ICRC's primary purpose is to provide primary assistance and protection to victims of conflict around the world. Its proximity to the victims is the main purpose behind the work of this organisation. There are many other organisations that go public about events. The ICRC defends its mode of operation because very often it is the only player on the ground, and we know from experience that if we were to go public, we would not be granted access to persons in need, which is our primary goal.
There are other organisations that function along a different track - their aim is to shame the government publicly into action. One has to look at the ICRC in a complementary fashion to other organisations. Our visits are not 'events'. When we establish operational presence in a certain area, we generally tend to stay there as long as the need exists, and therefore the logic of what we are trying to achieve is different from what some other organisations are trying to achieve. This is not to say that we are doing miraculous work. We do believe firmly, again based on experience, that slowly but surely once our presence has been accepted, the situation of the persons detained does usually improve and there is no doubt about that.
Q: Is there a realisation within the ICRC on the need for a fresh definition of terrorism?
A: There is no comprehensive legal definition of terrorism. In a way you don't need a definition of terrorism once violence has reached the level of armed conflict. Under the IHL, if you are in armed conflicts, deliberate attacks against civilians are war crimes already. Attacks against civilians and civilian objects are also prohibited by the IHL. Therefore, once you have reached the level of armed conflict, calling somebody a terrorist becomes superfluous to the extent that we are talking about attacks against civilians.
Looking at the global situation today and the war on terror, we would have to differentiate those aspects of war against terrorism or rather situations that fall in the realm of what is generally known as armed conflict. The laws of war are applicable to armed conflicts and provide very good protection to civilians. Where we don't have armed conflicts those acts in peacetime will be covered by domestic criminal law. Every country prohibits the murder of its civilian population and bombing of civilian objects and they will also be regulated by the 12 international conventions against terrorism. In fact one of the sticking points of the UN convention is that acts committed in armed conflict should be excluded from the scope of the definition of terrorism. Legally speaking, things are not as difficult as they usually seem for political reasons.
The IHL regulates an armed conflict once it has begun. It does not
regulate the right to resort to force. That belongs to a separate
body of law called use ad bedlam, the right to first use force.
The IHL does not concern itself with why the violence has erupted
and what the justness of the cause is. It is triggered once violence
reaches armed conflict level. National liberation movements are
regulated in 1977 with a first additional protocol to the Geneva
Conventions, Article 1 which in fact expands the coverage of the
Geneva Conventions to armed conflicts for the purposes of national
liberation.
E-mail: newsline@cyber.net.pk
Home | Archives | Advertisement | Subscription Form | About Us
| Feedback
Address: D-6 Block 9, Kehkashan, Clifton, Karachi-Pakistan.
Tel: (92-21) 5873947, 5873948, 5869611, 5869612 (Business)
Fax: (92-21) 5869610
© Copyright 2001 Newsline Publications (Pvt.) Ltd. All rights
reserved.
