The Geneva Conventions are a set of four treaties that establish the fundamental principles of international humanitarian law, outlining the rights and obligations of states and individuals during armed conflict. The four Geneva Conventions are:

* **The Geneva Convention I (1949):** This convention focuses on the protection of civilians and medical personnel during wartime. It prohibits the use of certain weapons and methods of warfare, such as poison gas, and establishes rules for the treatment of wounded and sick soldiers. * **The Geneva Convention II (1949):** This convention deals with the protection of prisoners of war.

This is particularly true in the situations of armed conflict and occupation. The protection afforded by Article 4 is intended to safeguard individuals who are caught in the crossfire of conflict, often facing dire consequences. This article, however, faces challenges in its implementation. One of the most significant challenges is the lack of clarity regarding the scope of Article 4.

This trend is alarming and requires urgent attention. The ICRC’s assessment reveals that the majority of these conflicts are characterized by a lack of international intervention. This lack of intervention, coupled with the rise of non-state actors, has created a complex and challenging environment for humanitarian aid delivery.

The very nature of war, with its inherent violence and brutality, makes it difficult to apply the rules of war with absolute precision. However, this does not mean that the rules of war should be abandoned or ignored. International humanitarian law is not a mere set of rules; it is a framework for protecting the most vulnerable in times of conflict.

1. **Escalation of violence:** The summary states that the attacks by Hamas have been used as a pretext to inflict suffering on civilians. 2. **Violation of international law:** The summary claims that the attacks violate the Geneva Conventions. 3. **Naysaying about the relevance of the Geneva Conventions:** The summary argues that there is a growing trend of questioning the relevance of the Geneva Conventions. Let’s delve deeper into each of these points:

This statement by Ellen Policinski highlights a crucial point: international humanitarian law (IHL) is not merely a set of rules, but a living, evolving system that adapts to the changing nature of warfare. IHL is not static; it is dynamic and responsive to the evolving realities of conflict. The IHL system is not just about protecting civilians and combatants, but also about regulating the conduct of warfare itself.