Key Note Speech at 2025 ICRC Bruges Colloquium on IHL
Good morning everyone,
I would like to thank ICRC and the College of Europe for inviting me to participate in this years’ Bruges Colloquium on IHL organize the Bruges Colloquium on International Humanitarian Law (IHL).
It is a great honour and pleasure to be among you today.
I know it is still early morning but please bear with me as I would like to start with a reference to Greek mythology.
When Homer tells of Odysseus sailing past the Sirens, he offers more than a myth: he offers a lesson in foresight.
Knowing he would be tempted by their song, Odysseus ordered his men to bind him to the mast and to later ignore his pleas for release.
In choosing restraint, he preserved his life, and theirs.
Our world too hears the Sirens’ song.
They sing of power, nationalism, expansionism, and economic interest.
We have long acknowledged that those voices cannot always be silenced, and that conflicts will not always be averted.
So like Odysseus, the international community, chose to bind itself to restraint in war.
We have set our own ropes – the rules and principles of IHL, intended to protect ourselves – against ourselves.
Today, those ropes are fraying. Armed conflicts are proliferating (130 conflicts reported globally), with increasingly permissive interpretation of IHL and a worsening humanitarian situation.
Not only are civilians, including children and journalists, not protected – they are being targeted. Medical and humanitarian personnel too.
The same goes for civilian infrastructures, including medical and energy infrastructures, and schools.
The weaponisation of vital resources, such as food, humanitarian aid and energy, deprives civilians of goods and services that are essential to their survival, and violates IHL.
In Sudan, Gaza, Ukraine, Myanmar, or DRC, lives are lost and human dignity violated – not for lack of rules, but due to a failure to respect existing ones.
As IHL is being challenged on the ground but also in the face of new technologies, we must stand firmly behind the rules we chose to bind ourselves with, for they are only as strong as we want them to be.
For the EU: our commitment to IHL is not new.
The promotion of international law and human dignity is enshrined in our founding treaties.
This commitment was made more tangible with the adoption of the EU Guidelines on promoting compliance with IHL (adopted in 2005 and updated in 2009), which set out a range of operational tools, available to the EU, to promote compliance with IHL in its relations with the rest of the world.
Each year, our public Annual Report on the implementation of the Guidelines illustrate the broad range of EU activities. I will refer to some of them.
But coming back to the question: what should political support for IHL look like in practice?
I picture it courageous, loud, explained, unequivocal, principled, and consistent.
In the absence of an international enforcement mechanism, the strength of IHL depends primarily on States’ will to uphold it.
This will however, strong as it may be, risks be tempered, once conflicts arise.
We see it in the scale and nature of IHL violations committed in today’s armed conflicts.
We see it also in the deep polarisation of the debate over Gaza, or Ukraine, with legal and humanitarian arguments being instrumentalised.
It is therefore vital that political support for IHL builds up already before conflicts arise. It must be nurtured in peacetime, so that it does manifest itself during conflicts, and endures afterwards.
Let me elaborate on these three key stages: before, during, and after conflict.
We know the premise: States have the obligation to respect and ensure respect for IHL.
In peacetime, States must develop a culture of IHL compliance, with IHL ingrained in all segments of society: from schools to courts, from armed forces to legal advisers.
States can act on several fronts.
First, legal and institutional foundations matter.
States can lay the groundwork by integrating IHL into national legislation, military manuals, and operational plans, criminalising violations, and empowering the judiciary to investigate and hold perpetrators accountable.
Effective disciplinary systems must also be in place.
The EU supports this through its advisory missions, in Ukraine for instance, helping partner governments strengthen legal frameworks and enforcement mechanisms.
The EU itself wants to ensure that EU security sector support, including in the context of CSDP and CFSP missions and operations, is in compliance with human rights law and IHL.
The adoption of the EU Human Rights and IHL Due Diligence Policy on Security Sector Support to third parties (HRDDP) spelled out core principles and defined concrete actions to this end. The Implementation Handbook, issued in June this year, provides practical guidance and tools to support the instruments and actors who implement the policy.
Second, education and training are key.
Disseminating the rules of IHL is an important prerequisite for its implementation.
For IHL to be respected, it needs to be known, and fully understood. Diplomats, civil servants, and educators must be aware of IHL.
This crucial role of training and education was in fact highlighted in the resolution adopted last year by the 34th International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent.
Military and operational preparedness is essential. Armed forces must be trained on IHL, including in emerging domains like drone and cyber operations.
It is the primary responsibility of States, but the EU too endeavours to keep IHL on the agenda through funding training programmes, with ICRC and Geneva Call for example.
The military EU Training Missions in Mali and the Central African Republic have also provided such training and mentoring to local armed forces, embedding compliance before and during operations.
I might be biased, as EUSR for Human Rights, but I am convinced that beyond raising awareness to IHL, we must invest in human rights education.
Respect for human dignity, equality and non-discrimination are fundamental safeguards against the emergence of conflicts, and against dehumanisation in war.
Third, diplomacy and public engagement amplify impact.
Externally, States can promote compliance by others, by using their leverage – both political and economic.
The EU promotes this through public diplomacy and outreach campaigns in third countries, fostering a culture that values the protection of civilians.
As I said before, our political support to IHL should be loud.
In that respect, the High-level initiative on IHL which ICRC launched last year with 6 States has been acting as a loudspeaker for IHL. The discussions it has generated already since its launch, among an ever-growing number of participating States, contributes to making respect for IHL a political priority, at domestic, regional and global levels.
Finally, we must anticipate future challenges.
In the current geopolitical context, many States – including EUMS and the EU – are ramping up their defence investments.
In this context, political support to IHL could mean “IHL-proofing” preparedness measures and contingency plans, so that institutions and individuals are ready to implement IHL, should conflict reach our territories.
It could also mean allocating dedicated portions of defence spending to IHL compliance, to signal a renewed commitment to respecting IHL in military operations.
With the emergence of new technologies, the continued relevance of IHL goals, rules and principles must be reiterated.
It is key that IHL be taken into account at the earliest stage of the development, deployment and use of new technologies. Regulations and operational guidance must integrate IHL principles.
Current conflicts illustrate a growing reliance on weapon systems with varying levels of autonomy, but also on systems that integrate AI into military decision making.
The use of technologies for tasks traditionally performed by humans must not imply the dehumanisation of warfare. Preserving human responsibility and accountability, ensuring appropriate human control and implementing risk mitigation measures will be essential.
For the EU, it is imperative that weapons, whether they are low tech or high tech, and no matter how autonomous they may be, continue to respect International Law, and IHL in particular.
As many essential civilian services and humanitarian organisations are increasingly reliant on satellite services, the potential human cost of military space operations becomes increasingly worrisome. The EU stresses that international law, including IHL, is fully applicable.
As malicious cyber operations are increasing in scale, severity, sophistication, and impact, the EU and its Member States adopted last year a declaration on a Common Understanding of the Application of International Law to Cyberspace. We reiterated the view that international law, including IHL, is fit for purpose in the digital age.
During conflicts:
IHL principles must be applied ad initio, as an IHL reflex, in the planning and conduct of hostilities and must always guide the choice of means and methods of warfare.
But it is not enough that rules are known and applied – they must also be interpreted in good faith.
The objective of IHL, to preserve human life and dignity, inherently constrain the interpretation of IHL norms, and precludes portraying as compliant attacks and actions that cause unnecessary sufferings and destruction.
Good faith means that exceptions may not become the rule: medical and humanitarian personnel, ambulances and hospitals must never be attacked. That is the general rule. As a rule also, parties to a conflict must allow and facilitate rapid and unimpeded passage of humanitarian assistance for civilians in need.
IHL violations cannot go unnoticed.
We cannot let them become the new normal.
We must make clear, through our words and deeds, that IHL violations are unacceptable, wherever they are committed, regardless of the perpetrator.
Because the suffering and despair of children, women and men of Sudan, Ukraine, Gaza and Myanmar are the same, because when bullets and shrapnel hit, we all bleed red, and because wars always kill, we cannot be selective in our outrage.
We cannot denounce our enemies only, when they violate IHL, but must also call our allies, when they do the same.
The EU uses its political and economic leverage to encourage adherence to humanitarian principles.
Every year, EU institutions – my Office included – issue numerous public statements, declarations, conclusions, and resolutions calling for respect for IHL, the protection of civilians affected by conflict, and rapid and unimpeded humanitarian access in specific crises.
They represent a continuous, high-level, and public engagement by the EU as an international actor in support for IHL.
