top of page

Testing the Shield: Finding IHL's Protective Power in an Age of Conflict

  • 執筆者の写真: Hiroshige FUJII
    Hiroshige FUJII
  • 6月21日
  • 読了時間: 5分

M2 Hagiya Corredo Magda Yukari


It is easy to be a cynic about International Humanitarian Law (IHL). Watching global events unfold, one can feel that the laws of war are more of a noble suggestion than an enforceable reality. Now more than ever, IHL has come to the forefront of discussions; while some defend it as the tool that governments still use to hold each other accountable, many question the effectiveness of laws that are seemingly broken every day with very little consequence.


I arrived at the Jean-Pictet competition with this heavy question: In a world of seemingly endless conflict, does this legal framework truly function as a system of protection? The competition didn't provide easy answers, but through its simulations and conversations with judges and other participants, it revealed that IHL's protective shield isn't magical but that its strength comes from the determined, daily efforts of individuals who wield it.


The Competition



The Jean-Pictet is one of the most renowned competitions of IHL, with teams from all over the world coming together for a week where they compete in simulations, testing their knowledge of legal matters as much as humanitarian instincts. This week-long event, which for its 45th edition took place in Antalya, Turkey, immerses participants in a single, evolving armed conflict scenario. Unlike traditional moot courts where you argue a fixed case, the Pictet competition is constantly evolving, with members of the "Kitchen," who write the situations and tests teams are to compete in, watching in real-time how teams respond to tests and tailor the next problem accordingly. 


Throughout the week, our team was required to take on different professional roles. For example, one day we were acting as military legal advisors making life-or-death targeting decisions; the next, we were delegates for the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) trying to gain access to a prisoner of war camp and interview detainees. This constant role-playing forces participants to apply the law not just in theory, but under simulated pressure.


The Shield for People – From Abstract Rules to Individual Dignity


A moment at the beach near the hotel where the competition was held
A moment at the beach near the hotel where the competition was held

My initial skepticism about IHL was rooted in its seemingly abstract nature. The law felt distant from the realities of conflict I saw in the news. However, the competition systematically broke down that distance by forcing us to confront the human beings at the absolute core of the law, and the real consequences decisions made in a fraction of a moment could have in people's lives.


This became even clearer during a simulation dealing with the displacement of a civilian population and attacks on cultural property. Visiting a museum that had been victimized during the conflict the teams had to explain to the curator why their cultural property was protected and how the law protected it. However, the most pressing question is: how does one tell a victim of conflict that they are protected under international law when the violations already happened? What consolation is it to say that intentional damage against cultural property is prohibited under specifically article 53 of Additional Protocol 1 when they are facing the very real ruins of what is dear to them? Those are questions I still need to grapple with myself. However, in the same simulation, we also learned that a general's forces were coercing civilians from occupied territory to move southward, claiming it was for their own safety. Suddenly, Article 49 of Geneva Convention IV, prohibiting the forcible transfer of civilians unless their security or imperative military reasons require it, was not just a line in a textbook. It was the only legal tool we had to defend the homes, safety, and way of life for these specific, named communities. The simulation forced us to advocate for them, transforming an abstract rule into a tangible defense that could be used to make a difference.


The most powerful lesson in individual protection came during the simulated ICRC field mission. Our team was tasked with visiting a prisoner of war (POW) camp where we interviewed a POW who had been held in isolation since his capture and had been denied any contact with his family. The briefing outlined a list of potential violations of Geneva Convention III we had to investigate, including the rights to adequate food, religious expression, and communication with the outside world.


Our task, however, went beyond a legal checklist. The Kitchen designed the test to emphasize the need to establish a rapport with the detainee and genuinely listen to his grievances. At that moment, the "system of protection" was not about international treaties; it was about one human interaction. It was about using the law as a lever to restore a measure of dignity to a single person.


Finally, the competition demonstrated how the law shields the most vulnerable from disproportionate security measures. In another scenario, we had to analyze the legality of a mass internment of all men over 90 years old based on a piece of intelligence. While Article 78 of Geneva Convention IV allows for internment, it can only be used when "absolutely necessary for security reasons" and must be decided on an individual basis. Arguing against this discriminatory, category-based detention, it became clear that the law is designed to resist panic and prejudice. It acts as a crucial check on power, demanding that the rights of every individual, especially the most vulnerable, be respected even amidst a security crisis.


Through these tests, the competition taught me a foundational lesson. The grand system of IHL is built not on sweeping ideals, but on the protection of one person at a time: the displaced family, the isolated prisoner, and the vulnerable elder.


The Weight and Worth of the Shield

I began this journey, and this article, with a difficult question born from watching a world rife with conflict: Is International Humanitarian Law truly an effective shield against brutality, or is it merely a set of noble but powerless ideals? My week in the competition didn't provide me with an easy yes or no answer. It did, however, help me build a more accurate perception of what it means to work in a field filled with contradictions, of ideals of good and evil, but more importantly of humanism. Through conversations with judges and other participants who have worked in the field, I realized that although little is seen at the macro level, the law and the people who do the hard work of being in the thick of it bring forth change to individuals who would otherwise not have had that opportunity. The work of the ICRC and UNHCR, among other humanitarian organizations, may not change the course of a conflict, but it can change the course of a few lives. 


The competition showed me that this shield is not a single, impenetrable wall but a multi-layered system operating at every level of conflict. Its protection is for the individual, as seen in the fight for the rights of a single POW denied contact with his family and the defense of a community against forcible transfer. It is a shield for society, preserving the cultural heritage that forms a people's identity and demanding accountability from commanders who fail in their duty to prevent war crimes.


Ultimately, I learned that I had been measuring the effectiveness of IHL incorrectly. It cannot be judged solely by the absence of war, but by the presence of defiant acts of humanity within it. Effectiveness is found in the quiet, determined work of the ICRC delegate who documents violations in a POW camp. It is in the legal advisor who insists on precaution and in the state that meets its obligation to review a new weapon to prevent future atrocities. The shield of IHL is substantial yet imperfect. However, the competition proved to me that it was real. Its strength comes not from some automatic power, but from the unwavering commitment of those willing to bear its weight. It is a system of protection worth defending—one person, one principle, and one defiant choice at a time.

Kommentit


Copyright  since 2018 Hiroshige FUJII All Rights Reserved.

255245_2949041784054_1392077140_n.jpg
bottom of page