Abonnement flux RSS
- Billets divers
- Cour pénale internationale
- Enfants soldats
- Guerre civile
- Prisonniers de guerre
- Droit international
- Droits de l'Homme
- 9/11 Accès Adaptation Afghanistan AMM Amnesty International Appel de Genève Bahrain Ben Laden Biélorussie CICR civils Combattants Conflit armé non international Conflits armés Conflits asymétriques Conflits internes Cours CPI Crime contre l'humanité Crime de guerre Crimes de guerre Côte d'Ivoire Droit des réfugiés Drones Défis Démocratie Emblème Enfants soldats Formation Gaza GBAGBO Guantanamo Guerre Guerre civile Guerre préventive Humanitaire IIHL Ingérence International Committee of the Red Cross International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda Iran Islam Israel Libye Mali MSF Nuremberg ONU Peacekeeping Perfidie Philippines Protection Protocoles additionnels Ratko Mladić RCA RCI RDC Responsabilité de protéger Robots Réfugiés Sanrémo San rémo Sierra Leone Suisse Syria Syrie Taylor Torture TPIR TPIY United Nations unités sanitaires War crime Yemen
- août 2015
- juillet 2015
- juin 2015
- avril 2015
- mars 2015
- février 2015
- décembre 2014
- novembre 2014
- octobre 2014
- septembre 2014
- août 2014
- juillet 2014
- juin 2014
- mai 2014
- avril 2014
- mars 2014
- février 2014
- janvier 2014
- décembre 2013
- novembre 2013
- octobre 2013
- juillet 2013
- juin 2013
- mai 2013
- avril 2013
- mars 2013
- février 2013
- décembre 2012
- novembre 2012
- octobre 2012
- septembre 2012
- août 2012
- juillet 2012
- juin 2012
- mai 2012
- avril 2012
- mars 2012
- février 2012
- janvier 2012
- décembre 2011
- novembre 2011
- octobre 2011
- septembre 2011
- août 2011
- juillet 2011
- juin 2011
- mai 2011
- avril 2011
- mars 2011
- décembre 2010
À l’occasion de cette douzième Journée mondiale de l’aide humanitaire, l’Organisation mondiale de la Santé attire l’attention du monde sur les contributions et les sacrifices des personnels de santé qui interviennent lors des crises humanitaires.
Plus de dix ans après la première Journée mondiale de l’aide humanitaire, les demandes d’intervention d’urgence sont sans précédent, avec 82,5 millions de personnes ayant besoin d’une aide humanitaire dans 37 pays. À US $20 milliards selon les estimations, les coûts ont atteint, eux aussi, des niveaux encore jamais observés.
L’OMS dirige l’intervention sanitaire pour cinq crises humanitaires majeures au cours desquelles plus de 60 millions de personnes, de l’Afrique de l’Ouest au Yémen, ont besoin d’urgence d’une grande diversité de services de santé.
Au cœur de l’action humanitaire, les médecins, le personnel infirmier, le personnel paramédical et d’autres agents de santé servent avec abnégation leurs communautés, souvent avec peu d’accès aux ressources nécessaires et en prenant de gros risques pour eux-mêmes. Les agents de santé en première ligne ont dispensé des soins à des millions de personnes dans des conditions très éprouvantes lors d’épidémies, comme celle d’Ebola, de catastrophes naturelles et de conflits armés. En Afrique de l’Ouest, 875 agents de santé ont été infectés par le virus Ebola et plus de la moitié en sont morts.
Ces efforts sont d’autant plus héroïques qu’on observe une recrudescence des attaques contre les personnels et les établissements de santé. En 2014, l’OMS a enregistré 372 attaques menées dans 32 pays, entraînant près de 1000 blessés et plus de 600 morts. Alors que le monde est sur le point d’atteindre le but d’éradiquer la poliomyélite, au moins 37 agents de santé et leurs accompagnateurs ont été délibérément ciblés et tués depuis 2012 au Pakistan et au Nigéria. Les conflits armés et les situations d’urgence prolongées causent souvent des dégâts aux établissements de santé, privant ainsi les populations de soins vitaux. Le relèvement des systèmes de santé peut prendre des années.
