ICRC as a Catalyst for Advancing International Humanitarian Law

When armed conflicts ravage communities worldwide, the need for clear and effective rules to protect civilians becomes urgent. But how do these rules evolve to meet contemporary challenges? The International Committee of the Red Cross stands at the heart of this evolution, serving as a catalyst that transforms international humanitarian law from static text into a living, responsive framework for protection.

Understanding the catalyst function in IHL development 🔗

The ICRC’s catalyst function represents a unique role in international law. Rather than simply monitoring compliance with existing rules or advocating for their adoption, this function involves actively stimulating discussion among experts about problems encountered in armed conflicts and encouraging innovative solutions. The catalyst role bridges the gap between identifying humanitarian challenges on the ground and developing practical responses-whether through new legal frameworks, interpretations of existing law, or operational approaches.

This function emerged from a fundamental recognition: when real problems arise during conflicts, it is insufficient to merely acknowledge that existing law cannot resolve them. The international community must be encouraged to think creatively about remedies, drawing on diverse expertise and experience. As noted in ICRC practice, this requires enlisting experts in many disciplines to contribute fresh thinking based on their practical experience and thorough knowledge of existing rules.

The ICRC’s mandate and institutional position 🔗

The ICRC’s authority to serve as a catalyst stems from both historical precedent and formal recognition. The organization’s founder, Henry Dunant, not only provided humanitarian assistance at the Battle of Solferino but also proposed systematic solutions that led to the first Geneva Convention in 1864. This dual approach-combining field presence with normative development-has characterized the ICRC ever since.

The Statutes of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement explicitly recognize this role, tasking the ICRC to work for the understanding and dissemination of IHL and to prepare any development of this body of law. This mandate, accepted by states worldwide, provides the institutional foundation for the catalyst function. The Geneva Conventions themselves reference the ICRC’s special role in developing humanitarian law.

Independence and impartiality as enablers 🔗

The ICRC’s effectiveness as a catalyst derives partly from its unique position as an independent, impartial organization. Unlike states, which must balance humanitarian considerations against national security and political interests, the ICRC can focus exclusively on protection needs. This independence allows it to convene diverse stakeholders-government officials, military experts, academics, and civil society representatives-in neutral settings where technical discussions can proceed without being immediately overtaken by political considerations.

Methods of catalyzing IHL development 🔗

The ICRC employs several complementary approaches in its catalyst function, each designed to generate momentum for addressing specific humanitarian concerns.

Convening expert groups 🔗

One primary method involves organizing meetings of governmental and non-governmental experts to examine particular problems. These gatherings serve multiple purposes: identifying gaps in legal protection, analyzing State practice, developing consensus on interpretation of ambiguous rules, and exploring feasible solutions. The customary international humanitarian law study exemplifies this approach. Mandated by the 26th International Conference in 1995, this decade-long project engaged experts worldwide to identify 161 rules of customary IHL binding on all parties to armed conflicts.

Conducting research and preparing studies 🔗

The ICRC systematically conducts research on emerging issues in IHL, producing studies that clarify legal questions and lay groundwork for potential normative developments. For instance, when environmental protection emerged as a global concern following the 1992 Rio Conference, the ICRC accepted a UN General Assembly mandate to bring together experts whose findings helped determine where real problems lay and how existing IHL already addressed environmental protection during armed conflict.

Similarly, when questions arose about the obligations of UN peacekeeping forces, the ICRC’s analysis and expert seminars helped establish that such forces could have IHL obligations in certain circumstances and should receive appropriate training. This work culminated in Guidelines on respect for IHL by UN forces, developed in close cooperation with the UN Secretariat.

Identifying practical implementation challenges 🔗

The catalyst function extends beyond abstract legal analysis to practical implementation questions. The ICRC identifies obstacles that states face in giving effect to IHL obligations and facilitates exchanges of experience and best practices. For example, it has promoted the establishment of national IHL committees and supported states in developing domestic legislation to implement international obligations.

The customary IHL study as catalyst achievement 🔗

The ICRC’s study on customary international humanitarian law represents perhaps the most ambitious catalytic project undertaken. This comprehensive research effort involved dozens of experts from different regions and legal systems, including academics and specialists from governments and international organizations.

The study addressed a critical need: while treaty law binds only states that have ratified particular conventions, customary law applies universally. By identifying customary rules, the study strengthened legal protection for war victims globally, particularly in non-international armed conflicts where treaty law is less developed.

The methodology itself embodied the catalyst function. Researchers examined state practice through military manuals, national legislation, case law, and official statements, alongside practice of international organizations and judicial bodies. This extensive collection and analysis of evidence stimulated ongoing discussion about what constitutes customary law and how it evolves.

