Peace and Security

Efforts to end wars and protect civilians could benefit greatly from a renewed commitment to the near-universal value of dignity.

Expert authors examine key interpretive issues and selected topics in the updated Commentary on the Fourth Geneva Convention​ on protection of civilians during civil war.

A year ago, the Trump administration seized the U.S. Institute of Peace and began to dismantle it, gutting a key capability to reduce and prevent violent conflict.

Surveys how the 2025 ICRC GC IV Commentary integrates technology into its analysis of specific rules, while raising concerns about its treatment of data as property.

New Commentary on GC IV describes Article 23—the treaty’s key provision governing the duty to allow the passage of essentials to civilians—as "significantly diminished" today.

U.S.-led talks float Ukrainian territorial concessions to Russia, but such deals would abandon real communities and entrench an unjust, fragile peace.

​The ICRC's updated Commentary on the Fourth Geneva Convention fills a loophole-closing function and reasserts international humanitarian law's core protective purpose.

Given international courts current role and relevant limitations in ending wars, how can courts play a more meaningful role in ending war, or in preventing a return to war?

Judicial involvement in ongoing armed conflicts should be examined from multiple vantage points: courts, victims, parties to conflict, and broader goals of peace and security.

Although international courts have limits, they can do what few other peaceful dispute resolution mechanisms can when it comes to ending war.

When international courts intervene in active wars, they must contend with how (and whether) they can contribute to ending wars and shape the post-war aftermath. 

By heeding the warning bells and embracing a do‑no‑harm principle, international courts can denounce abuse while preserving the credibility of international justice.