Les attaques contre les personnels et les établissements de santé constituent des violations flagrantes du droit humanitaire international, dont les Conventions de Genève et leurs protocoles. Ces accords doivent être respectés. Les agents de santé ont l’obligation de traiter les malades et les blessés sans aucune discrimination. Toutes les parties belligérantes doivent respecter cette obligation.
Dans le cadre de sa stratégie mondiale sur les ressources humaines pour la santé, l’OMS donne la priorité au bien-être, à la sécurité des agents de santé et à l’inviolabilité de leur mission; elle énonce fermement sa position pour leur protection.
Les agents de santé se battent chaque jour pour garantir le droit de l’homme à la santé. Lors de la Journée mondiale de l’aide humanitaire, l’OMS lance une campagne pour rendre hommage à ces héros qui sont une source d’inspiration. À partir de cette journée et jusqu’au sommet mondial sur l’action humanitaire, prévu en mai 2016, l’Organisation mettra particulièrement en valeur l’histoire de leur action dans le monde entier.
Source : OMS
Originally posted on Dommages civils:
La campagne contre les robots tueurs a franchi une nouvelle étape avec la publication d’une lettre ouverte appelant à l’interdiction des « armes autonomes offensives hors du contrôle humain significatif ». Parmi les signataires, on trouve, entre autres, de grands noms de la recherche en sciences dures, en sciences humaines et sociales, des patrons et des ingénieurs travaillant dans les nouvelles technologies ainsi que des membres de la société civile. Le physicien et cosmologiste Stephen Hawking, le co-fondateur d’Apple Steve Wozniak, le professeur Noam Chomsky du Massachusetts Institute of Technology ou encore Elon Musk, directeur de SpaceX et Tesla, font partie des 19 000 personnes ayant signé cette lettre.
Le Samsung SGR-1, positionné à la frontière entre les deux Corées, est capable de détecter, cibler et, en théorie, d’attaquer une cible de façon autonome. En pratique, un humain doit approuver le tir.
- Contenu de la lettre
Voir l'original 1 486 mots de plus
Autonomous weapons select and engage targets without human intervention. They might include, for example, armed quadcopters that can search for and eliminate people meeting certain pre-defined criteria, but do not include cruise missiles or remotely piloted drones for which humans make all targeting decisions. Artificial Intelligence (AI) technology has reached a point where the deployment of such systems is — practically if not legally — feasible within years, not decades, and the stakes are high: autonomous weapons have been described as the third revolution in warfare, after gunpowder and nuclear arms.
Many arguments have been made for and against autonomous weapons, for example that replacing human soldiers by machines is good by reducing casualties for the owner but bad by thereby lowering the threshold for going to battle. The key question for humanity today is whether to start a global AI arms race or to prevent it from starting. If any major military power pushes ahead with AI weapon development, a global arms race is virtually inevitable, and the endpoint of this technological trajectory is obvious: autonomous weapons will become the Kalashnikovs of tomorrow. Unlike nuclear weapons, they require no costly or hard-to-obtain raw materials, so they will become ubiquitous and cheap for all significant military powers to mass-produce. It will only be a matter of time until they appear on the black market and in the hands of terrorists, dictators wishing to better control their populace, warlords wishing to perpetrate ethnic cleansing, etc. Autonomous weapons are ideal for tasks such as assassinations, destabilizing nations, subduing populations and selectively killing a particular ethnic group. We therefore believe that a military AI arms race would not be beneficial for humanity. There are many ways in which AI can make battlefields safer for humans, especially civilians, without creating new tools for killing people.
Just as most chemists and biologists have no interest in building chemical or biological weapons, most AI researchers have no interest in building AI weapons — and do not want others to tarnish their field by doing so, potentially creating a major public backlash against AI that curtails its future societal benefits. Indeed, chemists and biologists have broadly supported international agreements that have successfully prohibited chemical and biological weapons, just as most physicists supported the treaties banning space-based nuclear weapons and blinding laser weapons.
In summary, we believe that AI has great potential to benefit humanity in many ways, and that the goal of the field should be to do so. Starting a military AI arms race is a bad idea, and should be prevented by a ban on offensive autonomous weapons beyond meaningful human control.
