On 31 October 2024, the Worldwide Convention of the Purple Cross and Purple Crescent adopted an unprecedented decision on defending civilians towards the potential human value of digital actions throughout armed conflicts. This submit presents a crucial appraisal of the decision’s major facets towards the background of its adoption. As might be defined, the decision is each groundbreaking in its ambition and element, but restricted in sure respects, leaving essential questions on implementation and enforcement unanswered.
The Worldwide Convention: A historic discussion board for contemporary points?
International efforts to manage State behaviour in our on-line world usually centre on New York, the place the UN Common Meeting-mandated intergovernmental efforts relating to worldwide safety in the usage of info and communication applied sciences (ICTs) unfold. Given this focus, it’s uncommon for an essential multilateral decision on digital and cyber points to emerge from Geneva. But, as might be seen, this decision falls nicely inside the broad mission of the Worldwide Convention to “study and resolve upon humanitarian issues of widespread curiosity” and to contribute “to the respect for and improvement of worldwide humanitarian legislation” (Articles 8 and 10(2) of the Statutes of the Worldwide Purple Cross and Purple Crescent Motion).
The Worldwide Convention is without doubt one of the oldest and largest multilateral boards on the earth. Its inaugural assembly befell in 1867 in Paris, and in fashionable occasions, it’s held each 4 years, with this yr marking the thirty fourth session. From the attitude of worldwide humanitarian legislation (IHL), this yr’s convention was particularly vital and attracted extra consideration because it coincided with the seventy fifth anniversary of the 1949 Geneva Conventions.
The Convention brings collectively all parts of the Worldwide Purple Cross and Purple Crescent Motion, together with the 191 Nationwide Societies, the Worldwide Federation of Purple Cross and Purple Crescent Societies (IFRC), and the Worldwide Committee of the Purple Cross (ICRC). (Full disclosure: I served as a Authorized Advisor to the ICRC till 2023, however I used to be not concerned within the work on the decision analysed on this submit.) Simply as importantly, the Convention is attended by the 196 States social gathering to the Geneva Conventions, which – due to the treaties’ common ratification – successfully means all States. This distinctive mix of non-governmental organizations and State representatives provides the Convention its distinct “hybrid standing, each personal and public”.
Within the lengthy historical past of the Worldwide Convention, this was the primary time that it addressed the usage of ICT capabilities throughout armed battle, together with cyber and data operations. This displays the rising significance that ICTs play throughout armed conflicts, each for higher and for worse. On the one hand, ICTs might assist individuals survive by finding necessities akin to meals, water, and shelter, in addition to staying in contact with their family members in extremely risky and harmful conditions. However, these applied sciences will be and are additionally used for navy functions, leading to appreciable dangers of hurt to the affected populations.
Resolutions adopted by the Worldwide Convention are, with few exceptions, not legally binding. This implies they usually don’t impose new authorized obligations on States, the violation of which might entail accountability underneath worldwide legislation. Nevertheless, this doesn’t imply that they’re with out authorized relevance for States. When resolutions specific explicit views and interpretations of worldwide legislation, they will function proof of the opinio juris of the States voting for them and replicate these States’ subsequent apply in relation to the interpretation of the Geneva Conventions and their Protocols. As François Bugnion famous in a 2009 article, these resolutions “represent a place adopted by the worldwide neighborhood that must be taken under consideration by the belligerents” (at p. 704). States acknowledge this significance, a reality evident within the cautious – and at occasions contentious – strategy of negotiating the language of those resolutions.
Though the current decision was adopted by consensus, it can’t be stated to replicate the views of all collaborating States on the Convention. It is because just a few States opted to make use of a little-known procedural mechanism to “disassociate” themselves from the decision after it was handed. By doing so, they allowed the consensus to face with out blocking the decision’s adoption or taking it to a vote, however they signalled that they didn’t totally endorse all of its content material. Eight States (Belarus, Cuba, Iran, Mali, Myanmar, North Korea, Russia, and Syria) disassociated themselves on this approach. Nonetheless, with all different States in addition to all Nationwide Societies totally supporting the decision, one can say that, whereas it might not signify the unanimous view of all the worldwide neighborhood, it comes very shut.
Key considerations: Influence of digital actions throughout armed conflicts
The decision’s preambular part presents an in depth catalogue of the dangers and risks posed by way of ICTs in armed battle. A lot of this mirrors the longstanding considerations raised by worldwide organizations just like the ICRC, civic associations such because the Cyber Peace Institute, and educational establishments just like the Geneva Academy, who’ve been sounding the alarm about these points for years. What stands out, nonetheless, is the unprecedented stage of element on this decision – a level of specificity not beforehand seen in paperwork adopted by such a broad coalition of States.
Particularly, States have famous the next:
The usage of ICTs by events to armed conflicts might end in hurt to civilians, notably the place these means are directed towards or by the way have an effect on civilian crucial infrastructure and important providers (preambular para. 7).
