NPT

The meeting looked towards the 2010 Review Conference, aiming to strengthen what they called the three pillars of the NPT:

1. Disarmament of countries that currently have nuclear weapons
2. Prevention of countries not possessing nuclear weapons from getting them
3. Peaceful use of nuclear energy for any country that wishes to use it

Resolution 1887 also called upon all states to refrain from nuclear testing and ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty as soon as possible.

Non-legal responses to the nuclear threat

International Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission

The Commission was established by the Swedish government in 2003 with Dr Hans Blix, former UN weapons inspector, as chair. It was set up in response to slowed progress on non-proliferation, arms control and disarmament. The Commission sees its role as facilitating informed public debate about the international effort to rid the world of weapons of mass destruction.

The Commission's major achievement was publication of its 2006 report, Weapons of Terror: Freeing the World of Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Weapons, which followed in the tradition of the earlier Canberra Commission (1995). The report represented an extremely detailed investigation of every conceivable aspect of achieving disarmament. Australia's Gareth Evans also worked on the report. In 2007, Hans Blix was awarded the Sydney Peace Prize for his 'principled and courageous opposition to proponents of war in Iraq, for lifelong advocacy of humanitarian law and non-violence, and for leadership of disarmament programs to rid the world of weapons of terror'.

The International Commission on Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament

On 10 June 2008, former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd announced a renewed attempt to kick-start global discussion on formulating a plan to eliminate nuclear weapons. During a visit to Kyoto, Rudd announced that the Australian government would take the lead in setting up the International Commission on Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament.

The main goal of the Commission was to develop tighter rules for the $40$-year-old NPT when it came up for review in 2010. Former Prime Minister Rudd appointed Gareth Evans, then president of the International Crisis Group, to the Commission. Evans was chosen for his long track record in working for nuclear disarmament, starting with the Canberra Commission in 1995.

The Commission's report was released in mid-December 2009, titled Eliminating Nuclear Threats: A Practical Guide for Global Policymakers. It was hoped that the report would make a positive contribution to the NPT Review Conference held in 2010.

Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND)

The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament is a British NGO that aims to rid the world of nuclear weapons using non-violent means. The CND advocates immediate negotiation leading to rapid, timetabled abolition of nuclear forces worldwide. Like other NGOs, it attempts to stimulate widespread public debate about the global threat of nuclear weapons and participates in UN conferences on disarmament.

Actions needed to eliminate the nuclear threat

The only effective way to address this issue is through multilateral cooperation. No single country can solve this problem. The UNSC's Resolution 1887 of 2009 and the 2010 Review Conference for the NPT give some cause for optimism.

The world depends on the leaders of states with nuclear weapons to undertake the following actions:

1. Set an example to the rest of the world by dramatically cutting their own nuclear arsenals
2. Take coordinated action against countries such as North Korea, Iran and Myanmar/Burma to get them to drop their plans for nuclear armament
3. Commit to no weapons in space
4. Strengthen the control and security of nuclear weapons, especially in Russia
5. Ban the production and stockpiling of fissile material
6. Eventually make deep cuts in nuclear arms until reaching zero
7. Ban all weapons of mass destruction through a convention, similar to how chemical and biological weapons have been banned by treaty
8. Build trust, not bombs, and assure all states that they do not need to possess nuclear weapons for their own defence

The success of global cooperation in achieving world order: East Timor and UN intervention

Overview

The United Nations intervention in East Timor in 1999 and subsequent years is considered a successful example of global cooperation in achieving the resolution of world order issues. The issues in East Timor included:

• The illegal invasion in 1975
• Mass atrocity crimes committed during the $25$-year Indonesian occupation
• Violence committed by pro-Indonesian militias in 1999

Compared to the catastrophes of Somalia, Rwanda and Srebrenica earlier in the 1990s, the UN achieved success in East Timor. For years, East Timor was a classic case of sovereignty being used as a barrier to impede the resolution of world order issues.

Background and Indonesian invasion

Colonial history

Since the 1600s, East Timor was ruled by the Portuguese as part of their empire, while the rest of Indonesia was ruled by the Dutch. As a result of Portuguese rule, the population of East Timor is a mixture of Malay and Portuguese, and the people are predominantly Catholic, in contrast to the rest of Indonesia which is mainly Muslim.

