GLOSSARY

The Geneva Conventions: what they protect, who has ratified them, and why the Additional Protocols matter less

Updated July 23, 2026

When this site cites "the Fourth Geneva Convention" or "Common Article 3" regarding hospitals hit, aid blocked, or civilians abducted, it refers to a body of rules much broader — and much older — than the news it is invoked for. Worth explaining once, in full.

Origin

In June 1859, Swiss businessman Henry Dunant happened to be at Solferino on the day of the battle and saw roughly 40,000 wounded left without care on both sides. He wrote about it in A Memory of Solferino (1862), proposing neutral relief societies in every country and an international agreement to protect them. This led, in 1863, to the founding of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), and in 1864 to the first Geneva Convention — ten articles on the wounded in war. The four current Conventions, which replace and expand that text, date from 12 August 1949.

What it is

Each of the four 1949 Conventions protects a different category: the First covers the wounded and sick in armed forces in the field, the Second the wounded, sick and shipwrecked at sea, the Third prisoners of war, the Fourth civilians in time of war — this last one is the most cited on this site, because civilian protection is precisely what gets tested, again and again, in the conflicts we document.

Common Article 3: the "mini-convention" for civil wars

The four Conventions were written with interstate wars in mind. But most of today's wars are internal — insurgencies, separatist conflicts, civil wars — and a treaty between states would not, in principle, apply to these. The solution was to insert into all four Conventions a single, identical article, number 3, which applies even to non-international conflicts: it always prohibits, against anyone no longer fighting (civilians, the wounded, prisoners), violence to life, torture, outrages upon personal dignity, and sentences without a regularly constituted court. It is not the whole body of the Conventions — it is a minimum, non-derogable core. On this site it is the most recurring reference: the Anglophone crisis in Cameroon, the DRC/M23 conflict in Kivu, the abduction of civilians in Lebanon, and the killing of civilians in Mali have all been read through Common Article 3, precisely because none of these is, technically, a war between states.

Why they are "near-universal"

The four Conventions are ratified by 196 states, including every UN member plus the Holy See and the State of Palestine: the most widely ratified multilateral treaty in history. No state today formally sits outside them.

The Additional Protocols: where universality breaks down

In 1977, two Additional Protocols were adopted — the First for international conflicts, the Second for internal ones — and in 2005 a third, on the red crystal emblem. Here ratification drops: roughly 174 states for the First, 169 for the Second, 77 for the Third. The United States signed but never ratified Protocols I and II (only the Third, in 2007). Staying outside the Protocols does not mean staying outside the law: many of their provisions — such as the principle of proportionality (Article 51, Protocol I) or the prohibition on striking objects indispensable to civilian survival, such as water or power infrastructure (Article 54) — are considered customary law, binding even on states that never ratified them. On this site, Articles 51 and 54 have been invoked respectively for an attack on a civilian with no military target present, and for strikes on desalination plants and civilian power grids in the Strait of Hormuz.

Grave breaches and universal jurisdiction

The Conventions define certain violations as "grave breaches" — wilful killing, torture, destruction of property not justified by military necessity, among others — and impose on every state party a specific duty: to prosecute or extradite those responsible, regardless of the offender's nationality or where the act took place (the principle of aut dedere aut judicare). This is the legal foundation of universal jurisdiction — the basis, for instance, of a complaint filed in Paris against a head of state for acts committed elsewhere, when French courts ground it precisely in the absence of any need for a territorial link for grave breaches.

The ICRC's role: not a court

Unlike the International Court of Justice or the International Criminal Court, the ICRC does not adjudicate: it monitors compliance with the Conventions through confidential visits to prisoners and detainees, and reports violations privately to the states involved, not publicly. It is a mechanism of quiet persuasion, not sanction — its effectiveness depends on states' voluntary cooperation, exactly as judicial mechanisms remain dependent on that same cooperation to enforce their rulings.

Cases already cited on this site

In Darfur and in the Myanmar/Rohingya case, UN missions documented attacks on hospitals and civilians and the blocking of aid as collective punishment, qualified as violations of the Fourth Convention. In the Sahel (Burkina Faso) and South Sudan, the deliberate obstruction of humanitarian access and the use of starvation as a weapon were read through Additional Protocol II. In Yemen, the blockade that forced the WFP to suspend operations in Saada governorate falls within the same perimeter.

Sources: Official text — ICRC IHL Databases · ICRC, Customary International Humanitarian Law (Henckaerts & Doswald-Beck, 2005) · UN Sixth Committee — status of the Additional Protocols

← All news and manifestos