Practice Relating to Rule 32. Humanitarian Relief Objects

Note: This rule concerns the safety and protection from attack of objects used for humanitarian relief operations. Practice concerning access of civilians in need to humanitarian relief (and impediments thereto) is included under Rule 55.
Additional Protocol I
Article 70(4) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I provides: “The Parties to the conflict shall protect relief consignments and facilitate their rapid distribution.” 
Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), Geneva, 8 June 1977, Article 70(4). Article 70 was adopted by consensus. CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VI, CDDH/SR.43, 27 May 1977, p. 245.
Convention on the Safety of UN Personnel
Article 7(1) of the 1994 Convention on the Safety of UN Personnel states: “United Nations and associated personnel, their equipment and premises shall not be made the object of attack or of any action that prevents them from discharging their mandate.” 
Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel, adopted by the UN General Assembly, Res. 49/59, 9 December 1994, Article 7(1).
Convention on the Safety of UN Personnel
Article 9(1)(a) of the 1994 Convention on the Safety of UN Personnel provides that the intentional commission of “a violent attack upon the official premises, the private accommodation or the means of transportation of any United Nations or associated personnel likely to endanger his or her person or liberty” shall be made by each State Party a crime under its national law. 
Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel, adopted by the UN General Assembly, Res. 49/59, 9 December 1994, Article 9(1)(a).
ICC Statute
Pursuant to Article 8(2)(b)(iii) and (e)(iii) of the 1998 ICC Statute, “[i]ntentionally directing attacks against … installations, material, units or vehicles involved in a humanitarian assistance … mission … as long as they are entitled to the protection given to … civilian objects under the international law of armed conflict” constitutes a war crime in both international and non-international armed conflicts. 
Statute of the International Criminal Court, adopted by the UN Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, Rome, 17 July 1998, UN Doc. A/CONF.183/9, Article 8(2)(b)(iii) and (e)(iii).
Statute of the Special Court for Sierra Leone
Article 4 of the 2002 Statute of the Special Court for Sierra Leone provides:
The Special Court shall have the power to prosecute persons who committed the following serious violations of international humanitarian law:
(b) Intentionally directing attacks against … installations, material, units or vehicles involved in a humanitarian assistance … mission … as long as they are entitled to the protection given to civilians or civilian objects under the international law of armed conflict. 
Statute of the Special Court for Sierra Leone, annexed to the 2002 Agreement on the Special Court for Sierra Leone, Freetown, 16 January 2002, annexed to Letter dated 6 March 2002 from the UN Secretary-General to the President of the UN Security Council, UN Doc. S/2002/246, 8 March 2002, p. 29, Article 4(b).
Kampala Convention
Article 5(10) of the 2009 Kampala Convention provides that States Parties shall not attack “resources and other materials deployed for the assistance or benefit of internally displaced persons”. 
African Union Convention for the Protection and Assistance of Internally Displaced Persons in Africa, adopted in Kampala, Uganda, 23 October 2009, Article 5(10).
Article 7(5)(h) of the Convention contains a corresponding obligation for members of armed groups, defined as “dissident armed forces or other organized armed groups that are distinct from the armed forces of the state”, prohibiting them from: “[a]ttacking or otherwise harming … resources or other materials deployed for the assistance or benefit of internally displaced persons and shall not destroy, confiscate or divert such materials”. 
African Union Convention for the Protection and Assistance of Internally Displaced Persons in Africa, adopted in Kampala, Uganda, 23 October 2009, Article 7(5)(h).
Report of the Commission on Responsibility
Based on several documents supplying evidence of outrages committed during the First World War, the 1919 Report of the Commission on Responsibility lists violations of the laws and customs of war which should be subject to criminal prosecution, including “destruction of relief ships”. 
Report submitted to the Preliminary Conference of Versailles by the Commission on Responsibility of the Authors of the War and on Enforcement of Penalties, Versailles, 29 March 1919.
Bahir Dar Agreement
In paragraph 2 of the 1992 Bahir Dar Agreement, the various Somali organizations attending the meeting on humanitarian issues convened by the Standing Committee on Somalia pledged to guarantee the security of relief objects. 
Agreement on Humanitarian Issues of the All-Party Meeting on Somalia, Bahir Dar, 2 June 1992, § 2.
ILC Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind (1996)
According to Article 19(b) of the 1996 ILC Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind, “[v]iolent attack upon the official premises, the private accommodation or the means of transportation” of any UN and associated personnel involved in a UN operation likely to endanger his or her person or liberty constitutes a crime against the peace and security of mankind when committed intentionally and in a systematic manner or on a large scale with a view to preventing or impeding that operation from fulfilling its mandate. 
Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind, adopted by the International Law Commission, reprinted in Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its forty-eighth session, 6 May–26 July 1996, UN Doc. A/51/10, 1996, Article 19(b).
UN Secretary-General’s Bulletin
Section 9.9 of the 1999 UN Secretary-General’s Bulletin states:
The United Nations force shall facilitate the work of relief operations which are humanitarian and impartial in character and conducted without any adverse distinction, and shall respect … vehicles and premises involved in such operations. 
Observance by United Nations Forces of International Humanitarian Law, Secretary-General’s Bulletin, UN Secretariat, UN Doc. ST/SGB/1999/13, 6 August 1999, Section 9.9.
UNTAET Regulation No. 2000/15
The UNTAET Regulation No. 2000/15 establishes panels with exclusive jurisdiction over serious criminal offences, including war crimes. According to Section 6(1)(b)(iii) and (e)(iii), “[i]ntentionally directing attacks against … installations, material, units or vehicles involved in a humanitarian assistance … mission … as long as they are entitled to the protection given to … civilian objects under the international law of armed conflict” constitutes a war crime in both international and non-international armed conflicts. 