When States and Motion parts lack satisfactory capacities to detect and defend towards malicious ICT actions, this may increasingly make them extra susceptible (preambular para. 8).
The dimensions, pace, and attain of malicious ICT actions – particularly on social media platforms – can hurt civilians, together with when ICTs are used for youngster recruitment (preambular para. 9).
The usage of AI and different rising applied sciences in malicious ICT actions might additional amplify the dimensions and pace of those actions, in addition to their potential hurt (preambular para. 11).
ICTs can allow or encourage civilians to take part in conflict-related ICT actions with out being totally conscious of the related dangers or authorized implications (preambular para. 12).
Malicious ICT actions impacting humanitarian organizations, akin to information breaches and disinformation, might disrupt reduction operations, erode belief, threaten the security and safety of personnel, and in the end hinder these organizations’ entry to affected populations (preambular para. 14).
(I’ve barely shortened and paraphrased these paragraphs for readability; please seek the advice of the total textual content of the decision for the exact agreed language.)
This overview underscores that collaborating States are aware of the necessity to shield individuals and establishments from the potential human value of ICT actions throughout armed battle. Such consciousness is crucial for significant discussions on which measures can and have to be taken to stop or decrease these harms, together with by means of the clarification and improvement of the relevant legislation.
ICT in armed battle: The query of applicability of IHL
The decision stops in need of explicitly affirming that ICT actions throughout armed battle are ruled – and thus restricted – by IHL. City Prapotnik, one among Slovenia’s representatives on the Convention, publicly famous that such language was mentioned among the many delegates however they in the end failed to succeed in consensus. I share his remorse, as this could have been a useful alternative for the decision to contribute to the event of widespread understandings on this space.
Nonetheless, the problem is much much less controversial right now than it was some years in the past. It is because in 2021, States reached an settlement on language referring to the applicability of IHL within the context of discussions on how worldwide legislation applies to the usage of ICTs by States (at para. 71(f)). The report of a Group of Governmental Consultants (GGE) that contained that formulation was subsequently endorsed by a consensus decision of the UN Common Meeting that very same yr. Since then, consultants have thus spoken of an worldwide consensus that IHL governs cyber operations throughout armed battle.
Though the decision doesn’t explicitly affirm the applicability of IHL, its language aligns intently with this broad consensus. This isn’t solely as a result of its operative paragraphs 2 and three restate the GGE formulation talked about above. As well as, the textual content of the decision is replete with references to guidelines and rules of IHL in relation to the usage of ICTs by events to armed conflicts. Operative paragraph 4, for example, states:
reiterates that, in conditions of armed battle, IHL guidelines and rules – together with the precept of distinction, the prohibition of indiscriminate and disproportionate assaults, the obligations to spare the civilian inhabitants, civilians and civilian objects within the conduct of navy operations, and to take all possible precautions to keep away from, and in any occasion decrease, incidental civilian hurt, the prohibition of encouraging or inciting violations of IHL, and the prohibition of acts or threats of violence, the first function of which is to unfold terror among the many civilian inhabitants – serve to guard civilian populations and different protected individuals and objects, together with towards the dangers arising from ICT actions;
The phrase “IHL guidelines and rules … serve to guard … towards the dangers arising from ICT actions” strongly implies that IHL is relevant to such actions; in any other case, this whole assertion would lose its which means. Likewise, the obligations to “respect and shield medical personnel, items and transports” (operative paragraph 6), to “permit and facilitate neutral humanitarian actions”, and to “respect and shield humanitarian personnel and objects” (operative paragraph 7) can solely be learn as an affirmation of those long-standing IHL obligations in relation to ICT actions. To sum up, right now States agree that even cyber wars have limits.
Prohibition of the encouragement of violations of IHL by means of digital means
Operative paragraph 4 is moreover useful for itemizing particular guidelines and rules that States think about related on this context. One notable inclusion is the “prohibition of encouraging or inciting violations of IHL”, which addresses a troubling facet of many fashionable conflicts that’s additional intensified by social media. Not like the opposite obligations and prohibitions listed on this paragraph, the prohibition towards encouraging or inciting IHL violations is just not codified in a single treaty rule.
Nevertheless, because the Worldwide Court docket of Justice clarified within the Nicaragua case (1986), this prohibition follows from the duty to respect and guarantee respect for IHL enshrined in Article 1 widespread to the 4 Geneva Conventions (see at para. 220). Importantly, States collaborating within the thirtieth Worldwide Convention in 2007 endorsed this interpretation in a decision on reaffirmation and implementation of IHL (operative paras 1–2).
The adoption of the current decision in 2024 reaffirms the enduring relevance of this interpretation, extending it to the digital context. This aligns with a broad consensus amongst worldwide legislation consultants, as mirrored, for example, in para. 8 of the Oxford Assertion on the Regulation of Info Operations and Actions, which has been signed by over 100 students and practitioners.