Source : http://futureoflife.org/AI/open_letter_autonomous_weapons
This booklet contains practical advice for assessing public health and its determinants in laces of detention throughout the world. It draws heavily on the ICRC’s extensive experience in this field. The booklet will be of great assistance to health authorities, prison authorities and all those responsible for the provision of health care in prisons who seek to maintain or improve the health of people deprived of their freedom.
Source : CICR
When a hospital in Kodok, South Sudan was caught in the crossfire between the conflict’s two warring parties, doctors were forced to evacuate. Two people died as a direct result of fighting, but 11 patients died afterward because of the sudden lack of medical staff. It’s another example of how war imperils health care. The ICRC field delegate, who had just returned to Juba after being evacuated from Kodok, describes what happened and the consequences for the people in dire need of health care in the area.
Source : ICRC
Speech given by Peter Maurer, President of the ICRC, at the launch of the « Ethical Principles of Health Care in Times of Armed Conflict and Other Emergencies. »
The nature of humanitarian work often has me deliver speeches with words of warning and caution, and with descriptions of the particularly distressing situations in which victims of violence find themselves. I am glad to deviate from such patterns today, at the launch of our « Ethical principles of health care in times of armed conflict and other emergencies ».
Agreeing on these principles is indeed a substantive achievement and I would like to thank the World Medical Association (WMA), the International Committee of Military Medicine (ICMM), the International Council of Nurses (ICN) and the International Pharmaceutical Federation (FIP) for their participation and commitment to this process under the auspices of the ICRC.
The ethical principles we are launching today are a ground-breaking document because now, for the first time, our global associations have a common and concise set of shared principles. They will apply to more than 30 million professionals, civilian and military, who may face ethical dilemmas in times of armed conflict and other emergencies.
As we all know, modern international humanitarian law (IHL) originated from the idea that enhancing the protection of the medical mission – personnel, transports and units alike – was an essential step to better assist and protect victims of armed conflict.
This idea was at the core of the international consensus, which led to the first Geneva Convention of 1864. Today, this consensus seems to be becoming more elusive by the day.
Armed conflicts and emergencies are too often characterized by scores of people in urgent need of medical care as well as widespread destruction of health infrastructure and massive displacements of health personnel. In consequence, the pressure on the few remaining in the midst of combats and emergencies becomes all the more important.
During armed conflict and other emergencies, assaults on health facilities, health workers, and the patients they serve, are all too common. Aside from the immediate human toll they take, such attacks result in obstructed access to health services, they compromise the ability to deliver care to populations in great need, they weaken the presence of skilled health workers, they affect health systems overall and hamper efforts to reconstruct such systems and health infrastructure after war.
In 2011, the ICRC, together with other partners of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, began the Health Care in Danger project. The latest report on violent incident against health care, released in April 2015, analysed 2,398 incidents collected in 11 countries from January 2012 to December 2014. The report concludes that over 50% of the attacks took place against, inside or nearby health care facilities and that at least 598 health care personnel lost their lives or were wounded during an attack. In addition, over 700 medical transports were directly or indirectly affected. In most incidents, local health care workers were affected most seriously. As a consequence of such violence, health care facilities were forced to suspend operations fully or completely, and health care personnel and victims in need of medical treatment avoided going back to health care facilities, fearing arrest, intimidation, harassment, assault, or death.
Every day, more and more detailed information is coming to light, confirming such findings: according to the organization Physicians for Human Rights, in Syria in 2014 alone, on average one medical worker was killed every other day and a hospital was attacked every four days.
Indeed, delivering health services to victims of conflict without distinction or discrimination is an increasingly complex challenge in contemporary conflicts.
This is why the ethical principles of health care in times of armed conflict and other emergencies we are launching together today is so uniquely important. Be it in Yemen, in Mali or in Syria, doctors and nurses are exposed to threats and violence aimed at thwarting their medical duties every day. And within the constraints of armed conflict, they too often find themselves confronted with acute ethical dilemmas and – until now – without much guidance.
Existing norms are no longer sufficient and the general consensus that the medical mission has to be respected in all circumstances has slipped into the background while abuses have increased from sporadic to systematic.
That is why we call on governments to help improve the situation and put an end to these violations of international humanitarian law. The ICRC is raising the issue in multilateral fora, both regional and global, not only to increase awareness but to get States to take concrete action. Now that all major professional organisations have come together, we expect States and international organisations to offer political support to our efforts and to use all means available to facilitate their implementation.
