Citation

Rosas A, Stenback P. J. Peace Res. 1987; 24(3): 219-236.

Copyright

(Copyright © 1987, SAGE Publishing)

DOI

10.1177/002234338702400303

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

Since ancient times, war has been regulated by certain rules and rituals. Modern restraints date back to the emergence of centralized states with standing armies. In the international legal order which has developed since then, the law of war (the ius in bello) has occupied a prominent place. This traditional law of war, and international law in general, was certainly inspired by humanitarian considerations (e.g., the protection of prisoners of war and of aliens). But such considerations found expression only through a predominant filter: the state interest. In the present century, international law to a large extent has become treaty-based, and directed towards regulating peacetime conditions. The very right of states to resort to war has been severely restrained, and especially during the last 25 years limitations have also been placed on their peacetime armaments. Moreover, a number of rules have been devised for the protection of the individual, not only in his capacity as a representative of a foreign state, but also as a human being as such. With these developments, the law of war finds itself in a markedly new setting. The fairly recent term 'international humanitarian law applicable in armed conflicts', which today covers a considerable part of the law of war, is an indication of this. The present article analyses the relationship between the concept of international humanitarian law applicable in armed conflicts and certain related fields of international law and puts forward some thoughts on the implications of recent trends for the future development of international humanitarian law and for the activities of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement.