 Good evening we are about to we are about to start our discussion Excellencies Ladies and gentlemen their colleagues your guests welcome to the Humanitarium. It's a pleasure to have you all here this evening with us For this conference And title is the law of armed conflict in crisis and how to recommit to its respect So we are very pleased to welcome this evening Not only friends from Geneva Colleagues from the academic sectors, but also diplomats attending our yearly course on International law here at the Humanitarium. We have also the pleasure of welcoming colleagues from all over the world who attend a Workshop on how precisely to better ensure respect for international law and we are organizing this event this evening because it's also on the occasion of our annual meeting of the Edit all board of the international review of the Red Cross So we are very pleased to have a panel composed of our Born members other born members are sitting with us It's a board composed of 16 specialists from all over the world in the field of law history Different social sciences you make an action and they're here to discuss this important issue It's based actually on the work we did at the international review of the Red Cross Recently we we published this issue called generating respect for the law And we thought it was a topical subject indeed because in the past month past years we've observed Watching the news or in the various countries where we work grows violations of international law and Somehow a lack of appetite as some people put it to further develop the law So how can we better ensure respect for international law how to generate respect for the law? That's the topic of this issue of the international review of the Red Cross. It's also The topic that we chose for a cycle of conferences This event is part of this cycle which has already had several events In Geneva in different locations. We've also organized this exhibition outside of the Humanitarium that I hope you will Spend time to look at in order to create a Conversation not only here in Geneva, but in various countries where this problem is so acute so We'll discuss this evening The problem the problem In modern battlefields. What is happening? Why do we have this feeling that the law does not matter anymore? What are the crimes we are? Watching Conflicts of today may be less Conducive to respect for the law then we will take some distance and we will look at the environment the international environment in which modern conflicts are taking place and Finally our panelists will also discuss possible solutions so I will now give the floor to Helen Doham with the director of law and policy here at the ICRC and who has been also on the board of the review for some years and she will introduce our panel. Good evening Well, thank you very much Vincent and a warm welcome to everyone here tonight We were delighted to see the range of interest in this topic as Vincent very clearly outlined the Importance of ensuring respect for international humanitarian law is deeply of importance to the ICRC And when we see discussions happening in the wider humanitarian community and in the wider public We always have the impulse to actually analyse a little deeper Go beyond what we hear often in the public rhetoric, which is about the extent of the problem To move and shift it to the nature of the problem and to ask experts as we have gathered here tonight Not only on the panel, but also in the audience. What are some ways? We can resolve grapple with and intellectually move forward this very real issue Which is about human dignity at the end of the day talking about systems talking about law. It's all about individual people Now we have a fine panel tonight And each speaker will speak for for ten minutes Reflecting from their own perspective some of the questions as raised by Vincent and then because we've got an audience That's so rich in ideas yourself, and we want to listen To what you have to say. We will then have a chance to have Questions and short comments and a discussion amongst the panelists A number of the panelists I probably would say that if you don't know who they are You probably shouldn't be here tonight in relation to the role that they are playing globally on this issue But we're going to hear first from a Marco Sassoli Who is professor of international law and director of the Department of international law and international Organizations of the University of Geneva. So Marco do tell us what you think well, good evening and welcome Is the law of armed conflict in crisis? International law is in crisis and the international community is in crisis Think about use at Bellum the prohibition of the use of force between states Territories are annexed Countries are bombed without the consent of the government It's in crisis International trade law the door around doesn't make any progress and more and more bilateral Treaties are convinced concluded international refugee law I don't have to tell you that Unfortunately, it seems that the regime simply collapses and even what I as a Swiss Which is who is not in the European Union always considered? Delightening example of the rule of law among states even European law in the refugee crisis has Is in a serious? Crisis so it's not astonishing that the law applicable to the most extreme situation armed conflict is Perceived and probably at least in its implementation. Yes is in a crisis. I would nevertheless say that the Geneva conventions contain the right answers obviously not the ideal answers, but We don't get more so we have to live with it and situations like today in Syria if Common article 3 to the Geneva conventions was respected would be totally different and Today unfortunately and those among you who are diplomats you should think about it in 1949 it was possible to conclude this treaty including an article 3 common which treats both states and Their opponents aren't non-state actors in the same way today It will no longer be possible. Why is this so? but The law is not the best we could dream about but fortunately we have it as far as an Implementation mechanism is concerned States do not want an efficient implementation mechanism for international human it and law unfortunately at the last international conference of the Red Cross and the Red Crescent a very weak and very soft mechanism even that proposal by Switzerland and the ICSE was not accepted by the states So what the remains is the international committee of the Red Cross Which does in my view an admirable work in the field? But it is a humanitarian organization so inevitably sorry Helen because she is the director of international law and policy and When it comes heart-to-heart it gives understandably in my view the priority to access and to assisting and protecting victims in the field and this is only possible through bilateral and confidential dialogue and with a lot of pragmatism and Therefore the ICSE cannot possibly mobilize states and The public opinion of states because finally states will not do anything except if there and international public opinion pushes them because politicians in democracies want to be reelected and If it is not an issue of internal politics where some people lobby and that's you the students For instance, you have to lobby you a government that international humanity and law is an important thing But the ICSE cannot lead this mobilization on Violations and therefore states Have an alley be not to fulfill their obligation under article one comment of the Geneva Conventions They should not only respect but also ensure respect for the conventions One way out. I see would be that the ICSE succeeds To get acceptance of the idea that the ICSE has a dual role It is an operational agency and on the other hand It is the guardian of international humanity and law and it has a mandate to suggest improvements including in terms of implementation mechanisms and Somehow that states understand when it comes to the treatment of detainees in the prison The ICSE is confidential and bilateral while when it comes to mobilizing public opinion for a better Treaty a better respect for the prohibition of weapons as it did in the past on Antipersonal landmines on blinding laser weapons. They are somehow the ICSE is An advocacy agency and states should accept that these are the two roles and non-mix the two roles But it is as far as I understand increasingly difficult to get this and Let us come to the violations Now my first point I have only two of them and then it's over. It's so my first point on violations is and This is not uncontroversial even among humanitarians in my view the perception of The number of violation is greater than the real situation in the field. I must say wherever I worked in the field and these were armed conflicts and Terrible armed conflicts. I have also seen plenty of respect while NGOs the media Understandably report only about violations and so you could get the impression That IHL is nearly always violated and this impression is fortunately wrong, but this message Including the message to say we are in crisis. It's no longer respected, which I understand that humanitarians are shocked that out about the many violations is a violation is a message which undermines the willingness of respect because no one wants to be the only Idiot who respects the law if all the others don't respect the law and