Abstract

The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) plays a crucial role in the promotion and implementation of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) in conflict zones worldwide. In Cameroon, the ICRC’s role has become particularly significant in light of the ongoing armed conflicts in the Anglophone regions and the Far North, where Boko Haram insurgencies have resulted in widespread violence. This study critically examines the multifaceted role of the ICRC in Cameroon, particularly its efforts in implementing IHL to protect civilians and other non-combatants, facilitate humanitarian access, and ensure that parties to the conflict adhere to IHL principles.

The ICRC’s work in Cameroon includes advocacy for respect for IHL, providing training and education to armed forces, and working directly with communities affected by conflict to reduce the humanitarian impact. Through dialogue with government authorities and non-state armed groups, the ICRC promotes the observance of fundamental IHL principles, such as the protection of civilians, the humane treatment of detainees, and the prohibition of attacks on medical personnel and facilities. The study highlights the challenges faced by the ICRC in these efforts, particularly in negotiating access to conflict zones and ensuring that IHL obligations are respected by all parties.

Moreover, the study explores the ICRC’s role in providing assistance to displaced persons, facilitating the restoration of family links, and supporting the health care system in conflict-affected regions. The ICRC works in partnership with the Cameroonian Red Cross to distribute food, water, medical supplies, and other essential aid to vulnerable populations. By coordinating with other humanitarian organizations, the ICRC ensures that relief efforts are aligned with IHL and that aid reaches those in need.

In addition to direct humanitarian assistance, the ICRC engages in legal and policy advocacy aimed at strengthening the domestic implementation of IHL in Cameroon. This includes advising the Cameroonian government on legislative reforms to incorporate IHL into national law, supporting efforts to prosecute war crimes, and promoting compliance with international treaties such as the Geneva Conventions. The study assesses the effectiveness of these initiatives and the extent to which they have influenced Cameroon’s legal and policy frameworks on IHL.

A critical aspect of the ICRC’s work in Cameroon is its confidential dialogue with parties to the conflict. Unlike other international organizations that may publicly condemn violations of IHL, the ICRC often engages in private discussions with military and political leaders to persuade them to uphold IHL norms. This approach allows the ICRC to maintain access to conflict areas and deliver aid while advocating for better protection of civilians and respect for IHL.

The study concludes by evaluating the overall impact of the ICRC’s work in Cameroon and the challenges that lie ahead. Despite the ICRC’s efforts, ongoing conflicts continue to pose significant humanitarian challenges, and violations of IHL remain a critical concern. The study emphasizes the need for stronger international and regional support for the ICRC’s work in Cameroon and highlights the importance of continued advocacy and legal reform to ensure better compliance with IHL in the future.

Keywords

ICRC, International Humanitarian Law, Cameroon, armed conflict, Anglophone crisis, humanitarian assistance, protection of civilians, Geneva Conventions, legal advocacy, non-state armed groups, humanitarian access.

CHAPTER ONE

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

This chapter introduces the study by providing a background that leads to the problem under study. It provides the objectives of the research, its significance and relevance, among others.

1.1 BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY

The Anglophone crisis in Cameroon has been ongoing since 2017, and has resulted in widespread human rights violations by both the Cameroonian government and separatist fighters. These violations include extrajudicial killings, torture, arbitrary detention, destruction of property, and the use of child soldiers.

International humanitarian law (IHL) is a set of rules that apply to armed conflicts. It is designed to protect civilians and persons who are not taking part in the fighting. However, there have been numerous reports that both the Cameroonian government and separatist fighters have violated IHL during the Anglophone crisis.

For example, there have been reports that the Cameroonian government has used excessive force against civilians, including the use of live ammunition against peaceful protesters. There have also been reports that government forces have arbitrarily detained and tortured civilians.^[1]

Separatist fighters have also been accused of violating IHL. For example, there have been reports that they have carried out targeted killings of civilians, including teachers and journalists. There have also been reports that they have used child soldiers.