Impact and authority 🔗

The study’s influence demonstrates the power of catalytic processes. Despite having no formal legal status, it has been cited extensively by international and domestic courts, referenced in military manuals, and used by states in diplomatic exchanges. The study is increasingly viewed as highly authoritative, such that particular propositions are often accepted as customary law simply because the study identifies them as such.

Collaboration with diverse stakeholders 🔗

Effective catalysis requires engaging multiple communities. The ICRC systematically involves National Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies in its work, sharing thinking with their experts and seeking their input before submitting issues to International Conferences.

The organization maintains regular exchanges with international organizations whose mandates relate to humanitarian concerns. These include the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, UNESCO, the UN Centre for Human Rights, and the Department of Humanitarian Affairs. Such relationships enable cross-fertilization of ideas and ensure that IHL development considers complementary areas of international law.

Academic and research partnerships 🔗

Academic institutions play a crucial role in the catalyst function. The ICRC partners with universities and research centers worldwide, supporting their analysis of IHL issues and drawing on their expertise. The International Institute of Humanitarian Law in San Remo exemplifies this collaboration, with its annual Round Tables prepared in cooperation with the ICRC to examine current challenges.

The ICRC also engages with non-governmental organizations conducting field operations or contributing analysis in areas related to IHL. Regular exchanges with organizations like Amnesty International and Médecins Sans Frontières ensure that normative development remains grounded in operational realities.

Contemporary challenges to the catalyst function 🔗

Several developments complicate the ICRC’s catalyst role today. States have become more assertive in controlling lawmaking processes, sometimes questioning the legitimacy of non-state actors to influence IHL development. Military experts from some countries argue that humanitarian lawyers lack the operational understanding necessary to shape rules governing armed conflict.

Additionally, the proliferation of soft-law instruments-political declarations, guidelines, manuals-has created both opportunities and challenges. While such instruments can provide flexibility and facilitate consensus when treaty negotiation proves impossible, they also raise questions about normative clarity and the risk of fragmenting rather than consolidating legal frameworks.

Balancing expertise and legitimacy 🔗

The catalyst function must navigate tensions between different forms of expertise and authority. Military professionals bring essential operational knowledge, but their perspectives may prioritize effectiveness over protection. Academic experts offer rigorous legal analysis, but may lack practical experience. State representatives hold ultimate lawmaking authority, but face political constraints.

The ICRC’s role involves creating spaces where these diverse perspectives can engage constructively, building consensus around solutions that are both operationally feasible and legally sound while genuinely enhancing protection.

Future directions and emerging issues 🔗

The catalyst function continues to address new challenges arising from evolving warfare. Current areas of focus include autonomous weapon systems, cyber operations in armed conflict, the humanitarian impact of climate change, and protection of civilians in urban warfare.

For each issue, the ICRC employs its established methods: convening experts to analyze existing law, identifying gaps or ambiguities, examining state practice and military doctrine, and facilitating dialogue on potential solutions. Whether these processes lead to new treaties, clarifications of customary law, or practical guidance depends on states’ willingness to engage and the specific nature of each challenge.

Adapting to contemporary dynamics 🔗

The catalyst function must evolve alongside changes in international relations and armed conflict. Digital technologies enable new forms of consultation and information-sharing. Regional approaches may prove more feasible than universal agreements for some issues. Engaging non-state armed groups, while legally complex, becomes increasingly necessary given the prevalence of non-international armed conflicts.

The ICRC has launched initiatives to enhance respect for IHL, including global dialogues involving states from diverse regions. These efforts recognize that strengthening IHL requires sustained political commitment alongside legal and technical work.

The enduring importance of the catalyst function 🔗

International humanitarian law remains essential for limiting suffering in armed conflict, but its effectiveness depends on continuous adaptation to new realities. The ICRC’s catalyst function ensures that this adaptation occurs through systematic engagement with diverse expertise, rigorous analysis of practice, and inclusive dialogue among stakeholders.

By identifying problems, stimulating discussion, facilitating research, and building consensus, the ICRC helps transform IHL into a dynamic force capable of addressing contemporary protection needs. This function complements the organization’s operational work, creating a virtuous cycle where field experience informs normative development, which in turn strengthens protection frameworks applied in future conflicts.

What do you think? How can the ICRC maintain its catalytic effectiveness amid increasing state assertiveness over lawmaking? What role should military practitioners play in shaping humanitarian law development alongside legal experts and affected communities?

References

1. https://www.icrc.org/en/article/guardian-international-humanitarian-law
2. https://international-review.icrc.org/articles/how-international-humanitarian-law-develops-920
3. https://www.icrc.org/en/document/customary-international-humanitarian-law-0
4. https://www.icrc.org/sites/default/files/external/doc/en/assets/files/other/30ic_8-3_customaryihl_report_final_eng.pdf
5. https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl
6. https://international-review.icrc.org/articles/assessing-the-authority-of-the-icrc-customary-ihl-study-920
7. https://www.icrc.org/en/global-initiative-international-humanitarian-law