believe me I would not teach this branch if I was convinced that this branch is not Respected because it would be totally useless now In this context, I think it's also important to realize that humanitarian law doesn't promise The paradise the paradise It would be no armed conflict and even then there are enough problems in our international community When there are armed conflicts and even if IHL is respected there will be plenty of people suffering and I would appeal To all of us not to consider every civilian killed and every Destruction to be a violation of international humanitarian law. This is simply wrong It may be that these are Incidental victims of a lawful attack. I didn't make this law, but this is the law the states have accepted and In addition, I would appeal not to especially Journalists not to consider that every violation of humanitarian law is a war crime and I'm I was therefore not so happy when Many humanitarians including organizations. I respect very much after the destruction of the hospital in Kunduz after Disruptions of hospitals in Syria allegedly by a Russian Aerial attacks after destruction of hospital by Saudi air attacks in Yemen Everyone was speaking about war crime. Well, if this is a war crime It means that these hospitals were deliberately attacks our hospital. So and I must say Sorry that I naive I don't imagine that there was a US commander or a Russian commander or a Saudi commander Who woke up one morning and said oh today we destroy a hospital to undermine the health system of that country and You understand my point a if you say it's a war crime You say they do it deliberately and if they do it deliberately. Why should others respect? International humanitarian law Don't misunderstand me International humanitarian law was violated because obviously you have to give a warning and you have to give the necessary time Even if I don't know whether this was the case the hospital was abused And you have to take precautionary measures trying to avoid that such hospitals are affected by attacks against military Objectives and my second point again on violations is unfortunately, there is a selective Perception among states and among public in public opinion in particular in conflict affected countries or conflict involved countries about the respect Most are convinced that their own side Perfectly respect IHL while the enemy systematically violates IHL and this is not true and I suggest You should but I understand how difficult this is Try to get the message through that even the enemy cons is concerned about IHL and tries to respect IHL Because otherwise if you are really convinced that the other side doesn't care about IHL this is another Phenomenon which defeats the willingness of Respecting international humanitarian law here. We have also another phenomenon that many people are rightly so shocked by violations of use at Bello by Aggression by foreign occupation and Then they draw from this that necessarily those who violated the use at Bello Also violate the use in Bello and this again is not true I think the basic message of international humanitarian law is respect the enemy and not like in human rights law to empower the victims To say I tell you what the enemy should do It's rather to tell a party This is how you should respect the enemy their terrorists the aggressor the foreign occupier and so on and this is a message very difficult to bring through and I must say I'm not absolutely sure that I'm right, but states should accept Including in my examples credible fact-finding to convince The public opinion of their enemies that indeed they care about international humanitarian law and that sometimes Indeed mistakes happen or rules are violated But we find out why they are violated so Also, one hesitates when looking at the news to say that I think we should make More research about the respect of international humanitarian law and I'm very happy to have learned that the ICC is Engaged with academic partners, not me So it's not self propaganda with the academic part that I promise not me in a finding examples of Respect of international humanitarian law because I think it is important to get this Message through but we have also to deal with the violations and there we are very much dependent on states And on public opinion to push not to push against the other side But to push their own government to care more about international humanitarian law. Thank you Well, thank you Marco. There's always a fabulous combination. You bring of passion and Controversy, so thank you very much We could have quite a robust discourse together about the always priority to access because I can give you a few examples When we aren't always priority access and we are very principled, but it's always great to have you here Our next speaker. We're very lucky to have a Demet Dian who is the UN Secretary-General's special advisor for the prevention of Genocide and when we were talking I think yesterday I gave him a lot of sympathy for the difficult task that he has and he gave me a lot of sympathy back for the difficult task that I have so I think that In in the role that is it is held. It's really important that we hear from you your views on this topic Thank you very much Ellen. I would start by saying that I Agree with Marco when he said that I shall doesn't promise the paradise. I do agree. I shall tend to humanize the war but unfortunately what we are witnessing today is Not really Beautiful picture. I mean, I'm not someone pessimist, but I should say that perhaps never never before for the need for international humanitarian law has been so great and When you see the number of conflicts around the world Which has reached a record high and the sheer magnitude of human suffering is so overwhelming but at the same time perhaps Never before we have been confronted with such a lack of compliance with obligation under international law. I mean if you Look today what is happening be it in Syria in Yemen in South Sudan and I can go on and on to illustrate You will simply note that it is very Unfortunate that much of the suffering is perpetrated by those with the primary obligation to respect as you said To respect the rules of conduct in armed conflict especially with regard to protecting civilians and exclusively targeting object with military relevance you have made reference to the Recent events in Kunduz Afghanistan where civilians lost their lives in a hospital Was part the hospital was part partially destroyed and There was called for concerted efforts to ensure that in waging or conducting armed conflict one of our primary objective Should be to minimize human loss I do I agree that American commander will not definitely Sand I mean his troop to bomb deliberately and hospital But this need nevertheless to be investigated and I was very pleased when the Pentagon Decided to look into that specific case And then you have also a situation like The one we are witnessing today in Yemen just to say that Kunduz is not an isolated case In Yemen even the ICRC Condemn it attacks on health facilities in Syria Syria and its Allied forces also Attack its sanitary Facilities and we continue to see the same similar developments in all the affected countries like South Sudan like if you go to South Corde fan blue night the Nuba Mountains in Sudan We see the same so something common in all of these areas Is that civilians are indiscriminately affected and in most cases they pay with their lives But despite this reality as the international community With the responsibility to stop this carnage Tragic loss of civilian lives and Increasing number of displaced people We are not short of international instrument to remind us of our inherent responsibility to protect civilians during armed conflict and Non-military objects which are often critical to the provision of social services Including schools health centers and key government offices so the Geneva Convention and subsequent protocols which we can say from part of the Customary international law prohibit all forms of violence to life Directed against any civilian and further international human right law Humanitarian law Makes it abundantly clear that collateral damage should not be disproportionate to the concrete and military gains Anticipated from an attack so similarly international human rights law provides for the minimum guarantees applicable to all individuals And this includes civilians and their properties during the armed conflict So in general we have the necessary foundation upon which we can build and enhance our Commitment to the protection of civilians and non-military objects indeed the Commission of inquiry Established by the Human Rights Council To investigate the events in Gaza a few years ago Made it clear that states and non-state actors have an inherent obligation to respect ISL and human rights Standards applicable during armed conflict and therefore We need political will to answer that will leave up to these commitments admittedly the ever-changing nature and the composition of Worrying parties and the advancement in military technology Present its own challenges in our role to effectively protect civilians and non-military Object during conflict and while previously armed conflict Largely involved state militaries Directly accountable to defined state authorities Today in addition to that We increasingly witness groups