While the rest of Indonesia gained independence from the Dutch in 1949, East Timor continued to be ruled as a colony of Portugal until 1975, when Portugal decided to give up its colony.

Indonesian invasion of 1975

When the Portuguese left East Timor, there was division within the former colony over who should rule. The Indonesian government did not want a small nation on its doorstep that could potentially host groups hostile to Indonesia. Indonesia decided to exploit the confusion in East Timor and invade the small country.

Indonesian occupation (1975–1999)

After illegally invading East Timor in 1975, Indonesia governed the annexed territory harshly. It is conservatively estimated that over 100,000 people died as a result of the Indonesian occupation. Reports of mass atrocities being committed against the East Timorese were denied by Indonesian authorities, and calls for independent observers were rejected.

The United Nations never accepted Indonesia's annexation of East Timor, and the issue was debated repeatedly over the following $25$ years in the General Assembly. The Australian government did not openly condemn Indonesian rule in the UN but tried to ensure that Indonesia ruled the territory fairly, sending investigative missions to report on conditions there.

The UN-sponsored referendum

Since its independence from the Dutch in 1949, Indonesia had not had a true democracy. In 1966, General Suharto became ruler, calling himself President but ruling as a dictator. Suharto allowed the Indonesian army (TNI) to have many positions of power and even seats in the legislature.

However, in 1999, widespread disturbances and protests led to Suharto's resignation. The new president, B.J. Habibie, committed his country to becoming truly democratic. In May 1999, Prime Minister John Howard wrote to President Habibie asking him to allow the people of East Timor to vote on whether to remain part of Indonesia or become independent. Habibie agreed to allow the United Nations to conduct a referendum on the issue.

Legal responses: UN Security Council Resolution 1246

The matter was referred to the United Nations Security Council, which unanimously adopted Resolution 1246: 'Ballot to Decide on Special Autonomy for East Timor'. The UNSC established the United Nations Mission in East Timor (UNAMET) and authorised deployment of:

• $280$ civilian police to act as advisors to the Indonesian police
• $50$ military liaison officers to keep lines of communication open to the TNI

The referendum and militia violence

The referendum was organised for August 1999 and overseen by UNAMET. Unarmed UN personnel worked courageously to administer the vote despite constant threats and harassment from pro-Indonesian militia groups. On 3 September 1999, the result was announced: 78.5% of the East Timorese voted for independence.

A violent reaction from pro-Indonesian militias ensued:

• Hundreds of independence supporters were killed
• Many buildings were destroyed
• $250\,000$ people were forced from their homes
• Over $70\%$ of the infrastructure was destroyed, leaving East Timor without utilities, health care, food or schools
• Between $1\,000$ and $2\,000$ people were killed over the following weeks while the TNI and Indonesian police stood by
• Foreign aid workers became targets of the militias
• The TNI were seen giving guns to militias
• Kopassus (Indonesian special forces) were alleged to have supplied militias with money and drugs

Around the world, people were appalled by the violence that was filmed by the few remaining journalists before they fled the country.

Legal responses: UN Security Council Resolution 1264

The violence was discussed at the UN Security Council in New York. After two days of consultations, the Security Council adopted Resolution 1264, which authorised the formation of INTERFET (International Force for East Timor), a UN peacekeeping force under Australian command.

The decisive military action of the Australian armed forces under a UNSC mandate was hailed as an outstanding success for the UN, for Australia and for global cooperation. Behind the scenes, there was significant diplomatic pressure on the Indonesian government not to attack the Australians.

UNTAET and nation-building

The dramatic events of 1999 were only the beginning of UN involvement in East Timor. INTERFET was replaced by UNTAET (United Nations Transitional Administration in East Timor), established to:

• Administer the territory
• Exercise legislative and executive authority during the transition period
• Help East Timor prepare for self-government
• Exercise judicial powers
• Assist with social services and delivery of humanitarian aid
• Provide security
• Promote sustainable development

In short, UNTAET's mission was to lead East Timor to statehood and help build the foundation for democracy.