As co-authors, we will not stop our efforts now that the principles have been agreed upon. Beyond reaching out to States and authorities, we will remain committed to engaging professionals and experts in their fields, to use the principles in the real dilemmas they face every day.
Traditionally, the ICRC addresses humanitarian challenges through assisting and protecting affected populations as directly as possible. But this is not sufficient given the complexities of the challenges we face. We have a collective responsibility to prevent the re-occurrence of abuses by developing normative instruments and promoting the compliance with norms and standards. Beyond relief work, and beyond engagement with States, the practical cooperation with professional networks is of critical importance. By pooling experience, knowledge, and expertise of professionals, we create standards that hold up to the challenges of practice.
In the past, this approach has proven productive when we devised a manual on war surgery which is now used across the world by surgeons operating on victims of conflict. Similarly, the creation of Professional Standards for Protection Work, launched by the ICRC in 2009, after substantial consultations with humanitarian and human rights organizations, paved the way to more coherent, more comprehensive humanitarian protection work. In turn, the set of principles we launch today will help to demonstrate that the 5th century BC Hippocratic oath remains as important and valid as ever – whether friend or foe, all human beings have the right to medical care, and medical professionals have the right to provide it.
This set of principles is a great achievement and demonstrates the capacity of a single sector to produce far-reaching ethical standards. The process through which we achieved this result is a perfect example of what I like to describe as principled pragmatism – where professional experience meets normative frameworks. Practical solutions will have to come from those confronted with real-life challenges while we will need stronger political commitment to reinforce these solutions and to create conditions in which the principles can be applied.
The endorsement of the ethical principles also demonstrates the outstanding commitment of health care professionals to preserve the integrity of health care staff and their resolve to lead without waiting for a governmental process – while it is critically relevant, it may take some more years to materialize.
Indeed, professional ethics transcend borders and political interests. The principles can therefore be seen as an articulation by individuals and civil society of what is acceptable and what is unacceptable behavior. Our common purpose today is to discuss how we are going to disseminate these rules and give them more leverage with different stakeholders.
We hope that you will use your own power, influence and your different networks to encourage the establishment of robust national legislations and accountability mechanisms.
Ladies and gentlemen, dear colleagues,
More than one hundred years ago, Florence Nightingale wrote that:
« Suffering lifts its victim above normal values. While suffering endures there is neither good nor bad, valuable nor invaluable, enemy nor friends. The victim has passed to a region beyond human classification or moral judgments and his suffering is a sufficient claim. »
Although we observe the sobering picture of a general deterioration of the protection of the medical mission, there is no reason to be fatalistic – the principles should rather become a source of hope.
A survey of 600 US military physicians engaged in « Operation Desert Storm » has shown that two-thirds of respondents said that medical needs should be the only criterion for triage, and a mere 22% stated that wounded enemy soldiers, no matter how severe their wounds, should be treated only after all allied forces have been treated. The ICRC study « Our world – Views from the field » is enlightening in this respect as well. About 4,200 persons living in eight countries affected by armed conflicts were interviewed in 2009, notably about their views regarding health care for the victims of the conflict. Ninety-six per cent agreed that « everyone wounded or sick during an armed conflict should have the right to health care ». Eighty-nine per cent replied that « Health workers should treat wounded and sick civilians from all sides of a conflict », and 89% that « Health workers must be protected when they are treating wounded or sick enemy combatants, especially when treating enemy civilians ».
After a long evolution in the practice and principles of military medicine, international humanitarian law over the past 150 years has imposed an unequivocal duty on all parties to armed conflict to provide impartial care for wounded and sick combatants. As shown by the history of military medicine, the humanitarian principles set out by international humanitarian law were shaped by humanitarian need and by medical practice on the battlefield. The shock and horror experienced by those witnessing the fate of severely wounded and dying men abandoned to their fate were at the origin of the indignation of people like Francisco de Goya and Henry Dunant. It is not human to abandon them; it is our human duty to provide them with relief and care.
In conclusion I would like to stress that the respect for health care and health personnel who carry out their mission in difficult circumstances is at the core of the principle of humanity. Health systems are usually the first line of defence in many armed conflicts and other emergencies. Undermining their response capacity means jeopardizing the survival of entire populations. Likewise, weak or vulnerable health systems are usually unable to absorb the shocks of major pandemics like Ebola or Polio.