with no state affiliation and for some of them with no willingness to abide by ISL in Conducting armed conflict as key players in both national and international armed conflicts We further witness how technology is increasingly assuming Center stage in the conduct of armed hostilities for example Today, it is no longer an isolated Scenario that states rely on drones and order military technologies which do not Involve armed combatants on the ground, but despite the use of these technologies civilians Have not been spared And today Worrying parties take greater caution To protect their armed forces Personal from harm than we have seen them to do for civilians It is therefore extremely important that the technological development and capacity for Precision that we witness today should go hand in hand with the enhanced ability to civilian protection to minimize and ultimately Avoid human loss wherever possible It is important that those involved in armed conflicts States and non-state actors are like a commit themselves to respect ISL and general Human rights standards applicable during armed conflicts This is one way in which we can Guarantee the safety of civilians and non-military objects like hospitals and schools Which are critical to the lives of the people a the continued violation of ISL and international human rights law in Afghanistan in Libya South Sudan Syria and Yemen Demonstrate the need for us to reaffirm our fundamental belief in the role of ISL to safeguard the safety and the security of those Who? have no direct involvement in armed conflict and offer the importance is the fact that accountability for crimes committed should be should form part of our short and long-term Strategy to address violation of ISL and international human rights law during armed conflict both at the national and international level And this is especially crucial when considering that in addition to structured military command there are also armed groups which with Little or no defined a chain of command through which those who commit such violations may be held accountable and I stated Recently by Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon Through the human rights up front initiative We are committed to upholding the promise of never regain and drawing lessons from the past failures But in practice it means putting human rights the protections of population and the prevention of atrocity crimes And I mean by atrocity crimes the crime of genocide crimes against humanity world crime and ethnic cleansing those four That category which was recognized acknowledged by the world leaders when they met in September 2005 in New York and adopted the well-known principle of Responsibility to protect R2P. So I should say therefore that it is important In that regard that we pay more attention to prevention. You know at the end of the day states Made commitment to prevention, but they don't pay enough attention to prevention and in that regard I cannot but really welcome the decision which was taken in May 2012 by President Obama to set up Mechanism called the atrocity prevention board and I'm pleased that and I hope but before he Step he will be successful to get the Senate to approve a bill on Prevention of genocide So to conclude I would say simply that the ongoing distractions of objects with exclusive civilian use including cultural heritage Sites as we have seen what happened in Tombu to what happened in Palmyr and other cities Should also be condemned and those responsible held accountable In accordance with applicable international law standards we had last November meeting in UNESCO to look into that issue and the destruction of Palmyra cultural temples by the armed groups or The one in Tombu to in Mali respectively Robbs humanity of priceless treasures And I think I was like many of you. Yeah, I hope very pleased with the Decision which was taken by the ICC to Investigate the case of in Tombu to against the suspected Individuals involved in this heinous crime against cultural heritage in Mali And we hope that the international community will continue to provide support to the international criminal court although as you may know there is right now an attempt by the Kenyan Administration to even put a motion before the Kenyan parliament to Quit the ICC and to my view where I think it is extremely important That if there are African diplomats in this room to think really twice about that issue Because to my view we have to remember that the ICC is not Trying states but individual who are suspected of having committed a serious crimes International crimes as provided in the Rome treaty and the last word is Simply to say that states involved in armed conflict will be expected to continue Taking necessary measures to ensure that military targets are clearly distinguished against from civilian and civilian object an issue which my colleague Michael who will be speaking is very much familiar and of course full accountability will be exercise against those who commit such violations and to conclude my last thing is to refer simply to the unprecedented Event which took place Towards end of last year bringing together the UN Secretary-General and the president of the ICRC Standing together and making really a call so that the impact of today's conflict on civilian be rarely reduced so that we can go back to the Original idea not the paradise but to answer that Wars are being humanized and I think they were right to ask for urgent and concrete action to address human suffering and insecurity and that is why Following their call. I Put a call myself saying it is urgent to stop The erosion of the respect of ISL some may disagree But I'm of the view that you are witnessing serious violations of ISL and we need to bring that to an end. I thank you Well, thank you very much a demo and it's very important for us in the ICRC to also hear from the UN voice We've got the upcoming World Humanitarian Summit where there's a lot of these discussions in a broad sense are occurring So thank you for your reflections. Well, we've heard initially that we need to be very careful that we don't create a self-fulfilling Prophecy from Marco. We've heard indeed of the legal normative framework being Adequate and strong and there and then we need more political will and now I would like to give the floor to Mike Schmidt who is the from the US Naval War College at the University of Exeter to see his reflections on this topic So take it away Mike. I Hate to do this But I have to do a disclaimer first because I work for the Department of Defense The views as you'll see in just a moment that I'll express tonight are my personal views and they do not necessarily Reflect those of the Department of Defense Helen is an old friend. Thank you for inviting me the board members Thanks so much for inviting me back on to the board And it's good to see old friends like Hans Peter Gasser and Francois Brunyol So it's very nice to be back in Geneva So I've been asked to discuss some thoughts that I put forward with my friend Sean Watts of Creighton University In a journal called international law studies that we published at the Naval War College That bear pretty directly on the subject that we're dealing with today, which is of course, you know Is the law of armed conflict in crisis? I Believe coming from the perspective of a state attorney that it is in crisis and I'll explain why First my opening premise is what you must understand is that states and only states Make law as a matter of law only states have the authority to make law and they do so in one of two ways They either sign a treaty they become party to a treaty or Through their practice and opinion you're a so legal term Which means their expression that the practice they engage in is done has a matter of law They're doing it because that's the law Customary law crystallizes customary law is formed so only states make law, but in fact that's the law in fact law making and law interpretation law application is a very Pluralistic process states play the central role states hold all the cards but the content and the substance the Interpretation of IHL is The product of influences from many different actors so for example, you have the judgments of military tribunals like Nuremberg Tribunal Judgments of tribunals like the ICT why ICTR the ICC you have military legal doctrine military manuals The United States has just released its newest military manual. You have non-governmental organizations. You have the academic community Perhaps most importantly behind states you have the work of the ICRC and I I believe that this pluralistic nature of IHL creation and interpretation and application is a very positive thing and the reason it's positive is because states by participating Will see IHL has reasonable because after all they made it But at the same time the influence of all these other actors like the ICRC or academics like Marco the UN NGOs the influence of all these other actors Ensures that states don't get out of control that they don't get too far. They don't go too far So I'm a big fan of the process. I believe states must participate and I believe the others must participate And this is a good thing a good thing Now the challenge with IHL in particular is IHL is a very unique body of law IHL is a delicate dance between two competing interests The interest of states to be able to continue to