The main objective of IHL is to prohibit total war, in which the choice of weapons and methods of destruction is unlimited, and to enable the survival of civilian populations. After the use of nuclear weapons and genocide during World War II, states unanimously limited the means and methods of warfare. The end can no longer justify the means.
IHL contains provisions that regulate the conduct of hostilities and others that grant the right to relief and survival to people who are not or are no longer directly participating in hostilities: civilians, the wounded and sick, and prisoners. The law of war and international humanitarian law are two different names for the same law.
Although IHL and human rights are complementary, IHL differs from human rights in terms of its content and application. Human rights oblige States, by virtue of their sovereignty, to respect standards of treatment for their own populations, from which they may derogate in exceptional circumstances. IHL contains minimum obligations regarding the treatment of enemies and civilian populations that apply in armed conflicts without the possibility of derogation. IHL obligations are binding on all armed state and non-state actors regarding the persons and territories under their control. The obligations of IHL are not linked to the status of a sovereign state but to that of a party to the conflict, to compensate for the loss of control by states over part of their territory and population, which characterizes conflict situations.
Finally, IHL delegates part of the functions of providing relief to victims of conflict to impartial humanitarian organizations, to enable them to access populations in territories affected by conflict. Parties to conflicts are obliged to authorize and facilitate such impartial relief. The parties to the conflict may not therefore militarize the negotiation or distribution of relief as a means of weakening the enemy or as an instrument of control or oppression of the population.
IHL recognizes a right of humanitarian initiative for the benefit of impartial humanitarian organizations. These rights form the basis of international law on relief, which protects the actions of NGOs in favor of populations affected by conflict.
IHL applies to all actors (state and non-state) who are parties to international and non-international armed conflicts. It therefore obviously applies to states engaged in military operations through their official armed forces or armed groups under their control. It also applies to non-state armed groups that are organized and engaged in military operations against states.
The obligation to comply with IHL applies to all parties to conflicts without any requirement of reciprocity by the opposing party. The argument of alleged or actual violation of IHL by one party to the conflict does not entitle the other party to disregard its own obligation to comply with IHL. The military itself has agreed that compliance with IHL does not constitute a strategic disadvantage.
States not party to conflicts have an obligation to ensure that IHL is respected by the parties to the conflict through peaceful means such as sanctions and legal proceedings against perpetrators of serious violations, including before their own courts.
States non-party to an armed conflict have an obligation to enforce IHL by peaceful means such as sanctions and legal proceedings against perpetrators of serious violations, including before their own courts.
HL provides a clear and pragmatic legal framework on humanitarian access issues. This framework, which has the status of customary international law, imposes legal responsibility on actors who effectively have control and military power, even if they have no legal legitimacy. Negotiations on access by humanitarian organizations must not weaken this framework. Humanitarian organizations negotiate access to conflict zones with all political and armed actors who exercise control over the territories concerned. The aim of these negotiations is to inform the actors of the presence and strictly humanitarian action of the actors among the victims of the conflict and to obtain their consent to their action, commitments of non-aggression in their activities, and details on the practical arrangements for their security (methods of humanitarian identification of places and persons, reporting of movements, methods of communication with the various designated interlocutors). The obligation to authorize and facilitate access to relief for the population rests with both state and non-state actors. Humanitarian organizations therefore have the right to negotiate such access with non-state armed groups that exercise control over the territories and populations concerned, without this being considered interference, a violation of state sovereignty, or support for groups classified as criminal or terrorist. Non-state armed groups have an obligation to allow and facilitate relief efforts for populations in the territories under their control. Symmetrically, a state cannot refuse humanitarian access to territories controlled by non-state armed groups or over which it does not exercise effective control.
Violations of IHL pose a major risk to the survival of populations affected by conflict. These violations may relate to the conduct of hostilities themselves, involving indiscriminate destruction or various forms of obstruction of humanitarian and medical aid.
Some violations may fall within the categories of war crimes and crimes against humanity, which are covered by the Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) or the universal jurisdiction of the national courts of all countries. They engage the personal criminal responsibility of the perpetrators, even if they act upon orders of their superiors. However, not all violations constitute a war crime or crime against humanity, as it is necessary to prove the existence of material and intentional elements, which are difficult to establish in the heat of battle. In addition, national or international criminal trials take a very long time, which does not allow for the limitation of irreversible death and destruction.