The violations of IHL by both the Cameroonian government and separatist fighters have had a devastating impact on the civilian population in the Anglophone regions. Thousands of people have been killed, injured, or displaced. The conflict has also led to an increase in poverty and food insecurity.^[2]

It is important to hold those responsible for these violations accountable. The Cameroonian government and separatist fighters must be held to the standards of IHL. This will help to protect civilians and ensure that the conflict does not escalate further.^[3]

But to better understand this research topic, it will be of interest for us to begin from the evolution of the notions of international humanitarian law before we look at the situation that is happening in Cameroon .The idea that wars are subject to rules and limitations has existed for very long period of time as it is inherent in the very concept of war. Throughout history, all civilizations and religions have established some rules that today would be qualified as IHL. Even before modern IHL was codified in multilateral treaties, belligerents frequently concluded bilateral agreements or issued unilateral instructions in this field. Following the initiative of Henry Dunant, a Swiss business man and Guillaume- Henry-Dufour, a Swiss army officer and later the ICRC in the nineteenth century, the first multilateral treaties were adopted in this field. Subsequently, such treaties were periodically extended and adapted to new problems arising in armed conflicts.

Today, this branch of public international law is largely codified in the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 as well as in the related Additional Protocols of 1977. While all States are parties to the Conventions, a number of important States have yet to accept the Protocols. Nevertheless, most of the rules contained therein are accepted as customary law. Since the adoption of these treaties, States have been unable to agree on a general revision of IHL to better adapt it to the modern realities of warfare. Even so, more recently, international criminal law (ICL) and the jurisprudence of international criminal tribunals established to implement it, as well as treaties on specific issues such as weapons, children and cultural heritage, have contributed to the progressive development of IHL’s rules and mechanisms. States and scholars also consider that customary law has developed over the last 30 years and that such rules are largely the same for IACs and NIACs.^[4]

Even though the prohibition of certain behaviour in the conduct of war, violation in armed conflict can be traced back many centuries, the concept of war crimes developed particularly at the end of the 19th century and beginning of the 20th century, when international humanitarian law, also known as the law of armed conflict, was codified. The Hague Conventions adopted in 1899 and 1907 focus on the prohibition to warring parties to use certain means and methods of warfare.^[5] Several other related treaties have been adopted since then. In contrast, the Geneva Convention of 1864 and subsequent Geneva Conventions, notably the four 1949 Geneva Conventions and the two 1977 Additional Protocols, focus on the protection of persons not or no longer taking part in hostilities. Both Hague Law and Geneva Law identify several of the violations of its norms, though not all, as war crimes. However there is no one single document in international law that codifies all violations in international humanitarian law or war crimes. Lists of violations and war crimes can be found in both international humanitarian law and international criminal law treaties, as well as in international customary law.^[6]

The 1949 Geneva Conventions have been ratified by all Member States of the United Nations, while the Additional Protocols and other international humanitarian law treaties have not yet reached the same level of acceptance. However, many of the rules contained in these treaties have been considered as part of customary law and, as such, are binding on all States (and other parties to the conflict), whether or not States have ratified the treaties themselves. In addition, many rules of customary international law apply in both international and non-international armed conflict, expanding in this way the protection afforded in non-international armed conflicts, which are regulated only by article 3 of the four Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocol II.

To better understand this, it should be understood that , international humanitarian law operates within the context of what is known as international law , universal jurisdiction of crimes that may be prosecuted mat include, crimes against peace , crimes against , humanity , genocide , war crimes and recently terrorism . It should be noted that, International human rights law, in Particular international humanitarian law and the laws of war establish requirements for how a State must treat people within its boundaries both during and after a conflict. Local law and the national legal systems must guarantee and protect international human rights. For most modern peacekeeping operations, monitoring the administration of justice is a priority.