The impartial access to health care and the protection of medical personnel in times of conflict is at the origin of IHL and represents the essence of the laws of war. It may remind us of the prophetic « Tutti Fratelli » clamour uttered by the women of Castiglione delle Stiviere, while they were treating the wounded on all sides in the aftermath of the battle of Solferino.
The set of principles we are presenting today may help health personnel in challenging situations to solve the numerous dilemmas they face in addition to the responsibility of caring for patients. This is why the ICRC is putting its full institutional weight behind this initiative.
Source : Peter Maurer, President of the ICRC : ICRC.org
Le CICR est heureux de présenter son module de formation en ligne sur le cadre juridique applicable aux soins de santé dans les conflits armés et d’autres situations d’urgence.
Fondé sur une approche pratique et interactive, ce module emploie toute une panoplie d’outils pédagogiques. Sa plateforme conviviale permet à des utilisateurs d’horizons différents – juristes ou novices en la matière – d’accéder facilement aux contenus proposés.
À travers des études de cas interactives, des activités pratiques et diverses animations, le module vous familiarisera avec les grands principes juridiques et les dilemmes auxquels le personnel médical se heurte fréquemment.
Ana, un jeune médecin exerçant dans un pays fictif, sera votre guide tout au long du module. Souhaitez-vous faire sa connaissance et vous lancer dans l’aventure ?
The law of war is of fundamental importance to the Armed Forces of the United States.
The law of war is part of who we are. George Washington, as Commander in Chief of the Continental Army, agreed with his British adversary that the Revolutionary War would be “carried on agreeable to the rules which humanity formed” and “to prevent or punish every breach of the rules of war within the sphere of our respective commands.” During the Civil War, President Lincoln approved a set of “Instructions for the Government of the Armies of the United States in the Field,” which inspired other countries to adopt similar codes for their armed forces, and which served as a template for international codifications of the law of war.
After World War II, U.S. military lawyers, trying thousands of defendants before military commissions did, in the words of Justice Robert Jackson, “stay the hand of vengeance and voluntarily submit their captive enemies to the judgment of law” in “one of the most significant tributes that Power has ever paid to Reason.” Reflecting on this distinctive history, one Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff observed that “[t]he laws of war have a peculiarly American cast.” And it is al so true that the laws of war have shaped the U.S. Armed Forces as much as they have shaped any other armed force in the world.
The law of war is a part of our military heritage, and obeying it is the right thing to do. But we also know that the law of war poses no obstacle to fighting well and prevailing. Nations have developed the law of war to be fundamentally consistent with the military doctrines that are the basis for effective combat operations. For example, the self-control needed to refrain from violations of the law of war under the stresses of combat is the same good order and discipline necessary to operate cohesively and victoriously in battle. Similarly, the law of war’s prohibitions on torture and unnecessary destruction are consistent with the practical insight that such actions ultimately frustrate rather than accomplish the mission.
This manual reflects many years of labor and expertise, on the part of civilian and military lawyers from every Military Service. It reflects the experience of this Department in applying the law of war in actual military operations, and it will help us remember the hard-learned lessons from the past. Understanding our duties imposed by the law of war and our rights under it is essential to our service in the nation’s defense.
Stephen W. Preston – General Counsel of the Department of Defense
Originally posted on Dommages civils:
La question de la participation des civils aux hostilités est peut-être l’une des plus controversées en droit international humanitaire (DIH). Elle rend compte de la réalité selon laquelle des civils choisissent de prendre les armes contre les forces ennemies. Pour autant, si cette règle entraîne une perte d’immunité, elle n’aboutit pas à un changement de statut. En effet, un civil ne devient pas un combattant en raison de son choix de participer aux hostilités ; il ne se verra pas accorder le privilège du combattant. Ainsi, il se lance dans une « belligérance risquée » puisqu’il ne bénéficie plus de l’immunité contre les attaques ; il ne bénéficie pas du statut de prisonnier de guerre et peut faire l’objet de poursuite judiciaire pour cette participation aux hostilités en cas d’arrestation. Cette règle est au cœur de la rationalisation de la violence opérée par le DIH. Elle cherche à la fois…
Voir l'original 1 974 mots de plus