fight effectively on the battlefield in order to achieve their national interests to win that's their national interest and Humanitarian considerations humanitarian considerations of the international community of their citizens and of the states themselves states that are committed to particular Values the problem is all of IHL is this balance. It's this delicate balance The problem is is that if it gets out of in balance It becomes disastrous if it goes too far in the direction of humanitarian concerns Then states are going to ignore it They're going to say we're not bound by law that doesn't make any sense in the battlefield and stands in the way of me securing victory On the other hand, if it goes too far in the direction of military necessity Law will not be taken seriously by anyone in the room as my friend Marco said just a moment ago Now Sean and I thinking about this feel that the pluralistic nature is at risk And it's at risk the positive pluralistic nature. It's at risk because states The ones that are the most affected by IHL and indeed the states that are most affected and those states are the states that go to war It's not Switzerland. It's the United States those states Have somehow Opted out of the process that they're sitting on the sidelines has the laws being made and this is Particularly acute with that Latin term. I used a pineal Urus Because states in particularly the important states seem to have quit making Expressions of a pineal Urus and if they don't make Expressions if they don't offer expressions as to what they believe the law is Then they're opting out of the process of law making They're leaving it to those who informally make law like courts or like the ICRC or like academics Has states are opting out of this process at the same time the other the non-state actors in this law making process This law interpret interpretation process. Wow, are they active? So you have reports by human rights NGOs and bodies Like losing humanity on autonomous weapons states aren't speaking out much on autonomous weapons But the NGO community is has autonomous weapons begin to be developed You have individual groups of experts Marco and I said on a group of experts that set forth Restatement of the law of aerial warfare. There's no treaty on the law of aerial warfare But we got together and we produced a book and that's what that's what legal advisers around the world are looking to There's a current project. I'm involved with called the Tallinn manual doing the same thing with regard to cyber law all individuals acting in the private capacity and then you have the ICRC producing lots of documents during the process of producing right now Commentaries to the Geneva conventions massive commentaries that that will take years to produce on the Geneva conventions And then there are volumes of academic commentary. There's too much to read There's so many journals. You can't possibly read it all and One of the problems is the quality of the work varies wildly I'll tell you I'm not so nervous when the ICRC engages in the process because they tend to get it right not always not always But they tend to get it right so I'm looking very much forward to their new GC commentaries their Geneva convention commentaries They've produced one. It's a magnificent product and they're great scholars Marco Sassoli is a friend of mine But I'm not saying this because he's a friend. He's a great scholar when Marco writes I read when Hans Peter Gasser wrote I read everything he wrote because he's a great scholar. He's a credible source He's making a contribution to the development of the law in a positive way But there are lots of those out there that are not producing quality work There are lots of people right in IHL that don't have any experience that don't have any expertise That don't understand the nuances of IHL But they get published in high-brow journals Because IHL is the flavor of the day every journal needs an IHL article And so they'll publish trash because it's written. Well, I remember there's an article that was circulating the states I mean the academics know this this this bonehead wrote an article Wrote an article that said that law professors Can be targeted because they are directly participating in the hostilities by opining on the law They're giving the enemy comfort so you can blow them up as they sit in their ivory towers. It's nonsense This is nonsense or many folks don't have don't understand warfare I'll give you an example. There was a family a very famous report in 1999 by a very prestigious a very talented human rights group That criticized the American bombing Okay, okay That year I have to put my finger or won't open up Okay, this is my friend Helen tell me that I've spent eight minutes and 43 seconds talking and I'm only through the first page so This article said it criticizes American bombing from altitude But in fact the reason the Americans were bombing from because they said that it would increase casualties In fact, the reason the Americans were bombing is because they were using a weapon that guided on the target and the further It traveled the more precise it became because it was tracking So if you had followed the human rights Reports Proposal to fly lower you would have killed more people So this is a real problem. It's there are a lot of people active states aren't involved a lot of people active and Not everyone active knows what they're talking about There is a way to solve this the way to solve this is opinions expressions of opinion yours States need to say What they believe the law is but they're not let me give you an example from the house This is a very sensitive issue. It involves the ICRC's interpretive guidance on direct participation hostilities Marko and I were both part of this project Which became rather controversial It doesn't really matter why it was controversial. I Disagree with some of it. I think it's a magnificent product That's a major contribution to the understanding of IHL, but there were a few problems in it It doesn't matter what those problems are what matters is that states Said nothing about the report it was left to academics to criticize or to support the report And what that means is that states have to live with the product of their silence If you don't opine it will catch on and so it did as I review ROE rules of engagement I see those issues with which I had a few problems Reflected because in the land of the blind the one eyed man is king So this is really problematic. It's not limited to the ICRC tribunals We have academics like Marcus solely Mike Schmidt writing and states are two or and legal advisors are turning to us Not their own country Now there are valid reasons for state silence. I don't want to criticize them entirely states remain Ambiguity gives states greater freedom of a range of options if I remain silent than when I engage I can't be criticized. I like freedom of range of options It's also sometimes not always Possible to anticipate the way the law is going to head the direction the vector of the law So you need to be careful about Expressing your view on what the law is on new things like autonomous weapons or cyber Because you may have to live with that in the future Sometimes there's simply no clear answer Sometimes this happens in my country pretty frequently recently There's a domestic political impasse that makes it impossible for you to do so but nevertheless It's really unfortunate for a lot of reasons. It's unfortunate because states have Great expertise that they could lend to the process States have the resources the money the people to contribute to the process of law creation and formation States have access to information that others don't I work for the Department of Defense. I have a clearance I can read classified information you can't and Then I'd like to close with just a thought if states are going to opt out of the process If they're gonna opt out of the process Then what they must understand is that their failure to express their legal reviews legal views For example the failure of the United States to tell us decades later Which provisions of the additional protocol reflect customary law and which do not? Then that comes with great risk and the risks are that they're surrendering the battle space to people like Helen Marco and they they're surrendering the battle space. That's okay. I like Helen I don't mind that but there are people out there that I do mind surrendering the battle space and This brings me back to my final point if they surrender the battle space and the law develops in a direction that they don't like Then that's going to engender disrespect on the part of states for that body of law They made the law not me Why should I follow it and to me this represents a true crisis in the law of arm conflict? Thank you very much Mike, and I think you took us through a journey of a delicate dance at a number of levels Not just the delicate dance that is the construct of IHL, but this delicate dance between who makes it and who doesn't things that we need to reflect on really deeply and It's good to hear although our job is certainly not to to to please any particular state But it's good to hear from individuals about the the quality of the work I think we really need to make sure that we let lawyers be lawyers and Engaging the important construction of things going forward and we may always