The EU and its Member States also use their convening power to bring attention to humanitarian issues and situations. The European Humanitarian Forum held annually in Brussels is an example. Or the International Humanitarian Conference for Sudan and Neighbouring Countries which the EU, France and Germany co-hosted in Paris in 2024, to bring attention to the crisis in Sudan, improve access and respect for IHL, and mobilise funds.
The EU also provide extensive support for the promotion of IHL through its humanitarian aid funding. We support and cooperate with international organisations - such as ICRC, OCHA, UNICEF or UNRWA.
In DRC for instance, the EU supported the ICRC, UN agencies and civil society in their activities aimed at promoting weapon bearers’ adherence to IHL, and optimising humanitarian access.
Complementary to those, it is also crucial to demonstrate that IHL violations will carry consequences for the perpetrators.
The EU implements restrictive measures to prevent or respond to IHL and human rights violations. The EU legal instruments laying down those measures may provide humanitarian exceptions, to ensure that restrictions do not to impede the delivery of humanitarian aid on the ground.
We all know the say: justice delayed is justice denied — and in war, delay costs lives.
Impunity paves the way to more violations of the law, and encourage others to do the same – including in other theatres.
In conflict already, it is essential that military justice, disciplinary measures and monitoring bodies are in place to send a strong signal that violations will be punished and will not be normalised.
Evidence must be collected and preserved, for future accountability purposes. The EU supports such efforts, by local and – when they have access – international actors.
We did so in Syria, for instance, long before the fall of the Assad regime, by supporting individuals collecting evidence of the regime's atrocities.
Accountability must be pursued, including through universal jurisdiction and international cooperation.
Since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, there has been unprecedented momentum and mobilisation on accountability. The same mobilisation should prevail for conflicts in other parts of the world. The credibility of the international criminal justice system depends on it.
The EU is wholly committed to fighting impunity and to promoting international criminal law and justice.
For instance, through Eurojust, the EU seeks to foster cooperation between civil society organisations and national authorities investigating and prosecuting atrocity crimes in both EU and non-EU countries.
We also have a long-lasting and robust policy of support to the ICC and are determined to defend it against attacks and threats.
It is not only a message that no individual can roam free after committing atrocity crimes, but also a broader signal of the EU’s commitment to the rules-based international order.
When parties to a conflict agree to suspend hostilities or to enter into peace negotiations, efforts should be made to ensure that IHL is expressly mentioned in negotiated agreements, as a clear sign of a genuine effort towards reconciliation and peace.
IHL obligations must not be overlooked or negotiated away, for the sake of securing shortsighted political gains.
After hostilities have ended, a number of IHL provisions continue to apply or come into force, and must be implemented.
They include the release of detainees and prisoners of war, the duty to account for the missing and the dead, and the obligation to allow and facilitate humanitarian relief as long as needs exist.
Respect for those obligations must be encouraged and supported as it can significantly contribute to securing fragile ceasefire and peace.
As mentioned before, accountability efforts must also be continued.
Reflecting our belief that justice, truth, reparation, and guarantees of non-recurrence are essential steps in rebuilding trust between citizens and institutions, in strengthening the rule of law, and in helping societies heal from conflict and repression, the EU adopted ten years ago its Policy Framework on Transitional Justice.
In the Somali region of Ethiopia, the EU supports the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which seeks to address the root causes and impact of atrocities, to ensure justice and accountability, reparations and compensations as a path towards collective healing, reconciliation and sustainable peace.
One last point before I conclude.
To ensure that our political support to IHL is tailored to address current implementation challenges, me need more knowledge of IHL violations themselves. This could help identify patterns if any, refine training programmes, improve military strategies and operations as well as humanitarian action, and for possible accountability purposes.
Initiatives that seek to collect and aggregate data, by independent institutions, such as the IHL Compliance Monitoring Database (ICMD) launched by the Raoul Wallenberg Institute, could be fostered.
To conclude,
Odysseus was not naive or weak. He was wise and courageous.
Wise enough to acknowledge the danger that awaited and admit his own weakness, and courageous enough to restraint himself.
Let’s have the wisdom and courage to recommit to the rules we once imposed on ourselves, as necessary safeguards against our own flaws and the appeal of short-sighted political or economic gains.
We must unequivocally defend the rules of war, and oppose dehumanization, not only on legal and moral grounds, but also as a long-term investment in global peace, stability, and prosperity.