For example, Security Council resolution 1542 (2004) of 30 April 2004 establishing the United Nations Stabilization Mission in Haiti specifies that the Mission will monitor and report on the human rights situation, re-establish the prison system and investigate violations of human rights and humanitarian law, help rebuild, reform and restructure the Haitian National Police, including vetting and certifying that its personnel have not committed grave human rights violations, develop a “strategy for reform and institutional strengthening of the judiciary” and “assist with the restoration and maintenance of the rule of law, public safety and public order.”^[7]

 Coming back to Cameroon situation , the situation happening in the Cameroon and especially in the Anglophone region of Cameroon , it will be and affront to human intelligence for most Republican valued supporters to say that the situation in the Anglophone Region that there is no crisis as government ministers Isa Jiroma and Atanga NJI Paul,^[8] the situation have now metamorphosis into a war with all the killing and causalities from both sides of the parties in the war ,the international and national efforts that have been put in place by the government and international community, what about the grand national dialogue , that has been put in place , what about the so called swizz talks and the talks held in Canada for the resolution of the problem , even though they may not be official , and also resolution on the UN on the southern Cameroon crisis.^[9]

War or no war in the Anglophone region will depend on and individual’s experience that he/she is experiencing at the present moment. But for some of us who have been victims and eye witness in the region in our humble submission from a local point of view will consider it as war.

Brief Evolution of International Humaniterian Law

An evolution of international humanitarian law has been constant over the years, In our present day, when it comes to IHL, The ICRC, is the main guardian of IHL, it has made great efforts to highlight the existence of precursors to a number of IHL rules across many civilizations to convince parties to contemporary conflicts and individuals involved therein to comply with IHL principles. When the ICRC studies local and regional traditions, including poetry and proverbs, to anchor its dissemination work in the culture of the people it wants to convince on the merits of respecting IHL, it always finds principles and detailed rules of behaviour that run parallel to those of IHL.

Admittedly, however, all civilizations committed acts throughout history that today must be considered to be incredibly cruel and horrific. Historical works, including religious texts, may describe such acts without any condemnation or even condone them. In addition, it is generally unclear whether historical customary practices and religious precepts, which are indeed humanitarian even from a contemporary perspective, only protected persons belonging to the same civilization or whether such protection extended to neighbouring civilizations or even to all possible enemies. Bilateral agreements, which were often temporarily concluded between parties to conflicts by their respective military leaders in the field of battle, were more precise and better respected. However, such agreements, the respect of which was subject to reciprocity, first had to be concluded – and even then they did not protect everyone from the effects of war.^[10]

What is clear is that individuals who claim today that persons affected by war, or at least civilians, were better respected in previous times in history. Others who consider that, as Cicero plead unsuccessfully for his client Titus Annius Milo against the accusation of murders committed in a NIAC, ‘the laws [were] silent among [those who use] weapons’ also ignore history.^[11]

A decisive change occurred in the second half of the nineteenth century with the initiative of Henry Dunant (Dunant), a Geneva businessman that resulted in the 1864 Geneva Convention. As always in history, this pivotal change was not only a logical development given the historical context but was also revolutionary for two reasons: it acknowledged for the first time the idea that even wounded members of an enemy’s armed forces should be respected and cared for, and it resulted in the adoption of a new kind of instrument – a multilateral treaty. Although the 1864 Convention initially covered only the wounded and sick soldiers in the field and only applied during IACs, it laid the necessary foundation for the gradual development of modern IHL.

In 1859, Dunant, who merely wanted to meet then French emperor Napoleon III, witnessed by chance a battle that occurred in a village in northern Italy, Solferino, between French, Italian and Austrian forces. He was shocked by the horrific violence of the fighting as well as by the miserable fate of the wounded abandoned on the battlefield without any care. Together with ‘the women of Castiglione’ from the surrounding villages, who cried the famous slogan ‘tutti fratelli’ (‘they are all brothers’), he tried to alleviate their suffering.^[12]

 Back in Geneva, Dunant published a short book in 1862 entitled A Memory of Solferino in which he not only impressively described the horrors of the battle but also successfully suggested ways to remedy to the abject suffering he had witnessed. He suggested the creation of the Red Cross, but he also appealed to States ‘to formulate some international principle, sanctioned by a Convention inviolate in character’ giving legal protection to wounded soldiers in the field.