Regulation on the Establishment of Panels with Exclusive Jurisdiction over Serious Criminal Offences, UN Doc. UNTAET/REG/2000/15, Dili, 6 June 2000, Section 6(1)(b)(iii) and (e)(iii).
Australia
Australia’s LOAC Manual (2006) states:
6.44 Classes of vessels exempt from attack. The following classes of enemy vessels are exempt from attack:
• vessels granted safe conduct by agreement between the belligerent parties including:
- vessels engaged in humanitarian missions including vessels carrying supplies indispensable to the survival of the civilian population, and vessels engaged in relief actions and rescue operations.
6.45 Such vessels are exempt from attack only if they:
• are innocently employed in their normal role,
• submit to identification and inspection when required, and
• do not intentionally hamper the movement of combatants and obey orders to stop or move out of the way when required. 
Australia, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Doctrine Publication 06.4, Australian Defence Headquarters, 11 May 2006, §§ 6.44 and 6.45.
The LOAC Manual (2006) replaces both the Defence Force Manual (1994) and the Commanders’ Guide (1994).
Central African Republic
The Central African Republic’s Instructor’s Manual (1999) states in Volume 2 (Instruction for group and patrol leaders) that “the following ships may be neither captured nor attacked: … coastal rescue boats; … cartel ships (sailing under special agreements); … shipping vessels with a religious … or philanthropic mission”. 
Central African Republic, Le Droit de la Guerre, Fascicule No. 2: Formation pour l’obtention du certificat technique No. 2 (Chef de Groupe), du certificat Inter-Armé (CIA), du certificat d’aptitude de Chef de Patrouille (CACP), Ministère de la Défense, Forces Armées Centrafricaines, 1999, Chapter II, Section I, § 1.2; see also Le Droit de la Guerre, Fascicule No. 3: Formation pour l’obtention du Brevet d’Armes No. 1, du Brevet d’Armes No. 2 et le stage d’Officier de Police Judiciaire (OPJ), Ministère de la Défense, Forces Armées Centrafricaines, 1999, Chapter III, Section 4.
Also in Volume 2, the manual states:
Specially protected means of transport are authorized to carry out their mission as long as necessary. Their mission, content and actual use may be checked through an inspection. … coastal rescue boats … must never hamper the movement of combatants. During an engagement they act at their own risk. 
Central African Republic, Le Droit de la Guerre, Fascicule No. 2: Formation pour l’obtention du certificat technique No. 2 (Chef de Groupe), du certificat Inter-Armé (CIA), du certificat d’aptitude de Chef de Patrouille (CACP), Ministère de la Défense, Forces Armées Centrafricaines, 1999, Chapter II, Section II, § 2.1.
Volume 2 further states that “in case of doubt a ship can reasonably be stopped and searched to ascertain its status. If it refuses to stop or resists being visited and searched it may be destroyed after a warning to this effect has been given.” 
Central African Republic, Le Droit de la Guerre, Fascicule No. 2: Formation pour l’obtention du certificat technique No. 2 (Chef de Groupe), du certificat Inter-Armé (CIA), du certificat d’aptitude de Chef de Patrouille (CACP), Ministère de la Défense, Forces Armées Centrafricaines, 1999, Chapter II, Section I, § 1.2.
Italy
Italy’s Combatant’s Manual (1998) states:
International Red Cross Delegates and the equipment and facilities they use are protected by the emblem of the International Committee of the Red Cross.
IT IS PROHIBITED to carry out hostile acts of any kind against … objects protected by this emblem, except in cases of legitimate defence. 
Italy, Manuale del Combattente, SME 1000/A/2, Stato Maggiore Esercito/Reparto Impiego delle Forze, Ufficio Dottrina, Addestramento e Regolamenti, 1998, § 243.
[emphasis in original]
Kenya
Kenya’s LOAC Manual (1997) provides: “The Parties to the conflict shall protect relief consignments and facilitate their rapid distribution.” 
Kenya, Law of Armed Conflict, Military Basic Course (ORS), 4 Précis, The School of Military Police, 1997, Précis No. 4, p. 5.
Netherlands
The Military Manual (2005) of the Netherlands states:
It is prohibited deliberately to direct attacks against personnel, equipment, units or vehicles involved in the provision of humanitarian aid or peace missions under the UN Charter, provided that they are entitled to the protection afforded under international law to civilians or civilian objects. 
Netherlands, Humanitair Oorlogsrecht: Handleiding, Voorschift No. 27-412, Koninklijke Landmacht, Militair Juridische Dienst, 2005, § 1068.
Russian Federation
The Russian Federation’s Regulations on the Application of IHL (2001) states with regard to naval operations:
117. The following vessels shall not be attacked:
- vessels engaged in humanitarian missions, including vessels carrying supplies indispensable to the survival of the civilian population;
- vessels engaged in relief actions and rescue operations;
The above vessels shall not be attacked or captured if they:
- are innocently employed in their normal role;
- do not commit actions falling under Paragraph 116 [i.e., make an effective contribution to military action];
- do not intentionally hamper the movement of combatants and obey orders to stop or move out of the way when required.
118. Ships that belong to any class of vessels mentioned in Paragraph 117 may only be attacked as a last resort if:
- diversion is not feasible;
- no other method is available for exercising military control;
- the acts it commits give reasons to consider it as a military objective;
- the collateral casualties or damage will not be disproportionate to the military advantage gained or anticipated. 