East Timor, now known as Timor-Leste, became an independent country on 20 May 2002. On that day, UNTAET was succeeded by the United Nations Mission of Support in East Timor (UNMISET), established by Security Council Resolution 1410 to support administrative structures.

UN success in East Timor

Overall, the UN's role in East Timor has been widely judged a success for halting the militia-led violence after the UN ballot, although it has been criticised for not anticipating that violence. Defenders of the UN's role argue that no intervention could have occurred without the consent of the Indonesian government, and proceeding without that consent would have had even more disastrous results.

The UN's role in East Timor is viewed as having led to positive outcomes, chiefly the creation of East Timor as a nation. However, the success of UN intervention depended very much on the willingness of a member state – namely Australia – to provide military assistance. East Timor's long-term success prospects may depend on Australia's continued willingness to contribute to rebuilding.

In 2006, the UN Security Council passed Resolution 1704, establishing the United Nations Integrated Mission in Timor-Leste (UNMIT) to shift the focus to nation-building. Resolution 1867 in 2009 further extended UN operations into 2010.

Non-legal responses

The media

Journalists and global media networks were able to broadcast real-time film footage of the murderous rampage of pro-Indonesian militia, as well as the lack of action by the Indonesian army and police to stop the violence. This was highly influential in turning world opinion against the Indonesian occupation and prompting decisive UN action.

Diplomatic pressure

UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan did everything he could, maintaining round-the-clock contact with the governments of Indonesia, Portugal and governments that might play a key role in mounting and supporting an international force, such as Australia. Mary Robinson, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, expressed deep concern over escalating violence and said the Security Council must urgently consider deploying forces to East Timor.

US President Bill Clinton also pressured the Indonesian president to allow UN intervention. Finally, the Indonesian government conceded and the Australian-led INTERFET mission began moving into East Timor, as American generals quietly warned their Indonesian counterparts not to attack the Australian peacekeepers. In the area of diplomacy, global cooperation was an essential ingredient.

NGO expertise

Many NGOs are involved in East Timor, working in areas including education, health, women's rights and housing. The International Crisis Group (ICG) has maintained a deep interest in East Timor, particularly since the civil strife in 2006.

The ICG assists the East Timorese government and UN administration by producing reports on issues vital to East Timor's future peace and security. For instance:

• The February 2009 report, No Time For Complacency, noted that the security situation had dramatically improved since 2008 but problems remained with security, the justice system was weak and corruption was still a concern
• The December 2009 report, Handing Back Responsibility to Timor-Leste's Police, was critical of the way the UN administration took control of the East Timor police

Work by NGOs such as the ICG is indispensable for the long-term success of nation-building in East Timor.

Australian aid

Australia has assisted East Timor since 1999 in numerous ways, including:

• Providing $$890$ million in assistance between 1999 and 2009
• Building partnerships with the World Bank and the UN to help coordinate development assistance
• Training $800$ police for the East Timorese police force
• Providing medical aid in the form of $10\,000$ operations and $15\,000$ consultations by Australian medical personnel, and providing specialist training
• Training and supporting thousands of civil servants
• Providing $170$ scholarships for East Timorese students to study at universities in Australia
• Creating $32\,000$ jobs through public works projects
• Supplying aid, water, food and medicine for thousands of internally displaced people

Australia has given strong political and moral support to the government of Timor-Leste. When President José Ramos-Horta was shot in an attempted revolt by rebels in 2008, Australia rushed the Timorese leader to hospital in Darwin and ensured Australian troops maintained peace and security.

Conclusion on East Timor

While the UN intervention in East Timor is considered a successful example of global cooperation in world order issues, its work did not finish in 1999 but continues to this day. The main task now is building the institutions, infrastructure and economic foundations for future peace and security.

Australian commitment has been needed. In fact, Australia has had to step in twice in significant ways in recent years: in 2006, thousands of extra Australian soldiers and police were rushed to the country to restore order and prevent further bloodshed, and in 2008 Australian reinforcements were again sent.

Rules regarding the conduct of hostilities: International humanitarian law

What is international humanitarian law?

International humanitarian law (IHL) refers to the body of treaties and humanitarian principles that regulate the conduct of armed conflict and seek to limit its effects. The treaties that form the basis for IHL include the Hague Conventions, the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the Geneva Protocol of 1977.