Civilianization of the digital battlefield
One other notable improvement pertains to the continuing development of involvement of civilians and civilian entities – akin to tech firms – in digital actions associated to armed conflicts. As talked about earlier, the decision’s preamble identifies this as a key concern (see preambular para. 12 paraphrased above), and I totally agree. As Mauro Vignati and I’ve defined elsewhere, such involvement locations people vulnerable to hurt and erodes the IHL precept of distinction.
The operative half addresses this problem primarily in relation to tech firms, as seen in operative paragraph 11:
additionally encourages all Motion parts, as acceptable and in accordance with their respective mandates, to disseminate IHL to non-public know-how firms and make them conscious that offering ICT providers to purchasers which can be or might change into concerned in armed battle includes sure dangers and to have interaction, as acceptable, with these firms to encourage them to think about adopting measures to guard the wants of all individuals affected by armed battle in line with relevant worldwide and nationwide legislation;
First, a phrase on the scope of this paragraph. Curiously, the delegates eliminated a reference to States from the draft decision (which initially addressed “States, in addition to Motion parts”). Nevertheless, States are legally obliged to disseminate IHL as extensively as attainable (see Articles 47/48/127/144 of Geneva Conference I/II/III/IV, Article 83 of Further Protocol I, and Article 19 of Further Protocol II), an obligation reaffirmed by operative paragraph 9 of this decision. Therefore, there will be little doubt that the accountability to disseminate IHL to tech firms is shared by each States and Motion parts.
The indirect reference to “sure dangers” in operative paragraph 11 alludes to the hazard that the corporate employees and/or purchasers’ ICT actions will qualify as direct participation in hostilities and presumably convert firm belongings and different civilian objects into navy targets, thereby leading to a lack of safety underneath IHL. This can be a critical consideration that firms want to pay attention to, and States have a crucial function in conveying this message (for extra, see Jonathan Horowitz’s current submit on this subject).
The paragraph additionally encourages tech firms to take measures to “shield the wants of all individuals affected by armed battle”. Though personal firms usually are not anticipated to be as neutral as humanitarian organizations, the delegates had been absolutely conscious of criticism, akin to that surrounding Elon Musk’s speedy deployment of Starlink in Ukraine in comparison with for much longer delays in Gaza. Nonetheless, the decision’s language right here is notably smooth, leaving appreciable discretion to the related actors.
Lastly, whereas the preamble rightly highlights the dangers related to civilians’ involvement in hostilities by means of digital means, it’s regrettable that the operative part doesn’t present stronger steerage on how this problem must be addressed. At a minimal, the Convention might have expressly echoed the ICRC’s earlier name on States to reverse this development and “cease turning a blind eye to the participation of personal hackers in armed battle”.
The one trace that this problem was mentioned seems within the ultimate clause of operative paragraph 9, which urges States “to take measures to stop and suppress IHL violations … together with with regard to ICT actions.” Though the decision doesn’t elaborate additional, the ICRC has famous that preventive measures might embody public statements discouraging personal hackers from involvement in conflict-related cyber operations. Equally, suppressive measures might embody enacting home legal guidelines to criminalize cyber operations that quantity to struggle crimes, after which their investigation and prosecution.
Future instructions: What impression will the decision have?
This decision is a wealthy and useful useful resource that may doubtless change into a key reference for multilaterally agreed language, or “acquis”, on defending civilians from hurt induced by way of ICTs throughout armed conflicts. Its content material will little question be intently examined by State representatives concerned in multilateral processes, akin to the continuing Open-Ended Working Group (OEWG) in New York, and we might even see its language echoed in future outputs, together with the OEWG’s ultimate report, anticipated in July 2025.
Past that, the decision itself charts the way in which ahead in relation to a number of of the problems it addresses. Particularly, it encourages the ICRC to proceed working with States and Motion parts on the “digital emblem” – an initiative to create a digital technique of figuring out the digital infrastructure and information of establishments which can be entitled to show the distinctive emblems acknowledged underneath IHL (such because the pink cross and pink crescent). This endorsement is probably going to provide the digital emblem initiative a major increase within the diplomatic area.
Upon its adoption, State representatives reportedly praised the decision as “the primary humanitarian ICT decision” and a “actually vital step ahead”. Øistein Mjærum of the Norwegian Purple Cross welcomed the decision as “nybrottsarbeid” (groundbreaking) and shared that he had lengthy doubted whether or not settlement on its textual content might be achieved on the Convention. Because the saying goes, nonetheless, the proof of the pudding is within the consuming: solely time will inform to what extent this decision will affect the event of legislation and coverage on these points in each home and worldwide contexts.
![One-Week Faculty Development Programme (FDP) on Literature as a Repository of Indian Knowledge Systems by NLU Tripura [Online; Aug 25-30; 7 Pm-8:30 Pm]: Register by Aug 24](https://i2.wp.com/cdn.lawctopus.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Faculty-Development-Programme-FDP-on-Literature-as-a-Repository-of-Indian-Knowledge-Systems-by-NLU-Tripura.png?w=120&resize=120,86&ssl=1)