Russian Federation, Regulations on the Application of International Humanitarian Law by the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation, Moscow, 8 August 2001, §§ 117–118.
Spain
Spain’s LOAC Manual (2007) states: “Respect all … objects bearing the emblem of the Red Cross, Red Crescent and Red Crystal.” 
Spain, Orientaciones. El Derecho de los Conflictos Armados, Tomo 1, Publicación OR7–004, (Edición Segunda), Mando de Adiestramiento y Doctrina, Dirección de Doctrina, Orgánica y Materiales, 2 November 2007, § 10.3.e.(1).
Switzerland
Switzerland’s Aide-Memoire on the Ten Basic Rules of the Law of Armed Conflict (2005) states: “I spare and respect personnel and installations as well as equipment and means of transport of … the International Red Cross, … as well as the United Nations without discrimination unless they open fire on my comrades or me.” 
Switzerland, The Ten Basic Rules of the Law of Armed Conflict, Aide-memoire 51.007/IIIe, Swiss Army, issued based on Article 10 of the Ordinance for Organization of the Federal Department for Defence, Civil Protection and Sports dated 7 March 2003, entry into force on 1 July 2005, Rule 7
The Aide-Memoire further states with regards to the protective signs of the red cross and red crescent:
Correct behaviour
- Personnel, installations, material and means of transport of the medical services as well as carriers of signs or objects marked with distinctive signs must be respected and spared;
- The distinctive signs may only be used by persons entitled and only for their intended purpose.
Prohibited is/are …
- Attacks against persons or objects carrying this sign[.] 
Switzerland, The Ten Basic Rules of the Law of Armed Conflict, Aide-memoire 51.007/IIIe, Swiss Army, issued based on Article 10 of the Ordinance for Organization of the Federal Department for Defence, Civil Protection and Sports dated 7 March 2003, entry into force on 1 July 2005, Chart of Protective Signs.
The Aide-Memoire further states with regard to the UN:
Correct behaviour
Personnel, installations, material and means of transport of the UN as well as bearers of distinctive signs or objects marked with distinctive signs must be respected and spared.
Prohibited is/are …
Damaging action against personnel, installations and material, as long as these are not involved in combat[.]  
Switzerland, The Ten Basic Rules of the Law of Armed Conflict, Aide-memoire 51.007/IIIe, Swiss Army, issued based on Article 10 of the Ordinance for Organization of the Federal Department for Defence, Civil Protection and Sports dated 7 March 2003, entry into force on 1 July 2005, Chart of Protective Signs.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
The UK LOAC Manual (2004) states in its chapter on maritime warfare:
13.33. The following classes of enemy vessels are exempt from attack:
c. vessels granted safe conduct by agreement between the belligerent parties including:
(2) vessels engaged in humanitarian missions, including vessels carrying supplies indispensable to the survival of the civilian population, and vessels engaged in relief actions and rescue operations
13.34. Vessels listed in paragraph 13.33 are exempt from attack only if they:
a. are innocently employed in their normal role;
b. submit to identification and inspection when required; and
c. do not intentionally hamper the movement of combatants and obey orders to stop or move out of the way when required. 
United Kingdom, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Ministry of Defence, 1 July 2004, §§ 13.33–13.34.
With regard to internal armed conflict, the manual provides:
15.27. It is prohibited to attack the “personnel, installations, material, units or vehicles involved in a humanitarian assistance or peacekeeping mission in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, so long as they are entitled to the protection given to civilians or civilian objects under the international law of armed conflict”.
15.27.1. The protection and delivery of relief supplies will usually be dealt with in agreements between the state concerned and the relief agencies in question. 
United Kingdom, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Ministry of Defence, 1 July 2004, §§ 15.27–15.27.1.
United States of America
The US Field Manual (1956) notes that, in case of occupation, if the occupied territory is inadequately supplied, “all Contracting Parties shall permit the free passage of [relief] consignments and shall guarantee their protection”. 
United States, Field Manual 27-10, The Law of Land Warfare, US Department of the Army, 18 July 1956, as modified by Change No. 1, 15 July 1976, § 388.
Australia
Australia’s War Crimes Act (1945) considers “any war crime within the meaning of the instrument of appointment of the Board of Inquiry [set up to investigate war crimes committed by enemy subjects]” as a war crime, including the destruction of relief ships. 
Australia, War Crimes Act, 1945, Section 3.
Australia
Australia’s Criminal Code Act (1995), as amended to 2007, states with respect to serious war crimes that are committed in the course of an international armed conflict:
268.37 War crimeattacking personnel or objects involved in a humanitarian assistance or peacekeeping mission
(2) A person (the perpetrator) commits an offence if:
(a) the perpetrator directs an attack; and
(b) the object of the attack is installations, material, units or vehicles involved in a humanitarian assistance or peacekeeping mission in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations; and
(c) the installations, material, units or vehicles are entitled to the protection given to civilian objects under the Geneva Conventions or Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions; and
(d) the perpetrator’s conduct takes place in the context of, and is associated with, an international armed conflict.
Penalty: Imprisonment for 20 years.
(3) Strict liability applies to paragraph … (2)(c). 
Australia, Criminal Code Act, 1995, as amended to 2007, Chapter 8, § 268.37, p. 326.
The Criminal Code Act also states with respect to war crimes that are other serious violations of the laws and customs of war applicable in a non-international armed conflict:
268.79 War crimeattacking personnel or objects involved in a humanitarian assistance or peacekeeping mission
(2) A person (the perpetrator) commits an offence if:
(a) the perpetrator directs an attack; and
(b) the object of the attack is installations, material, units or vehicles involved in a humanitarian assistance or peacekeeping mission in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations; and
(c) the installations, material, units or vehicles are entitled to the protection given to civilian objects under the Geneva Conventions and Protocol II to the Geneva Conventions; and
(d) the perpetrator’s conduct takes place in the context of, and is associated with, an armed conflict that is not an international armed conflict.