Agree to disagree on certain topics. So thank you Mike for that Our final speaker tonight is Fiona Terry and she is an independent researcher But she is working with an in within the ICRC and she will have a certain the different take on this Issue that we're grappling with in relation to whether or not the law of arm conflict is in crisis and more importantly What can we do about that? Thanks for your know Thank You Helen. I love the way they leave the solutions to the non-lawyer on the panel. It's very kind of you so what I'm working on with the ICRC is going to Shape a little bit what I'm going to say to you tonight and the fact that I also have been a practitioner over the last 25 years in the field. So I'm really not talking from this about this issue from the perspective of my fellow panelists In fact, I'm working on the update to the roots of behavior in war study that the ICRC first launched in published in 2004 and so I think it's really important when we talk about The atrocities that we're seeing in the in the world today, which of course bring out very strong emotions in us all but we really need to situate these within their historical context and You know, this has been my bedside reading for the last few months the barbarization of warfare and let me tell you the atrocities in here from the Second World War from Vietnam from from all over we do tend to forget and I think it's very important to put this in historical perspective And I think it's also important to reiterate what what Marco has said that perception plays a very important role in this And I think there is so much more awareness today Of of the atrocities that are going on from from two factors in a way Just like this CNN factor in the early 90s Tended to make us so much more aware of human suffering around the world and you know There was the pull factor of CNN we told all talked about well today We have social media, which is playing a very important role for good and for bad people are much more aware of what's happening But also some of these groups like Daesh like our Shabab are using this as recruitment tools They're using these images of horror in a ways to both terrorize and people get people on board and so It's important to remember that and also I think that people are so much more aware today that these are crimes And they're heinous crimes, and we shouldn't allow them to happen and not just by groups like Daesh and Al Shabab but also by our own troops of the different countries Participating in conflicts around the world I'd like to remind you all that in 1968 because this really hit me I got this detail out of this book that We all know about the Milai massacre where hundreds and hundreds of civilians were massacred and when Lieutenant William Kaylee was actually prosecuted for or was actually arrested for these crimes At the time President Nixon within 24 hours of his arrest was sent over 100,000 telegrams and letters 99% of which denounced this arrest 99% of which said No, but this is what happens in war. This is acceptable You know, you cannot prosecute him and in the end he spent very little time being prosecuted for for those crimes Now these this hundred thousand were not tweets which is very easy to do today. These were not Facebook, you know Outrage are just we you know me lie or whatever else these were Letters and telegrams that people really had to put effort into sending so I really think it's really important to not despair of international humanitarian law as the non-lawyer and to say that actually so much of this outrage and this and this Attention to these issues is because we all think that these things are so terrible So I'm a little bit less Pesimistic but having said that of course and being a practitioner on the ground There are some very real issues that we are dealing with which we need to take very seriously And I'm so glad that people have been bringing up the bombing of hospitals as being one of them I worked a long time for Med Sans Frontier and I think it's very It's just so shocking to see that in the month of October alone There were three attacks on hospitals in Syria in Afghanistan and in Yemen and and this is a really tragic state of affairs Which is which has very severe consequences beyond IHL in terms of Being able to deliver aid in these places because if you kill all the doctors and you don't and aid Workers are at huge risk of being bombed or kidnapped Well, then of course the aid can't get to the people most in need of it And this is what we are seeing not just from the bombings, but also from the criminalization of aid not a you know forbidding aid organizations to talk with groups that are designated as terrorist groups and So this is a very big problem Interestingly today, I found that I thought that people were going to blame most of the atrocities on non-state armed groups And was going to say that we need to unpack this this notion of a non-state armed group a little bit more But I want to draw to attention to the fact that states who are the people behind the development of IHL Are committing many of these atrocities themselves and we shouldn't remember that because it's very easy to blame Non-state armed groups, even though my colleagues did not do that tonight but so we do see major problems as I say in the field and one of the cases which for me is very Personally Distressing is to see what's happening in South Sudan because I think you really can make a case for the fact that the violations that have been committed in South Sudan since 2013 are worse than anything we've seen in the 23 years that was the civil war between the South and And the North and of particular interest here is I did a study for the ICRC on Sudan and to know that for 30 years The ICRC had been talking about international humanitarian law and respect for civilians and respect for hospitals and That this is and the players have not really changed that much in South Sudan and so you know This leads to the question. Why has this failed? So that's why what's one of the reasons why the ICRC is very interested in renewing This study of the roots of behavior in war because when the roots of behavior one study was published in 2004 it had major policy change it led to major policy changes within the ICRC Up until that time ICRC had focused very much on spreading knowledge of the law But after the study was done and it looked at you know Who was committing at the individual level the psychosocial processes the authority structures? The ICRC decided to change its approach and instead of just simply talking about the law and spreading knowledge of it But actually felt that it would be much better to Incorporate law into the doctrine of an armed force or an armed group a state armed force for an armed group because there are also Codes of conduct which are a form of doctrine to try to encourage The integration of this doctrine into the training of armed forces in the respect for laws of war And then also into sanction mechanisms really encouraging states and non-state armed groups to think about punishing atrocities, otherwise these laws would not be Effective and so that was really the policy that the ICRC has pursued over the last 10 years But even at the time of the launch in 2004 of the study a member of the assembly who we all know you've Sandos Bought up the fact that well, this is very interesting, but such a approach presupposes a hierarchical structure a vertical structure in an armed group whereas at the time in 2004 we were already seeing the emergence of Groups that did not have this hierarchical structure. So he raised the question even back then How are we going to influence? respect for humanitarian law in amongst these sorts of groups now in the 10 years that has gone by since Or 12 years now since the roots of behavior in war had was published We have seen the emergence of far more of these types of groups when you look at Libya when you look at I mean My colleague Brian's study on Libya found that there were 236 armed groups registered in Misrata alone at the end of the Libyan Conflict and that was just in one city. So we're seeing really the emergence of of these groups that are not Linked necessarily under a hierarchical structure, but emerge more and form these loose alliances among themselves and we don't really understand very much about them, but we certainly know that the idea of trying to You know put forward a doctrine and training and have this Trickle-down effect of law is really not going to necessarily be very effective on these groups And I think in Syria today. We see thousands of these types of groups. So how can we try to? You know, what should we do from here? so that's what we have embarked upon with The idea of being two-fold because we also want to know what is it in About the way that we have approached these vertical groups that has been more effective Is it in fact the doctrine the ideology of a group that is more effective in influencing the behavior of troops on the ground? Is it the training or is it the sanctioned mechanisms the threat of punishment the ICC etc. Or just threat of So we want to investigate that in our study plus we want to investigate How how do these how the norms of restraint form within? these more horizontally organized groups and So we've decided to look at four different typologies of groups So one is state armed forces and one is armed