A few months after publication, a small committee, which was the precursor to the ICRC, was founded in Geneva, Switzerland, with the main objective of examining the feasibility of Dunant’s proposals and identifying ways to formalize them. After having consulted military and medical experts in 1863, the committee persuaded the Swiss Government to convene a diplomatic conference, which was held in Geneva in August 1864 and which resulted in the adoption of the Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded in Armies in the Field of 1864.With the adoption of the 1864 Geneva Convention, States agreed to limit – for the first time in history – their own power in favour of the individual in wartime in an international treaty open to universal ratification. War had finally become subject to written law of general applicability. And so modern IHL was born. ^[13]

While modern IHL was largely codified at first in treaties, the adoption of these treaties over time decisively influenced the development of customary law applicable to the conduct of war by States not parties as well as to situations not covered by a particular treaty’s material field of application.^[14]

Since 1864, the treaty law – and the resulting customary law – governing armed conflicts developed spectacularly in four key ways. First, the categories of war victims protected by IHL steadily expanded with the adoption of several multilateral instruments. The first multilateral IHL treaty adopted in 1864 protected wounded and sick members of the armed forces on land, while the same protection extended to wounded, sick and shipwrecked members of the armed forces at sea in 1899. Wounded, sick and shipwrecked civilians, however, only benefitted from the protection of some IHL rules beginning in 1949 with the adoption of Convention IV and had to wait until the adoption of the Protocols in 1977 to benefit from the same protection previously provided to members of the armed forces. IHL first governed the protection of prisoners of war with the adoption of the Hague Regulations in 1899 and later in 1929 with the adoption of an entire Geneva Convention dedicated to the issue. Some rules contained in the Hague Regulations adopted in 1899 and revised in 1907 protected civilians located in occupied territories, while only Convention IV adopted in 1949 established a more comprehensive regime protecting such civilians and established for the first time a regime protecting civilians in the enemy’s own territory. Civilians threatened by attacks or bombardments, however, were covered only very summarily in 1899 and 1907 and had to wait until the adoption of Protocol I in 1977 to benefit from a comprehensive protection regime.^[15]

Secondly, the protection of war victims under both conventional and customary IHL, which traditionally only protected victims during IACs, gradually extended to victims of all NIACs. Already in 1863, the US adopted an important unilateral instrument – the 1863 Lieber Code – based upon customary law applicable in IACs to mitigate the effects of the US Civil War.

The Lieber Code contained many rules that would later be incorporated into IHL treaties. Apart from this unilateral instrument, IHL only applied to NIACs if the government fighting against insurgents issued a declaration recognizing the latter’s belligerency. It was only in 1949 with the adoption of Article 3 common to the Conventions, however, that the automatic applicability of some IHL rules to all NIACs without any declaration of belligerency was accepted. Although NIACs have become much more frequent than IACs since World War II, it was not until 1977 that States adopted an entire treaty – Protocol II – dedicated to NIACs. Even so, Protocol II is still rudimentary when compared to Protocol I, which was adopted in the very same year to cover IACs.^[16]

Third, IHL treaties have been regularly updated and modernized to account for the realities of recent conflicts. Rules protecting the wounded initially adopted in 1864 were revised in 1906, 1929, 1949 and 1977. The rules protecting prisoners of war, which were first formulated in the Hague Regulations of 1899 and 1907, were updated based upon the experiences of World War I in the Geneva Convention of 1929, revised in 1949 due to the experiences of World War II and then adapted in some respects to the realities of guerrilla warfare in 1977. As for civilians, the Hague Regulations of 1907 mainly protected civilians located in an occupied territory. It is tragic that the outbreak of World War II prevented the submission of a draft convention protecting all civilians, which was adopted in 1934 during an International Red Cross Conference held in Tokyo, to a diplomatic conference that was supposed to convene in 1940. It was not until the adoption of Convention IV in 1949 that a comprehensive regime protecting civilians in the power of an enemy in either the enemy’s own territory or in territory occupied by that enemy came into effect. Civilians, however, had to wait even longer – until 1977 – to benefit from a coherent protection regime against the effects of hostilities.^[17]