Penalty: Imprisonment for 20 years.
(3) Strict liability applies to paragraphs … (2)(c). 
Australia, Criminal Code Act, 1995, as amended to 2007, Chapter 8, § 268.79, p. 355.
Australia
Australia’s ICC (Consequential Amendments) Act (2002) incorporates in the Criminal Code the war crimes defined in the 1998 ICC Statute, including “attacking … objects involved in a humanitarian assistance … mission” in international and non-international armed conflicts. 
Australia, ICC (Consequential Amendments) Act, 2002, Schedule 1, §§ 268.37 and 268.79.
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Under the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina’s Criminal Code (2000), it is a war crime to order that “an attack be launched against objects specifically protected by international law” or to carry out such an attack. 
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Federation, Criminal Code, 1998, Article 154(2).
The Republika Srpska’s Criminal Code contains the same provision. 
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Republika Srpska, Criminal Code, 2000, Article 433(2).
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Bosnia and Herzegovina’s Criminal Code (2003), as amended in 2004, states:
Whoever … perpetrates … violence against [an internationally protected person] or … his official premises, private accommodation or means of transportation likely to endanger his person or liberty,
shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of between one and ten years. 
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Criminal Code, 2003, as amended in 2004, Article 192(1).
The Criminal Code further states that it is a war crime to order or conduct an attack “against objects specifically protected by international law”. 
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Criminal Code, 2003, as amended in 2004, Article 173(2)(a).
Burundi
Burundi’s Law on Genocide, Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes (2003) states:
[The following are] considered as war crimes:
B. Other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in international armed conflicts, within the established framework of international law, namely, any of the following acts:
c) launching deliberate attacks against … installations, material, units or vehicles involved in a humanitarian assistance … mission … , as long as they are entitled to the protection given to … civilian objects under the international law of armed conflict;
D. Other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in armed conflicts not of an international character, within the established framework of international law, namely, any of the following acts:
c) launching deliberate attacks against … installations, material, units or vehicles involved in a humanitarian assistance … mission … , as long as they are entitled to the protection given to … civilian objects under the international law of armed conflict. 
Burundi, Law on Genocide, Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes, 2003, Article 4(B)(c) and (D)(c).
Burundi
Burundi’s Penal Code (2009) states:
“War crimes” means crimes which are committed as part of a plan or policy or as part of a large-scale commission of such crimes, in particular:
2. … [S]erious violations of the laws and customs applicable in international armed conflict, within the established framework of international law, namely, any of the following acts:
3°. Intentionally directing attacks against … installations, material, units or vehicles involved in a humanitarian assistance mission… , as long as they are entitled to the protection given to … civilian objects under the international law of armed conflict;
5. … [S]erious violations of the laws and customs applicable in armed conflicts not of an international character, within the established framework of international law, namely, any of the following acts:
3°. Intentionally directing attacks against … installations, material, units or vehicles involved in a humanitarian assistance mission … , as long as they are entitled to the protection given to … civilian objects under the international law of armed conflict. 
Burundi, Penal Code, 2009, Article 198(2)(3°) and (5)(3°).
Canada
Canada’s Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes Act (2000) provides that the war crimes defined in Article 8(2) of the 1998 ICC Statute are “crimes according to customary international law” and, as such, indictable offences under the Act. 
Canada, Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes Act, 2000, Section 4(1) and (4).
China
China’s Law Governing the Trial of War Criminals (1946) provides that “destroying … relief ships” constitutes a war crime. 
China, Law Governing the Trial of War Criminals, 1946, Article 3(9).
Colombia
Under Colombia’s Penal Code (2000), attacking objects necessary for the assistance and relief of the civilian population is a punishable offence. 
Colombia, Penal Code, 2000, Article 26.
Congo
The Congo’s Genocide, War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity Act (1998) defines war crimes with reference to the categories of crimes set out in Article 8 of the 1998 ICC Statute. 
Congo, Republic of the, Genocide, War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity Act, 1998, Article 4.
Croatia
Under Croatia’s Criminal Code (1997), “the launching of an attack against objects under special protection of international law” is a war crime. 
Croatia, Criminal Code, 1997, Article 158(2).
Croatia
Croatia’s Criminal Code (1997), as amended to 2006, states that a war crime is committed by “whoever violates the rules of international law in time of war, armed conflict or occupation by ordering [or committing] an attack against objects protected by international law”. 
Croatia, Criminal Code, 1997, as amended in June 2006, Article 158(2).
Denmark
Denmark’s Military Criminal Code (1973), as amended in 1978, provides:
Any person who uses war instruments or procedures the application of which violates an international agreement entered into by Denmark or the general rules of international law, shall be liable to the same penalty [i.e. a fine, lenient imprisonment or up to 12 years’ imprisonment]. 
Denmark, Military Criminal Code, 1973, as amended in 1978, § 25(1).
Denmark’s Military Criminal Code (2005) provides:
Any person who deliberately uses war means [“krigsmiddel”] or procedures the application of which violates an international agreement entered into by Denmark or international customary law, shall be liable to the same penalty [i.e. imprisonment up to life imprisonment]. 
Denmark, Military Criminal Code, 2005, § 36(2).