groups with a strong ideology And then one is groups with community links much more horizontal and one is groups with an Islamist Ideology, but who are more the loosely? connected groups and We've just and in the last ten years has been quite a lot of attention given to the question of why the different armed groups Commit violations So there have been a lot of theories and a lot of a lot of empirical studies Which is really great to see who have gone out and interviewed people and done great surveys in the field to try to understand Why do armed groups? commit atrocities and a lot of different theories have come out that which are you know, which I think a lot of them really Make sense to humanitarian practitioners on the ground who have seen this sort of thing happening that you know the minute a group is controlling territory and wants legitimacy it tends to behave better towards the civilian population that Groups that rely on the extraction of natural resources and don't need the local population to sustain their rebellion tend to treat the population much more violently and so all these studies are very interesting for us and very useful But what we would like to do is to turn the question on its head and to look at What is it that actually restrains certain armed groups from committing violations? And this is following the work of Elizabeth Jean Wood who recently spoken to humanitarian I think by by video link from from the States and also another academic named Scott Strauss Who have done some very interesting studies Elizabeth Wood on on sexual violence looking into why is it that the LTTT in Sri Lanka did not engage in widespread sexual violence Where there's other groups have what were the norms of restraints that held them back from doing that and then Scott's work has looked at Rwanda and the genocide and he's looked at all the factors that contributed to the Genocide and then looked at the Côte d'Ivoire and said why did a genocide not happen in the Côte d'Ivoire When many of the factors were the same it could have gone either way So I think because we want a policy focus to our study This has been a really interesting approach to say what is it that is influencing these groups not to commit certain atrocities And so that's what we are going to be focusing on and the other part of our focus is the roots of behavior One study was looking very much at the psychosocial Individual level and we are looking much more at the group level because this gives a Comparability for us to look at the norms of restraint and how they are formed at the peer group level We will be looking at the Importance of the organization of outside influences But our main focus will be on on the group because this seems to be Where a lot as we know from state armed forces has been so much work done on military cohesion We know that the peer group pressure is very very important So the how does it how does it play out? Who are influencing these development of norms and what is it that's important with the hope that Our study might advance our knowledge just a little bit I'm certainly not saying that it's going to help us understand exactly how to make these groups Recommit to a respect for international humanitarian law But I think we really need to start looking more at what sources of influence are playing on these groups And how can we and other humanitarian organizations tap into that and have better influence with these groups to try to help them Or to try to make them respect The norms of IHL in a better way Well, thank you Fiona and yes, it is a little tough to leave the solutions So I think everyone's come up along along the way with solutions But I think this addition to as well as the clear certainly from an ICRC perspective Clear analysis and going forward in a legal paradigm Which is critical the way to ensure that we also look at how we can Challenge our own policy work in the way we attempt to influence and use the law both as a tool to influence But also understand as Fiona talked about the structures of those we wanting to influence So we've had a smorgasbord of views We've had a range of I would say proposals coming up from the need to As our first speaker said Marco profile the positive examples when IHL actually does work for confidence building We've heard of the need to strengthen the political will to apply the existing normative framework We've heard a very interesting discourse about the need for there to be further and deeper reflections of the Implications if states opt out and what that actually means for the system and then finally as as we heard the issues of how we can Influence those who are weapons bearers around norms of interest restraints. So that gives us a lot of Information to go forward in but what I wanted to do for the next 20 minutes is to provide it open to you as the audience If you are going to say a statement, please make it short We've got a lot in the audience and we like to finish on time but make the most of the Diversity of views at the table here to ask questions or perhaps make a short short comment on some of your own views I understand we have roving microphones and It would I now open it up for short comments or questions from the audience gentlemen here to start with I might take three questions at a time and Then we will go back to the panel Thank you very much, and I want to thank the panelists for a very interesting presentation My name is my name is my Marcarian and I'm from the mission of Armenia to you and The question goes probably to Fiona Terry and professor sassoli during the recent escalation of violence in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict zone when so-called Kamikaze drones were used first time and atrocities such as beheadings and mutilation of bodies Were committed by one party the ICRC was quick to react and it has arranged for the exchange of dead bodies between the parties While understanding the limitation that the ICRC has and those were also highlighted by professor sassoli in terms of naming and condemning the Those who are responsible for barbaric acts Don't you think that in order to uphold the international humanitarian law and the Geneva Conventions in particular There needs to be an ambiguous identification and condemnation of the violating party and that's a follow-up question Do you see a role for the ICRC in reporting at least the registered facts on the ground to the attention of the international community and Relevant institutions be it the office of Human Rights Commission or others. Thank you Thank you a question from this side. I'll be geographically balanced No, oh yes Ibrahim will I'll be I run an organization called the Syrian legal development program Which engages with armed and non-armed actors in Syria on promotion of IHL my question goes to the any of the panelists who would like to take it I'm sure a lot of you have colleagues in other legal regimes and don't you see a relationship between a crisis in IHL and Crisis in other legal regimes as a result of that Mainly international criminal law which talks about accountability for such violations and then how a crisis in international criminal law would lead to more violations in IHL because there's no accountability There's no any kind of enforcement mechanism and it's as a spiral that would go on and on so is there a need for a discussion to look beyond just a crisis in one regime and Look at the cross-cutting issues between a variety of legal regimes Thank you and one final question. I think the gentleman up there Thank you very much first. I would like to congratulate the panelists for their Excellent presentation. I'm Omar from Afghanistan mission, but I think here is more that We are presenting as a global citizens now. That's a diplomat that they're representing our countries. I would just like to Comment very shortly some issues and also some questions Well, I do agree with the with the first panelist when he was saying That the media and NGOs Normally they are showing the bad news. I do agree with this There has been a lot of developments here. They're around the word But at the end of the day That is the reality that Some point of the word people has been killed and This people most of them are civilians and another comment I want to raise is that In human history, everyone knows I believe that everyone agrees with me Fighting conflicts battles killing human human each other is not something new But what I believe is new after 1945 Is the sides are not clear Who is fighting who? We just discussed before in other session which I hear from a specialist or a researcher of Law international law, I mean the human tennis international law that she was saying that Afghanistan case is an National Conflict well, she's saying her own idea or based on research or and and she gave me as Professional what why it's a con and international law, but as a citizens if we go to make three person of the 30 words of Afghanistan and you if you see the the reality and the source of conflict is not an Afghan war and is the same with other countries What a Syrian Call this world for himself. He's a Syrian pure problem and It is the cause of war there or it's the international player and There has been casualties. Who's responsible for this? Is it serians? Or is it international players? I don't think that we give a clear messages while I While there are a lot of