Reflecting upon the aforementioned developments, some critics charge that IHL is always one war behind reality. Indeed, only after a major conflict or group of conflicts did former parties to armed conflicts agree to be bound by treaties that, if respected, would have avoided much of the suffering resulting from past conflicts. For example, if the Geneva Convention of 1929 had been adopted prior to World War I, it would have prevented or a least mitigated the abuses prisoners of war experienced during that conflict. Likewise, adoption of Convention IV prior to World War II would have avoided, if respected, the suffering of civilians at the hands of Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan and Fascist Italy. Similarly, the Protocols would have offered protection to the numerous victims of the post-World War II wars of decolonization that had largely concluded by 1977.^[18]

On the other hand, the fact that diplomats and military officers used the practical experience they obtained during prior conflicts to develop new IHL treaties ensured the development of treaties with realistic rules. In addition, since 1859, protective measures based on practical battlefield experience suggested at first by Dunant and then by the ICRC were often implemented first in practice before being codified in treaties. This way of proceeding also ensured the development of realistic rules that States would actually adhere to and that corresponded to the actual protection needs of those affected by prior conflicts.

1.2. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

The intervention of international organizations in conflict zones and disaster affected areas is an important issue because of the humanitarian services these organizations provide. In carrying out their activities, they are expected to work in conformity with international law, international humanitarian law and international human rights laws. Besides, international organization must carry out their activities in conformity with certain international norms, values and standards to enable them realize their objectives.

However, realizing their objectives can be compromised by the circumstances in which some international organization find themselves. In Cameroon, the killing of an aid worker of the international NGO ( Doctors Without Border) in kumba on Friday 10 July 2020, the kidnapping of five aid workers of the international NGO  2022 in the far north region of Cameroon and the general harassment of staffs of some NGOs in the conflict zones in Cameroon raise some concerns about the safety of staffs of these organizations during operation in these conflict zones. Besides the unjustified killings of unarmed civilians in conflict zones in Cameroon, the continued practice of blocking of roads by separatist’s forces and declaration of ghost towns considerably affect the operation of the ICRC in Cameroon. It is on this basis that this work appraises the intervention of the two NGOs in Cameroon.

[1] Amnesty International: Cameroon: With or Against Us: https://www.amnesty.org/fr/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/ AFR1768382023ENGLISH.pdf

[2] Peaceful Assembly Worldwide: Human Rights Abuses in the Cameroon Anglophone Crisis: https://www.rightofassembly.info/assets/downloads/Cameroon_Anglophone_Crisis_Report.pdf

[3] Crisis Group: Cameroon: https://www.crisisgroup.org/africa/central-africa/cameroon

[4] © Marco Sassòli 2019, international humanitarian law, Rules , solutions to problems arising in warfare and controversies ,

[5]The Hague Conventions adopted in 1899 and 1907

[6]the Geneva Convention of 1864 and subsequent Geneva Conventions, notably the four 1949 Geneva Conventions and the two 1977 Additional Protocols, focus on the protection of persons.

[7]Security Council resolution 1542 (2004) of 30 April 2004

[8] Crtv news during His  median visit to Bamenda  April 1 2018

[9] African intelligence .com. 22/05/2023. New report 

[10] See, e.g., ICRC, ‘Under the Protection of the Palm: Wars of Dignity in the Pacific’ (ICRC 2009); ICRC, ‘Somalia: Sparing People from the Spears – How a Radio Show Can Save Lives’ (ICRC 2008) (noting that ‘[t]he ICRC, the Somali Red Crescent Society and local radio stations have together initiated a series of radio spots aimed at spreading public awareness of the Somali customary code of war, known as “Biri-ma-Geydo” (literally, spared from the spear), and the basics of international humanitarian law’).

[11] Marcus T. Cicero, Pro Milone, 4.10.2.022.032.04

[12] Henry Dunant, A Memory of Solferino(Reprint edn, ICRC 1986)

[13] ibid

[14] Marco Sassòli 2019, international humanitarian law, Rules , solutions to problems arising in warfare and controversies pges 59

[15] Ibid pges 60

[16] Marco Sassòli – 9781786438553Downloaded from Elgar Online at 04/06/2019 01:43:29PMvia University of Victoria

[17] ibid

[18] ibid