Ethiopia
Under Ethiopia’s Penal Code (1957), anyone who “intentionally destroys or damages in the course of hostilities material, installations or depots” belonging to the ICRC or to corresponding humanitarian relief organizations (the Red Crescent, the Red Lion and Sun) commits a punishable offence. 
Ethiopia, Penal Code, 1957, Article 293(b).
Ethiopia’s Criminal Code (2004) states:
Article 281.- Hostile Acts against International Humanitarian Organizations.
(1) Whoever intentionally and in time of peace:
(b) destroys or damages material, installations or depots belonging to [the International Red Cross or Red Crescent or to corresponding humanitarian relief organizations],
is punishable with simple imprisonment, or, in cases of exceptional gravity, with rigorous imprisonment not exceeding five years.
(2) Where the crime is committed in time of war, the punishment shall be rigorous imprisonment from one year to five years. 
Ethiopia, Criminal Code, 2004, Article 281.
The Criminal Code of 2004 repealed Ethiopia’s Penal Code of 1957.
France
France’s Code of Defence (2004), as amended in 2008, states:
Combatants must respect … all persons protected by the applicable international conventions, as well as their objects.
… The … objects used in a humanitarian assistance mission … are … protected as long as they are entitled to the protection given to … civilian objects under the law of armed conflicts. 
France, Code of Defence, 2004, as amended in 2008, Article D4122-8.
France
France’s Penal Code (1992), as amended in 2010, states in its section on war crimes common to both international and non-international armed conflicts:
Intentionally launching attacks against the installations, material, units and vehicles employed in a humanitarian relief mission … , as long as they are entitled to the protection given to civilian and civilian objects under the international law of armed conflict, is punishable by 20 years’ imprisonment. 
France, Penal Code, 1992, as amended in 2010, Article 461-12, para. 2.
Germany
Germany’s Law Introducing the International Crimes Code (2002) provides:
Anyone who, in connection with an international or non-international armed conflict, … carries out an attack against personnel, installations, material, units or vehicles involved in a humanitarian assistance or peacekeeping mission in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, as long as they are entitled to the protection given to civilians or civilian objects under international humanitarian law, shall be liable to imprisonment for not less than three years. In less serious cases, particularly where the attack is not carried out with military means, the period of imprisonment shall be for not less than one year. 
Germany, Law Introducing the International Crimes Code, 2002, § 11.1(1).
Iraq
Iraq’s Military Penal Code (2007) states: “Whosoever vandalizes or loots, or instigates vandalizing or looting of the health facilities under the Red Crescent or Red Cross societies, is punishable with [imprisonment for fifteen years].” 
Iraq, Military Penal Code, 2007, Article 61(11).
Ireland
Under Ireland’s Geneva Conventions Act (1962), as amended in 1998, any “minor breach” of the 1977 Additional Protocol I, including violations of Article 70(4), is a punishable offence. 
Ireland, Geneva Conventions Act, 1962, as amended in 1998, Section 4(1) and (4).
Netherlands
The Definition of War Crimes Decree (1946) of the Netherlands includes “destruction of relief ships” in its list of war crimes. 
Netherlands, Definition of War Crimes Decree, 1946, Article 1.
Netherlands
Under the International Crimes Act (2003) of the Netherlands, “intentionally directing attacks against … installations, material, units or vehicles involved in humanitarian assistance …, as long as they are entitled to the protection given to … civilian objects under the international law of armed conflict” is a crime, whether committed in an international or a non-international armed conflict. 
Netherlands, International Crimes Act, 2003, Articles 5(5)(o) and 6(3)(c).
New Zealand
Under New Zealand’s International Crimes and ICC Act (2000), war crimes include the crimes defined in Article 8(2)(b)(iii) and (e)(iii) of the 1998 ICC Statute. 
New Zealand, International Crimes and ICC Act, 2000, Section 11(2).
Norway
Norway’s Military Penal Code (1902), as amended in 1981, provides:
Anyone who contravenes or is accessory to the contravention of provisions relating to the protection of persons or property laid down in … the two additional protocols to [the 1949 Geneva] Conventions … is liable to imprisonment. 
Norway, Military Penal Code, 1902, as amended in 1981, § 108(b).
Norway
Norway’s Penal Code (1902), as amended in 2008, states:
Any person is liable to punishment for a war crime who in connection with an armed conflict … directs an attack against … installations, material, medical units or vehicles involved in a humanitarian assistance … mission … as long as they are entitled to the protection given to … property/civilian objects under international law. 
Norway, Penal Code, 1902, as amended in 2008, § 105(a).
Peru
Peru’s Law on Internal Displacement (2004) states: “Persons providing humanitarian assistance, their means of transport and their supplies enjoy respect and protection. They shall not be the object of attack or other acts of violence.” 
Peru, Law on Internal Displacement, 2004, Article 11.
Peru
Peru’s Regulations to the Law on Internal Displacement (2005) states: “Persons engaged in humanitarian assistance, their transport and supplies are [to be] respected and protected. They shall not be the object of attack or other acts of violence.” 
Peru, Regulations to the Law on Internal Displacement, 2005, Article 18.
Peru
Peru’s Military and Police Criminal Code (2010), in a chapter entitled “Crimes against humanitarian operations and emblems”, states:
A member of the military or the police shall be punished with deprivation of liberty of not less than six years and not more than twenty-five years if, in a state of emergency and when the Armed Forces assume control of the internal order, he or she:
1. Attacks … installations, units or vehicles involved in a … humanitarian assistance mission … , if they are entitled to the protection granted to … civilian objects under International Humanitarian Law. 
Peru, Military and Police Criminal Code, 2010, Article 95(1).
Portugal
Portugal’s Penal Code (1996) considers attacks on objects necessary for the assistance and relief of the civilian population as a punishable offence. 