Origins of IHL

International humanitarian law had its origins in the late 19th century. While travelling through war-ravaged northern Italy on a business trip in 1859, a Swiss merchant named Henri Dunant witnessed the aftermath of a battle between French and Austrian forces near Solferino. Thousands of wounded soldiers were lying on the battlefield, dying lingering and lonely deaths.

Dunant was appalled and abandoned his original trip to help care for them. Reflecting on this experience, Dunant came up with the idea of setting up a permanent organisation that would look after the wounded of both sides in wartime.

In 1863, the International Committee for Relief to the Wounded was established. International conferences in Geneva, Switzerland were held in 1863 and 1864, the second of which resulted in a treaty called the Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded in Armies in the Field. This convention, with $10$ articles, was the first Geneva Convention.

Prior to the treaty, treatment of people during wartime was random, with no agreed universal standards. All nations that signed the Convention understood it would afford protection to their own wounded or captured soldiers in the future. Countries had a mutual stake in agreeing to respect international humanitarian law.

Legal responses: Treaties

The Geneva Conventions

The primary instruments governing IHL are the four Geneva Conventions. The $10$ articles of the First Geneva Convention were adopted by $12$ nations in 1864. The Convention covered:

• Neutrality of ambulances, military hospitals and medical personnel
• Provision that wounded prisoners of war, if incapable of serving, were to be returned to their home country
• Use of the white flag with a red cross as a symbol for neutral medical units

After the Second World War, the First Geneva Convention was updated and expanded to $64$ articles. Three other Conventions were also created. The four Geneva Conventions of 1949 specifically protect people who are not taking part in the conflict (civilians, medical personnel and aid workers) and those who were but no longer are participating (wounded, sick and shipwrecked soldiers and prisoners of war).

In 1977, two Additional Protocols were drafted to supplement the Geneva Conventions.

Content of the Geneva Conventions:

1. First Geneva Convention (1949): Protects wounded and sick soldiers on land during war, as well as medical and religious personnel

2. Second Geneva Convention (1949): Protects wounded, sick and shipwrecked personnel at sea during war. It also protects medical staff and hospital ships

3. Third Geneva Convention (1949): Protects prisoners of war. A central principle is that prisoners of war shall be released and repatriated without delay after hostilities have ended

4. Fourth Geneva Convention (1949): Protects civilians, including those in occupied territory. The Second World War brought the necessity of such a convention into stark relief

All four Geneva Conventions have a common Article 3, which covers situations of intrastate armed conflict. This includes civil wars, internal wars that spill over into other states, and internal conflicts in which other states or a multinational force intervenes. This provision is of essential importance given the nature of armed conflict today.

Additional Protocols:

• Additional Protocol I (1977): Further strengthens protection for civilians in international conflict and bans the use of child soldiers

• Additional Protocol II (1977): Further strengthens protection for civilians in intrastate conflict

• Additional Protocol III (2005): Protects people working under any of the official symbols of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement (the Red Crescent was formally recognised in 1929 for military forces from Muslim countries; the Red Crystal was introduced as an additional symbol for military forces from Israel and predominantly Jewish countries)

The Hague Conventions

The Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 govern other aspects of the conduct of war. Along with the First Geneva Convention, they are among the earliest formal statements of the laws of war and certain types of war crimes. They were negotiated at two peace conferences held at The Hague in the Netherlands.

The chief purpose of the Hague Convention of 1899 was to prohibit the use of certain types of technology in war, including:

• Chemical weapons
• Hollow point bullets
• Aerial bombing of cities and villages

The Hague Convention of 1907 modified and expanded the 1899 Convention, with greater focus on naval warfare.

Customary international humanitarian law

In addition to formal written law contained in treaties, customary international humanitarian law is another source of obligations on states. Customary international law is general practice accepted as law by the international community. In 2005, the ICRC undertook an exhaustive study resulting in identification of $161$ rules constituting the body of customary international law.

Legal responses: Courts

The ICRC was instrumental in the creation of the International Criminal Court. In 1872, Gustav Moynier, one of the founders of the ICRC, proposed a permanent criminal court. At the Paris Peace Conference in 1919, a permanent criminal court was considered but never eventuated.

