Understanding International Humanitarian Law Through Immersion

The Jean-Pictet Competition as a Pedagogical Experience

International humanitarian law is marked by a constant tension between the abstraction of legal norms and the concrete violence it seeks to regulate. Designed to apply to the most extreme contexts, it raises legal, ethical, and human challenges that cannot be fully understood without engagement with the realities of armed conflict. It is within this space, at the intersection of law, practice, and responsibility, that the pedagogical experience of the Jean-Pictet Competition is situated.

International Humanitarian Law in the Face of Contemporary Fractures

In a context marked by the accelerated erosion of the international order and the multiplication of armed conflicts of unprecedented intensity since the end of the twentieth century, prolonged violence remains one of the most serious threats to humanity. This reality confers renewed relevance, urgency, and centrality on international humanitarian law (IHL). By its very nature, this body of law applies exclusively to situations of armed conflict, excluding peacetime, making it a normative framework specifically designed to regulate the most extreme situations while revealing the contemporary tensions that weigh on its effectiveness.

The qualification of a situation as an “armed conflict” constitutes a decisive issue, since it determines the applicability of the law of armed conflict. An armed conflict exists whenever there is resort to armed force between States or protracted armed violence between governmental authorities and organized armed groups, or between such groups within a State, as clarified by international jurisprudence (Tadić case). This qualification is essential in determining the scope of applicable rules and, consequently, the level of protection afforded to victims.

Recent armed conflicts, by their frequency, scale, and violence, tend to relegate the protection of civilian or military victims to a secondary plane. Far from diminishing, these conflicts have intensified and expanded across all continents.

Typology of Armed Conflicts and Normative Evolution

The notion of armed conflict in international humanitarian law is not monolithic. Traditionally, IHL distinguishes between international armed conflicts and non-international armed conflicts, each governed by a distinct legal regime. However, since the 1990s, in the wake of the end of the Cold War, this differentiation has tended to diminish under the combined effect of doctrinal developments and international jurisprudence. A progressive harmonization of applicable rules has emerged, particularly through the growing reliance on customary international humanitarian law.

At the same time, IHL developed historically in a context in which recourse to armed force was considered lawful in international relations (jus ad bellum). The evolution of contemporary international law profoundly transformed this framework by enshrining the prohibition of the use of force as a peremptory norm, notably under the Charter of the United Nations, thereby transforming jus ad bellum into a true jus contra bellum. Despite this prohibition, exceptions remain for self-defence or actions authorized by the Security Council in the context of maintaining or enforcing peace.

In all circumstances, IHL, or jus in bello, remains the law governing the conduct of hostilities. Its purpose is to protect victims of war and their fundamental rights, irrespective of the parties involved. As such, it must remain distinct from jus ad bellum, as it does not pronounce on the legality of the use of force. Its function is to regulate hostilities by imposing mandatory rules applicable as soon as an armed conflict arises, notably as set out in the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their Additional Protocols.

International Humanitarian Law Tested by History

The year 1864 marks the birth of modern, codified international humanitarian law with the adoption of the first Geneva Convention on the amelioration of the condition of wounded and sick members of armed forces in the field. The true starting point of this evolution can be traced to the Battle of Solferino in 1859, an exceptionally violent confrontation between French, Italian, and Austrian forces.

Upon his return to Geneva, Henry Dunant published A Memory of Solferino in 1862, in which he did more than recount the horrors of the battlefield. He proposed concrete responses to the suffering he had witnessed, urging States to enshrine an international “conventional and sacred” principle and to establish legal protection for wounded soldiers. This initiative laid the foundations for a humanitarian law structured around the imperative of victim protection.

The Jean-Pictet Competition and the Dissemination of International Humanitarian Law

During the negotiations of the Additional Protocols in the 1970s, the International Committee of the Red Cross observed that international humanitarian law was widely recognized but insufficiently understood. This realization gave rise to an active dissemination policy, now pursued by numerous actors, including national societies and academic institutions. Dissemination is not limited to theoretical learning; it relies on concrete activities that foster the internalization of humanitarian principles.

The Jean-Pictet Competition takes its name from the eminent Swiss jurist Jean Pictet, born in Geneva in 1914 and a doctor of law from the University of Geneva. Having joined the International Committee of the Red Cross in 1937 as a legal secretary, he played a decisive role in revising the 1929 Geneva Conventions and contributed significantly to the development and consolidation of international humanitarian law. His intellectual and humanitarian legacy continues to inspire a competition dedicated to protecting victims of armed conflict and disseminating humanitarian law.

The Jean-Pictet Competition reflects this tradition of dissemination by translating humanitarian principles into lived experience, requiring participants to apply legal norms under conditions that mirror the moral and operational complexity of armed conflict.

Armed Conflict Law and Human Rights Law: Convergences and Complementarities

The law of armed conflict maintains close relationships with international human rights law. While the former traditionally governs relations between parties to a conflict, the latter applies to relations between a government and individuals under its jurisdiction. This distinction, although useful, does not always hold consistently in practice.

The applicability of human rights law in situations of armed conflict remains a major issue, as the existence of conflict does not exclude the application of general international law. While certain restrictions or derogations may be permitted, they must remain within the limits set by relevant legal instruments and the general rules of treaty law. These limitations must, as noted by Professor Éric David, be interpreted restrictively to ensure the continuity of fundamental rights protection. Doctrine and practice consistently affirm that rules protecting human rights, particularly the most fundamental ones, continue to apply in armed conflict.

More fundamentally, doctrine recognizes the existence of common principles shared by the 1949 Geneva Conventions and international human rights law. Jean Pictet identified three fundamental principles in this regard: inviolability (the right to life and physical and moral integrity), non-discrimination, and security (prohibition of collective punishments, respect for judicial guarantees, individual criminal responsibility). These protections find essential expression in Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, often described as a “mini-convention” for the protections it affords.

The Intangibility of Certain Humanitarian Norms

Certain rules of the law of armed conflict possess a particularly imperative character. A first factor of intangibility lies in the use of expressions such as “in all circumstances,” “at all times,” or “in no case,” which clearly reflect the drafters' intent to reinforce the binding nature of these norms. A second factor lies in the prohibition of reprisals for certain violations, which is part of jus cogens. Finally, the criminalization of violations is another mechanism that reinforces the intangibility of these obligations.

Between Immersion, Pedagogy, and Responsibility

The Jean-Pictet Competition embodies an immersive and innovative approach to teaching international humanitarian law, combining legal rigour, realistic simulations, and the development of interpersonal skills. Through such initiatives, international humanitarian law does not remain an abstract corpus of rules, but becomes a living, operational tool capable of responding to the challenges of armed conflict and of carrying forward the hope of protecting human dignity.

David, Éric. Principes de droit des conflits armés. 3ᵉ édition, Bruxelles : Bruylant, 1994.

Domestici-Met, Marie-José. « Le droit face à la violence : l’inapplication du droit humanitaire ».

Matheson Momtaz, M. J. D. Les règles et institutions du droit international humanitaire à l’épreuve des conflits armés récents. The Law Books of the Academy, 2010.

Sassòli, Marco, Antoine A. Bouvier et Anne Quintin. Un droit dans la guerre ? Cas, documents et supports d’enseignement relatifs à la pratique contemporaine du droit international humanitaire.

Comité international de la Croix-Rouge. « Jus ad bellum et jus in bello ».

Concours Jean-Pictet. « Jean Pictet : le plus grand nom du droit international humanitaire ».