Portugal, Penal Code, 1996, Article 241.
Republic of Korea
The Republic of Korea’s ICC Act (2007) provides for the punishment of anyone who commits the following war crime in both international and non-international armed conflicts:
Intentionally directing attacks against … installations, material, units or vehicles involved in a humanitarian assistance … mission in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, as long as they are entitled to the protection given to … civilian objects under the international law of armed conflict. 
Republic of Korea, ICC Act, 2007, Article 12(1)(1).
Rwanda
Rwanda’s Law Repressing the Crime of Genocide, Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes (2003) provides:
Article: 14
Shall be punished by imprisonment of six (6) months to five (5) years and a fine of fifty thousand (50,000) to one hundred thousand (100,000) Rwandan Francs, or one of these penalties alone, a person who:
1° engages in hostile acts against persons belonging to humanitarian organizations in the exercise of their functions;
2° willingly destroys or damages, at the occasion of hostilities, materiel, installations or stores belonging to such an organization or placed under its protection. 
Rwanda, Law Repressing the Crime of Genocide, Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes, 2003, Article 14.
shall be liable to a term of imprisonment of one (1) year to two (2) years and a fine of one hundred thousand (100,000) to two hundred thousand (200,000) Rwandan francs or one of these penalties. 
Rwanda, Organic Law instituting the Penal Code, 2012, Article 129.
Senegal
Senegal’s Penal Code (1965), as amended in 2007, states that the following constitute war crimes:
b) [O]ther serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in international armed conflict, within the established framework of international law, namely, any of the following acts:
2. launching deliberate attacks against … installations, material, units or vehicles involved in a humanitarian assistance … mission … , as long as they are entitled to the protection given to … civilian objects under the international law of armed conflict;
d) …
Other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in armed conflicts not of an international character, within the established framework of international law, namely, any of the following acts:
3. launching deliberate attacks against … installations, material, units or vehicles involved in a humanitarian assistance … mission … , as long as they are entitled to the protection given to … civilian objects under the international law of armed conflict. 
Senegal, Penal Code, 1965, as amended in 2007, Article 431-3(b)(2) and (d)(3).
Serbia
Serbia’s Criminal Code (2005) states that ordering or committing an attack on “facilities of humanitarian organizations”, in violation of international law, constitutes a war crime. 
Serbia, Criminal Code, 2005, Article 372(1).
Slovenia
Under Slovenia’s Penal Code (1994), “an attack on buildings specially protected under international law” is a war crime. 
Slovenia, Penal Code, 1994, Article 374(2).
South Africa
South Africa’s ICC Act (2002) reproduces the war crimes listed in the 1998 ICC Statute, including in both international and non-international armed conflicts:
intentionally directing attacks against … installations, material, units or vehicles involved in a humanitarian assistance … mission … as long as they are entitled to the protection given to … civilian objects under the international law of armed conflict. 
South Africa, ICC Act, 2002, Schedule 1, Part 3, §§ (b)(iii) and (e)(iii).
Spain
Spain’s Penal Code (1995), as amended in 2010, states:
1. Anyone who in the event of an armed conflict commits or orders to be committed any of the following acts shall be punished with four to six years’ imprisonment:
i. Attacking or performing acts of hostility against installations, materials, units, private residences or vehicles [belonging] to any member of the personnel referred to in paragraph 10 article 612 or threatening [to commit] such attacks or acts of hostility in order to compel a natural or legal person to commit or to refrain from committing an act.
2. … In all other cases mentioned in the above article, the higher sentence can be imposed when extensive and important destructions are caused to the property, objects or installations or [the acts] are of extreme gravity. 
Spain, Penal Code, 1995, as amended on 23 June 2010, Article 613(1)(i) and (2).
The Code further states:
Anyone who [commits any of the following acts] during armed conflict shall be punished with three to seven years’ imprisonment:
10. Intentionally directing attacks against personnel of the United Nations, [and] personnel associated or participating in … humanitarian missions in accordance with the United Nations Charter, as long as they are entitled to the protection given to civilians or civilian objects under the international law of armed conflict, or threatening to commit any such attack with the objective of compelling a physical or legal person to commit or to refrain from committing any act. 
Spain, Penal Code, 1995, as amended on 23 June 2010, Article 612(10).
Switzerland
Switzerland’s Military Criminal Code (1927), taking into account amendments entered into force up to 2011, states in a chapter entitled “War crimes”:
Art. 110
Articles 112–114 apply in the context of international armed conflicts, including in situations of occupation, and, if the nature of the offence does not exclude it, in the context of non-international armed conflicts.
Art. 112
1 The penalty shall be a custodial sentence of not less than three years for any person who in the context of an armed conflict directs an attack against:
b. … installations, material or vehicles involved in a humanitarian assistance … mission … as long as they are protected by international humanitarian law. 
Switzerland, Military Criminal Code, 1927, taking into account amendments entered into force up to 2011, Articles 110 and Article 112(1)(b).
[footnote in original omitted]
Switzerland
Switzerland’s Penal Code (1937), taking into account amendments entered into force up to 2011, states under the title “War crimes”:
Art. 264b
Articles 264d–264j apply in the context of international armed conflicts, including in situations of occupation, and, if the nature of the offence does not exclude it, in the context of non-international armed conflicts.
Art. 264d
1 The penalty shall be a custodial sentence of not less than three years for any person who in the context of an armed conflict directs an attack against:
b. … installations, material or vehicles involved in a humanitarian assistance … mission … as long as they are protected by international humanitarian law. 
