 My sense is that people react much more quickly today when there are levels of abuse and patterns of violations that are simply unacceptable. We can think of what happened after Abu Ghraib. We can think about what's happening currently in Syria. I'm convinced that the Geneva Conventions have stood the test of time. Now clearly, when you look at what's happening daily in Syria, Afghanistan, Congo and elsewhere, where women, children and civilians are caught up in atrocious conditions and huge suffering, it is a legitimate question to raise. And there was a vibrant debate after September 11 about whether or not the Geneva Conventions were still relevant. But they were negotiated just after the single largest and worst calamity that mankind had inflicted on itself, which was World War II. And so it has to be a body of law that is protected, enriched and further strengthened to remain vibrant on a daily basis. Do you think the world is becoming more or less tolerant of violations of international humanitarian law? My sense is that people react much more quickly today when there are levels of abuse and patterns of violations that are simply unacceptable. We can think of what happened after Abu Ghraib. We can think about what's happening currently in Syria. It may not change the situation, but I think people are highly sensitive to these types of situations and these types of violations. People are highly sensitive, but some states, the United States comes to mind, would say that in certain circumstances their own security takes precedence. Often when we talk about universality we talk about we have rules and they apply to others. But the test is whether we apply them to ourselves when our own security is at risk. And that was after September 11 a debate we had extensively with the U.S. but also frankly with many other nations about whether really it is credible to put one's international legal obligations on the back burner at the moment where one's own security is at risk or whether it wasn't true that one can balance one's own legitimate security concerns with respect for one's international legal obligations. And this is a debate that will continue. The changing nature of warfare, most conflicts are now within states rather than between states, many fragmented groups. How do you actually reach all of those fragmented groups and make sure that they do respect these rules of war? Fragmentation of our groups means concretely that when ICRC or other organizations are dealing with humanitarian consequences say in Congo we deal with 45 different factions. The names change regularly, the affiliations, the motivations and the reasons for them to be fighting change and vary. To be able to reach them and sit down, as the ICRC does in dialogue with all parties to try and influence a change of behavior is a painstaking, sometimes dangerous and highly challenging effort but it needs to be supported by the wider international community. These non-state armed groups, they're not signatory to the IHL treaties. In some cases they actually use terror against civilians as their modus operandi. So how can you actually expect them to respect the laws? The first thing is that IHL does impose obligations on any group in an armed conflict. Now it is true that some obviously have not signed and do use deliberate tactics that target civilians. In this case the only thing that you can do is to sit down in face-to-face dialogue with them and try to identify the issue that will resonate with them. Some may be that they understand also for them that respecting the wounded which can concern them is an issue that is of importance to them, their group, their families. The other one is that the idea that humanitarian organizations should have access to a region which they are under control is important for the wider communities not just for the ones on the other side of the front line. And so you build a patient dialogue but it is to understand the perspective also of the other as challenging as that may sound in our work and to then build links in that way because ultimately it's only by reaching out that you have the potential to influence. So it's constant patience and it's small steps. It's in particular being clear about the fact that we don't take no as an answer easily and we keep coming back and it's this sort of stubbornness of the organization because it's our only weapon if you want to use that expression is to engage in dialogue in principle not to judge the other one which is another challenging issue in human terms because of course you sit with people that are not easy to approach and that are not easy to think about, to identify with certainly at times but it is if I judge the person I break the bridge that may be the one that helps me reach prisoners or make a difference for civilians somewhere.