Maintaining the negotiating capacity and access of impartial humanitarian organizations remains the only option for ensuring survival and must remain an absolute priority. This requires clear commitment from all international, state, and media actors. It also requires support and discernment in relation to attempts to delegitimize the impartial humanitarian organizations involved.
The Practical Dictionary of Humanitarian Law is intended for civilian humanitarian actors and citizens involved in relief efforts in situations of armed conflict. It is also intended for political and media actors involved in these operations. The dictionary provides them with a simple explanation of the legal framework applicable to the use of armed force and relief operations for populations and individuals affected by conflict. It provides an understanding of the arguments and actions that are legitimate or not for armed actors and relief organizations. These arguments and this framework are essential tools for negotiating relief and for humanitarian engagement with state armed forces and non-state armed groups. There has always been, in all countries, significant and powerful military legal expertise in IHL that does not consider this law to be useless or obsolete. Given the massive impact of conflicts on civilian populations, the dictionary offers civilian expertise on IHL that is understandable, usable, and enforceable against an exclusive military interpretation of this law, which can render it meaningless to civilians.
The emphasis on the development of international criminal law is based on a restrictive interpretation of war crimes that does not allow for the preservation of relief practices based on an interpretation of IHL focusing on protecting civilians.
Access to the Practical Dictionary is free on this website in the four working languages (English, Arabic, French, and Russian) to remove any financial barriers to disseminating this knowledge to as many people as possible. This choice is intended to prevent those who already have the monopoly on force and power from also having a monopoly on the law. This choice thus allows relief actors and organizations to devote all their resources to relief efforts that meet the material needs of the most vulnerable without undermining their rights.
Francoise Bouchet Saulnier holds a doctorate in law and is a magistrate, but she has devoted 35 years of her life to putting her legal knowledge to the test and putting it to practical use in the humanitarian work of Médecins Sans Frontières in countries in conflict or other emergency situations. In doing so, she has developed operational humanitarian expertise in international humanitarian law that goes beyond mere academic knowledge.
This knowledge has been enriched by her direct involvement as legal advisor and then legal director of MSF in various conflict zones and by her practical management, alongside operational teams, of the many challenges and dilemmas encountered by MSF's medical and humanitarian relief efforts from 1991 to the present day.
The Practical Dictionary of Humanitarian Law was developed by the legal advisor to operations within MSF, based on concrete and recurring problems and dilemmas encountered by field teams in situations of armed conflict and other emergencies. For each concrete problem, the dictionary provides an overview of the applicable international legal framework, enabling operational managers to understand the legal and operational issues at stake with regard to vulnerable populations and individuals, the scope for negotiation and the valid or abusive arguments put forward by the political or armed leaders concerned, as well as the validity of the arguments that can be used by MSF.
This dictionary was intended to provide a basic tool for MSF operational managers and other humanitarian organizations. It contains the legal elements necessary to inform their decisions and enable them to act in a defensible, responsible, and ethical manner in deregulated and violent environments.
IHL is presented as a tool for humanitarian action, avoiding the legalistic trap of putting action at the service of the law. The obsession of relief personnel must remain to take the risk of acting in a relevant and legitimate manner without seeking perfect compliance with all standards and potential legal risks.
The ILD is currently the only cross-functional department within the MSF Movement, and its mission is to provide legal support and analysis to the various Operational Centers, sections, offices, and MSF International.
It brings together, under a single leadership, legal professionals with a wide range of backgrounds who apply their expertise to support all operations and the MSF Movement. The ILD is organized into six units:
Unit 1: International Humanitarian Law and Protection of the Humanitarian Space; Unit 2: The Medical-Legal Framework for Humanitarian Medical Practice and the Protection of Patients’ Rights; Unit 3: Labor law and ethical management of MSF staff in environments with highly diverse national labor laws; Unit 4: Administrative and legal frameworks of the various mission countries to ensure the independence and professional effectiveness of MSF operations in the field; Unit 5: Management of legal governance and trademarks of the international MSF movement; Unit 6: Medical and operational research, data, and innovation.