Switzerland, Penal Code, 1937, taking into account amendments entered into force up to 2011, Articles 264b and 264d (1)(b).
[footnote in original omitted]
Turkey
Under Turkey’s Military Penal Code (1930), the destruction or pillage of the establishments of organizations such as the Red Crescent or Red Cross is an offence punishable by imprisonment. 
Turkey, Military Penal Code, 1930, § 127.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Under the UK ICC Act (2001), it is a punishable offence to commit a war crime as defined in Article 8(2)(b)(iii) and (e)(iii) of the 1998 ICC Statute. 
United Kingdom, ICC Act, 2001, Sections 50(1) and 51(1) (England and Wales) and Section 58(1) (Northern Ireland).
Uruguay
Uruguay’s Law on Cooperation with the ICC (2006) states:
26.2. … objects affected by the war crimes set out in the present provision are … objects which international law protects in international or internal armed conflict.
26.3. The following are war crimes:
11. Intentionally directing attacks against … installations, material, units or vehicles involved in a humanitarian assistance … mission, as long as they are entitled to the protection granted to … civilian objects under the international law of armed conflict. 
Uruguay, Law on Cooperation with the ICC, 2006, Article 26.2 and 26.3.11.
Yugoslavia, Socialist Federal Republic of
Under the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia’s Penal Code (1976), as amended in 2001, “the launching of an attack on facilities that are specifically protected under international law” is a war crime. 
Yugoslavia, Socialist Federal Republic of, Penal Code, 1976, as amended in 2001, Article 143.
Canada
In 2013, in the Sapkota case, Canada’s Federal Court dismissed a request for review of a decision denying refugee protection to the applicant on grounds of complicity in crimes against humanity in Nepal between 1991 and 2009. While reviewing the submissions of the respondent, Canada’s Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, the Court stated: “The Respondent notes that the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court … is endorsed in Canada as a source of customary law.” 
Canada, Federal Court, Sapkota case, Reasons for Judgment and Judgment, 15 July 2013, § 28.
Colombia
In 2007, in the Constitutional Case No. C-291/07, the Plenary Chamber of Colombia’s Constitutional Court stated:
International humanitarian law, in its treaty and customary form applicable in internal armed conflicts, provides for the special protection of certain categories of persons and property particularly vulnerable to the effects of war. The main categories of persons and objects specially protected [include] … humanitarian relief … objects. 
Colombia, Constitutional Court, Constitutional Case No. C-291/07, Judgment of 25 April 2007, p. 120.
South Africa
In 1987, in the Petane case, the Cape Provincial Division of South Africa’s Supreme Court dismissed the accused’s claim that the 1977 Additional Protocol I reflected customary international law. The Court stated:
The accused has been indicted before this Court on three counts of terrorism, that is to say, contraventions of s 54(1) of the Internal Security Act 74 of 1982. He has also been indicted on three counts of attempted murder.
The accused’s position is stated to be that this Court has no jurisdiction to try him.
… The point in its early formulation was this. By the terms of [the 1977 Additional] Protocol I to the [1949] Geneva Conventions the accused was entitled to be treated as a prisoner-of-war. A prisoner-of-war is entitled to have notice of an impending prosecution for an alleged offence given to the so-called “protecting power” appointed to watch over prisoners-of-war. Since, if such a notice were necessary, the trial could not proceed without it, Mr Donen suggested that the necessity or otherwise for giving such a notice should be determined before evidence was led. …
On 12 August 1949 there were concluded at Geneva in Switzerland four treaties known as the Geneva Conventions. …
South Africa was among the nations which concluded the treaties. … Except for the common art 3, which binds parties to observe a limited number of fundamental humanitarian principles in armed conflicts not of an international character, they apply to wars between States.
After the Second World War many conflicts arose which could not be characterised as international. It was therefore considered desirable by some States to extend and augment the provisions of the Geneva Conventions, so as to afford protection to victims of and combatants in conflicts which fell outside the ambit of these Conventions. The result of these endeavours was Protocol I and Protocol II to the Geneva Conventions, both of which came into force on 7 December 1978.
Protocol II relates to the protection of victims of non-international armed conflicts. Since the State of affairs which exists in South Africa has by Protocol I been characterised as an international armed conflict, Protocol II does not concern me at all.
The extension of the scope of art 2 of the Geneva Conventions was, at the time of its adoption, controversial. …
The article has remained controversial. More debate has raged about its field of operation than about any other articles in Protocol I. …
South Africa is one of the countries which has not acceded to Protocol I. Nevertheless, I am asked to decide, as I indicated earlier, as a preliminary point, whether Protocol I has become part of customary international law. If so, it is argued that it would have been incorporated into South African law. If it has been so incorporated it would have to be proved by one or other of the parties that the turmoil which existed at the time when the accused is alleged to have committed his offences was such that it could properly be described as an “armed conflict” conducted by “peoples” against a “ra[c]ist regime” in the exercise of their “right of self-determination”. Once all this has been shown it would have to be demonstrated to the Court that the accused conducted himself in such a manner as to become entitled to the benefits conferred by Protocol I on combatants, for example that, broadly speaking, he had, while he was launching an attack, distinguished himself from civilians and had not attacked civilian targets. …
… I am prepared to accept that where a rule of customary international law is recognised as such by international law it will be so recognised by our law.
To my way of thinking, the trouble with the first Protocol giving rise to State practice is that its terms have not been capable of being observed by all that many States. At the end of 1977 when the treaty first lay open for ratification there were few States which were involved in colonial domination or the occupation of other States and there were only two, South Africa and Israel, which were considered to fall within the third category of ra[c]ist regimes. Accordingly, the situation sought to be regulated by the first Protocol was one faced by few countries; too few countries in my view, to permit any general usage in dealing with armed conflicts of the kind envisaged by the Protocol to develop.