Confronts is meetings are going on and even here I hear very interesting presentations But I hope in one sentences each panelist give one solution for what Will be the solution For situation going on Maybe each one if they could say one sentence I mean starting from first to the fourth panelist and saying this is the solution for current Situation and I think that would be very clear for everyone at the end of the day when we go out We at least have four sentences that is positive and saying that This way will this problem end and also another thing if you see the creation of United Nation it has been Created to prevent worse But I'm not I don't want to criticize what United Nation is doing because at the end of the day We are the one who created the United Nation and and at the end of the day We are responsible when you discuss the United Nation. They say it's a states who takes decision But look at what is going on yesterday There has been 200 people wounded in Kabul and I think 50 were killed and It was the only a condolence letter coming out from the bone Kimoon and he condemned this attack And what is next after this condom and how long will it take is it just well continue in the future 30 more years that there is an attack and after the day is a condom letter and My this question will go to the colleagues from you and just very briefly. Thank you very much. Well, thank you very much So we have a number of questions for the panel to look at the first one relates to the modality of the ICRC And I think that was directed to particular people on the panel I myself would like to answer it but I'm going to restrain and let it to go to others But it really comes to the heart of what is it that I see RC does in a space We've also got the interesting issue raised about the spillover effect so to speak if one area of international law is perhaps having Having issues or or beings Struggles does that have an impact on the wider particularly the interface between I chill an international criminal law And if the final question there was a big ask I mean, I think what we're dealing with today is awkwardly large Problems that have awkwardly large solutions if they're going to work, but what I would ask for the panel To say one sentence each of in general what what is and I think they've embedded it into their speeches But what do they think in one sentence would assist to make situations whether it be Afghanistan or or globally? Have better respect for IHL So I'll throw it open to the panel now on the first question about the modalities of the ICRC our important role in in Working through our principles and our neutrality But also I think it was raised by Marco in relation to some of the limitations that that Intrinsically are a part of the way we work Well, I give my elements to the three question or first we deal with the first question Okay. Well there as I told you the ICRC doesn't do it And perhaps even your country is happy that the ICRC doesn't do it because imagine it was condemning your country when your country commits violations, so The ICRC to keep the access and to have a dialogue It doesn't do that but there are other bodies for instance There's an international humanitarian fact-finding Commission which exists since 20 years and never any state has Wanted to ask it to inquire into violations of humanitarian law also because states are like Sicilian I'm half from Italy Sicilian mafiosi. There is omerta states Don't want to have an inquiry because they fear as an impartial inquiry must Result in finding not only violations by one side, but also by another side Thank You Marco Perhaps we'll move on to the next the second question and take it from other panelists and come back to Marco in relation to the This idea about how almost not the domino effect of international law questions But how they integrate relate to each other? So I actually do think there is a relationship between bodies of law that lead to disrespect if you take the topic I was talking about which is states disengaging from the process and therefore they don't have ownership of the law and Therefore inevitably they will lose respect for the law because they don't see it as their law I think it's clearly the influence of human rights law on armed conflict for better or worse right or wrong the the Activity of the human rights law community in armed conflict has caused states Significance concern about all law on the battlefield now I don't think that bleed overs fair But I work with the military on a daily basis and they watch the european court of human rights So pining on conflict situations and just makes them nervous about law generally and this in my mind is a very dangerous thing I would simply add to that We have been really witnessing I would say a strong Influence vice versa between The international community law international humanitarian law through the jurisprudence of the ad hoc tribunals ICT Y ICT R there is no doubt But I think if one really would like as you said I mean making reference to the case of Syria There is no doubt that we have been failing as international community To bring the perpetrators of the serious crime to account for those crimes I mean as you may know Should learn to the initiative and follow by at least near 70 states to Ask the security council To refer the case of Syria to the ICC, but it didn't fly so which mean that unless we do better at holding perpetrators of Genocide crimes against humanity world crimes to to justice I think we will have certainly a long way still to go and The problem is that Those who have power sitting in the security council Should certainly think twice and there's there is right now as you may know an initiative of which has been signed by 110 member states at the general assembly to call Definitely on those in the security council to have some kind of a kind of conduct Meaning that whenever there is a situation where Population are facing the risk of genocide crimes against humanity world crime ethnic cleansing That none of those who have the veto use that veto to enable the protection of those populations who are at risk Well, thank you What I might do is actually skip the that final question and have that at the very end because that gives my panelists More time to think of their one snappy sentence of the answer to a deep deep problem But also allows us maybe to take two more questions Before we conclude so i've got one gentleman here and I think a lady over there Thank you very much From a permanent mission of Egypt. I'll try to make my question as quick as possible to the distinguished panelists Do you think there are Any possible ways to convince or I would say oblige nine state actors to abide by international humanitarian law Other than the sanctions way or the international criminal prosecution. Thank you Thank you for that sharp question and the the lady there. Yes Thank you very much. My name is in here with msf Fascinating to hear if you're now About your work and how you will be looking at how the norms of restraints form for non-state actors But as you've reminded us and others on the panel In most recent attacks That we've seen states have been directly implicated You know four out of five of the p five of the security council have been associated with coalitions That have been directly Associated with attacks against medical facilities in Yemen, syrian and afghanistan In a few weeks, we're going to see some discussion at the u.n. Security Council itself For a reaffirmation of the medical mission, which I think we can only all Welcome But yet what does it even mean in a context where those various states are the ones that have been implicated? And I wonder here if we could hear from the people on the panel How they're thinking about these questions and reinforcing the norms for states themselves as well. Thank you Thank you. Well, two nicely balanced questions to conclude one on above and beyond sanctions How do we engage with non-state armed groups in this space and the other in relation to states? So I'll throw it open to the panelists. Maybe I'll start with marco and walk work down Thank you. So on non-armed non-state actors Yes, I'm convinced They can be engaged And there is a possibility just Armed non-state actors are made up of human beings like states And you have to discuss with them and you have to listen to them to understand their problems And to try to get their engagement and there are such procedures for instance an NGO in geneva geneva cool takes up Engagement commitments by non-state actors and once they have committed then To continue to have on their dialogue to monitor their respect to understand Their problems to respect to advise them But unfortunately many states criminalize any such engagement of armed non-state actors and obviously if you Isolate them and you criminalize them only Then this is a self-fulfilling prophecy because then these non-state actors will Perhaps easily behave as criminals because they are completely outside the system while ask with all belligerence if you try to engage them and to discuss with them and To convince them that it is also in their interest because many not all of these non-state actors Are fighting to become the government to become an independent state And do they want to have a country in ruins? Or do they want to have a country where people can live? I think such arguments are possible and