In 1945–46, the Nuremberg Trials put top Nazi leaders on trial for war crimes and set a precedent of holding leaders accountable for their actions. In 1948, when the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide was adopted, the UN General Assembly asked the International Law Commission to develop a treaty establishing a court to hear genocide charges. However, the Cold War put an end to the project.

The ICC finally gave teeth to the Geneva Conventions. Previously, the ICRC had to depend on states to prosecute offenders. Individuals can now be prosecuted at the ICC for war crimes under the Geneva Conventions.

Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo: The Geneva Conventions defied

In recent years, the ICRC has had to deal with breaches of the Geneva Conventions from an unexpected source: the United States. Vice President Dick Cheney announced in 2001 that the 'gloves were off' and the United States now had to be prepared to work on the 'dark side' in its pursuit of terrorists.

The US government set up a prison for people captured in the 'war on terror' at their military base in Cuba called Guantánamo Bay. The reasoning was to avoid US law. The claim was that constitutional protections did not extend to foreigners held outside US borders. Nor, apparently, did the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment, signed and ratified by the US in 1994, which prohibits such treatment without exception.

The Bush Administration's use of torture badly damaged America's international reputation when:

• Photos of Iraqi victims being tortured in Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq were released to the media
• The Red Cross released a damning report on the prison
• America's allies in the war, including Britain and Australia, were dismayed that their alliance partner was sanctioning torture
• Many Guantánamo inmates, including the Australian David Hicks, were held in detention for years without being charged
• Terrorists could use these photos showing Americans' treatment of Muslims to attract more recruits

In 2009, President Obama announced that Guantánamo Bay prison facilities would be closed down and the remaining inmates brought to trial. Discussion began in the US about whether to conduct an inquiry into the actions of people at top levels of the Bush Administration. The Obama Administration has signalled that it will not use torture and will respect international laws in this regard.

Non-legal responses: The International Committee of the Red Cross

The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) has a hybrid nature. It is an NGO, since it was created by a group of private individuals and is not controlled by any government. However, its main role – to provide assistance and protection to people in wartime – is now mandated by international treaties and applies to all states.

Like the United Nations, the ICRC enjoys privileges and immunities, and its offices and facilities enjoy:

• Exemptions from taxation and duties
• Inviolability of documents and premises
• Immunity from prosecution

Education and awareness

The ICRC plays a significant role in educating military forces worldwide and the general public about the requirements of IHL. The ICRC has detailed guides designed for different groups involved in wartime situations:

• Victims
• Humanitarian workers
• UN peacekeepers
• Journalists
• Soldiers

The ICRC also undertakes extensive education programs in high schools around the world so the next generation may be fully informed about IHL.

Humanitarian work

As well as initiating rules and enforcement mechanisms regarding the conduct of war, the ICRC also works in many non-legal ways to help people in armed conflict. In this work, the ICRC acts as a neutral party and helps people on all sides in a conflict. This does not mean ICRC representatives stay silent if they witness atrocities or war crimes. The ICRC is the only organisation that has the right to free movement across battle lines in times of war.

ICRC delegates are constantly engaged in:

• Visiting prison camps, internment camps or labour camps of both sides
• Evaluating the conditions of prisoners of war held in detention
• Providing food, medicine, clothes and blankets to those in need
• Facilitating the exchange of information between people on both sides of the conflict about prisoners of war and missing persons (the ICRC has a database in Geneva with $55$ million entries, representing more than $30$ million cases over the last hundred years)

Today the ICRC has offices in more than $60$ countries and conducts operations in about $80$ countries. Geneva remains the head office and provides backup for field operations.

Conclusion on international humanitarian law

The rules regarding the conduct of hostilities have evolved into a sophisticated branch of public international law. The international community has given this body of law universal jurisdiction and strengthened enforcement measures. In addition, the International Committee of the Red Cross has served not only to alleviate the suffering of people caught up in armed conflict but also as an inspection mechanism on the ground.

In an imperfect world in which wars still occur far too often, international humanitarian law encourages compliance with the standards of human decency that this branch of international law highlights.

Remember!