with many such actors It is possible and the un secretary general has Written so it's not me He has written that it is true that you cannot you will not be successful with all state and non-state actors But at least you have to try because if we do not even try we will certainly not Obtain respect and Member states that's again the un secretary general who wrote it Member states should encourage that instead of criminalizing it. Thank you Thank you, and maybe if you wish to answer either question I would simply say that nobody is born terrorist One is made terrorist. I mean, I can say for instance that The the Yusuf who was the founder of what became later Boko Haram was not a terrorist And therefore it is extremely important that we do engage. I think If necessary dialogue, I think what we need is to understand better the dynamics of emerging non-state Arm groups and in some cases How to enter into dialogue with them you refer it to the Wonderful work, which is being achieved by Geneva call bringing non-state arm group To sign commitment to uphold principles of ISIL that is extremely important But on the other hand is such dialogue could help also to encourage Respect for the the same principle and when that is not possible At least how to prevent This spread of extreme Violent extremism and I think in that regard we should have the courage To really acknowledge that we are being confronted with new challenges. I mean this type of Conflict is today new and we have to look into Many other related Aspect for the first time last December the security council adopted a resolution on the financing of Terrorists which mean that Definitely if ISIL is so well equipped today It's certainly because there are people behind who provided resources who provided equipment, etc And I think this could apply also to other non-state arm groups. My office has just concluded two weeks ago meeting of expert in bra cells In cooperation with the external action service of the european commission My good friend elizabeth the president of jeniva called made a Extremely important contribution in that meeting as well as one of the experts of the icrc We have to realize that this is a challenge We are facing but at the end of the day what we need is to build Strong cohesive societies That could really we that I would say periods And resist attempts to manipulate identity to commit crimes and particularly in the context of conflict We need to get member state Get every and each government to manage diversity in the most constructive manner because when people are being excluded Like was the case in iraq during the Time of both saddam and who succeeded in the prime minister al maliki We saw the result which today we are all being confronted with Thank you mic So I'll only answer the non-state question because I'll address the state question in the final round Boy, thank you for that easy question. It's pretty easy to get non-state actors to comply with the law And of course i'm being facetious I'll give you only an answer from a military perspective If you're engaged in a counter-incertancy against a non-state actor What you want to do is starve the the non-state actor of its oxygen Its oxygen is the operating environment in in in which it is and that's among the population in most cases And in many cases that's external support of course like this doesn't apply to every group But many non-state groups and one of the ways you deprive them of that oxygen They require is by using the law against them using the law in a positive sense This is known in our business has lawfare in other words you shine the light On them whenever they violate the law and you rigidly adhere to the law yourself This requires you to do things that you're not used to doing and that make you very uncomfortable The most one of the most important is you must open the door to human rights groups toward the ihl community to the icrc You must make reports public so long as they don't Endanger your military operations make them public cooperate with people And this at the end of the day, this is going to turn the population against them If you do this effectively, it'll turn the international community against them. They'll die of oxygen deficit But I hasten to add this only works with some types of non-state groups I don't know what you would do with an isis for example Thanks, and Fiona maybe just briefly on the state issue that was raised. Well, I also want to address the non-state, sorry Okay, okay, but people want their dinner Well, no, I think one of the very interesting things that I've discovered in the research that I've been doing that other other people probably very aware of but that That punishment actually is something that we really need to question the threat of punishment I mean one study I was reading on the on the ruf who had Um, um, for the sangho had a very harsh punishment against committing rape in including executions And yet once he was arrested and in Nigeria, there was this huge spate of rape carried out by by the ruf So, you know the threat of punishment is is interesting and also for the stateside One of the researchers we're going to have working on our our project has been studying the the u.s State military and he's been studying norms of restraint and he's been looking at different forms of training in the u.s military and then he's been correlating what The people who have done this training have gone out to be platoon Commanders in iraq in afghanistan and he's been looking at the Violations via shell that have been committed and he's made a very solidly statistical analysis between the intensity of training And the reduction in the number of ihl violations, which is of course very very interesting finding And he actually says that of course across the u.s military the threat of punishment is exactly the same But we see this big correlation. So I think we really need to rethink this What is the role of punishment versus other aspects versus the ideology the doctrine and the types of training going on? So that's what we will be looking at within the military and these ideological groups And I definitely think with non-state armed groups. There are definitely ways of influencing them. I agree with With some of the groups isis, etc. It's going to be far more challenging But we definitely saw in afghanistan. There was a major change in the way that the the tally ban Instead of attacking a health care centers at some state stage in the war about 2008 2009 Decided that actually needed the population on site I think when a when a group is is is wanting to have legitimacy is wanting to To win the hearts and minds of the population themselves, then you will see a huge reduction in In violations and abuses. So I also think the the work of janeva call and others and the icrc's work in talking about Codes of conduct and encouraging and having dialogue with these Non-state armed groups is absolutely crucial and that's been a big problem with the criminalization of of certain groups Great. Well, we're out of time and apologies for going a little bit late icrc doesn't have the answers But what we wish to do and we will always do is open up spaces for conversations conversations where we can engage and learn from each other So thank you for tonight Even if you didn't ask a question or or engage But thank you for being part of a conversation that is really necessary at the moment and we will continue to do that But I will pass it over to panelists for their one sentence and I'll be quite strict It's not a paragraph. He sentence. It's the one sentence just For people to have a think about some of the things productively we can do going forward Dr is to think about respecting your enemy And not thinking about the violations of your enemy and of the others and of Everywhere in the world I would simply say that we must generate a great sense of responsibility For obligation and international humanitarian law and international human rights law Mine is a practical suggestion You need to professionalize your military so that they understand that when you violate ihl that has military cost And you need to ensure that military is highly disciplined so that the commanders can control their troops in the field And from my part we need to understand much better You know why these atrocities occur why violations occur and what Is holding different groups back? Why would they also respect ihl? So a much better understanding and on that note I had forgotten to mention that this time next week We are actually hosting all of our researchers that are going to do this field research that I've been talking about on the norms Of restraint in fact, we came out with a name for it today, which is the roots of restraint So there you go. You have the scoop. That's the name of the study now and they'll all be here next week So I really invite you all to come and pose questions to them about their prior research Because I think we can go really quite far. All of the researchers we've taken on have had have strong contacts with different arm groups They've conducted really interesting research So so please join us next week We've had four sentences an advertisement A night of interesting discussions Thank you very much and we look forward to seeing you at the next time we start such conversations Yes, and please join us for the cocktail reception upstairs at the icrc restaurant