Mr Donen contended that the provisions of multilateral treaties can become customary international law under certain circumstances. I accept that this is so. There seems in principle to be no reason why treaty rules cannot acquire wider application than among the parties to the treaty.
Brownlie Principles of International Law 3rd ed at 13 agrees that non-parties to a treaty may by their conduct accept the provisions of a multilateral convention as representing general international law. …
I incline to the view that non-ratification of a treaty is strong evidence of non-acceptance.
It is interesting to note that the first Protocol makes extensive provision for the protection of civilians in armed conflict. …
In this sense, Protocol I may be described as an enlightened humanitarian document. If the strife in South Africa should deteriorate into an armed conflict we may all one day find it a cause for regret that the ideologically provocative tone of s 1(4) has made it impossible for the Government to accept its terms.
To my mind it can hardly be said that Protocol I has been greeted with acclaim by the States of the world. Their lack of enthusiasm must be due to the bizarre mixture of political and humanitarian objects sought to be realised by the Protocol. …
According to the International Review of the Red Cross (January/February 1987) No 256, as at December 1986, 66 States were parties to Protocol I and 60 to Protocol II, which, it will be remembered, deals with internal non-international armed conflicts. With the exception of France, which acceded only to Protocol II, not one of the world’s major powers has acceded to or ratified either of the Protocols. This position should be compared to the 165 States which are parties to the Geneva Conventions.
This approach of the world community to Protocol I is, on principle, far too half-hearted to justify an inference that its principles have been so widely accepted as to qualify them as rules of customary international law. The reasons for this are, I imagine, not far to seek. For those States which are contending with “peoples[’]” struggles for self-determination, adoption of the Protocol may prove awkward. For liberation movements who rely on strategies of urban terror for achieving their aims the terms of the Protocol, with its emphasis on the protection of civilians, may prove disastrously restrictive. I therefore do not find it altogether surprising that Mr Donen was unable to refer me to any statement in the published literature that Protocol I has attained the status o[f] customary international [law].
I have not been persuaded by the arguments which I have heard on behalf of the accused that the assessment of Professor Dugard, writing in the Annual Survey of South African Law (1983) at 66, that “it is argued with growing conviction that under contemporary international law members of SWAPO [South-West Africa People’s Organisation] and the ANC [African National Congress] are members of liberation movements entitled to prisoner-of-war status, in terms of a new customary rule spawned by the 1977 Protocols”, is correct. On what I have heard in argument I disagree with his assessment that there is growing support for the view that the Protocols reflect a new rule of customary international law. No writer has been cited who supports this proposition. Here and there someone says that it may one day come about. I am not sure that the provisions relating to the field of application of Protocol I are capable of ever becoming a rule of customary international law, but I need not decide that point today.
For the reasons which I have given I have concluded that the provisions of Protocol I have not been accepted in customary international law. They accordingly form no part of South African law.
This conclusion has made it unnecessary for me to give a decision on the question of whether rules of customary international law which conflict with the statutory or common law of this country will be enforced by its courts.
In the result, the preliminary point is dismissed. The trial must proceed. 
South Africa, Supreme Court, Petane case, Judgment, 3 November 1987, pp. 2–8.
South Africa
In 2010, in the Boeremag case, South Africa’s North Gauteng High Court stated:
In Petane, … Conradie J found that the provisions of [the 1977 Additional] Protocol I are not part of customary international law, and therefore are also not part of South African law.
Referring to the fact that in December 1986 only 66 of the 165 States party to the Geneva Conventions had ratified Protocol I, the Court [in Petane] stated:
This approach of the world community to Protocol I is, on principle, far too half-hearted to justify an inference that its principles have been so widely accepted as to qualify them as rules of customary international law. The reasons for this are, I imagine, not far to seek. For those States which are contending with “peoples[’]” struggles for self-determination, adoption of the Protocol may prove awkward. For liberation movements who rely on strategies of urban terror for achieving their aims the terms of the Protocol, with its emphasis on the protection of civilians, may prove disastrously restrictive. I therefore do not find it altogether surprising that Mr Donen was unable to refer me to any statement in the published literature that Protocol I has attained the status of customary international law.
Important changes with respect to certain aspects applicable at the time of Petane have taken place. The ANC [African National Congress] has become South Africa’s ruling party and in 1995 ratified Protocol I. The total number of States that have ratified it, is now … 162.
This last aspect forms the basis on which the First Respondent [the State] and the applicants agree that Protocol I forms part of customary international law as well as of South African law. As requested, this position is accepted for the purposes of the decision, without deciding on the matter.
Despite these changes, it remains debatable whether the provisions of Protocol I have become a part of South African law in this way.
The consensus of both parties to the conflict is required. See Petane … and Article 96 of Protocol I. …
Parliament’s failure to incorporate Protocol I into legislation in accordance with Article 231(4) of the Constitution in fact points to the contrary, and is indicative that the requirements of usus and/or opinio juris have not been met. See Petane. 
South Africa, North Gauteng High Court, Boeremag case, Judgment, 26 August 2010, pp. 21–22.
[footnotes in original omitted]
The Court also held:
If the [1977 Additional Protocol I] applies in South Africa as customary international law, the two requirements that form the basis of customary law must be met. It is arguable that the requirement of usus has been met by the vast number of States that have acceded or ratified it. By ratifying Protocol I the Republic of South Africa has indicated its intention to apply the Protocol, thereby fulfilling the requirement of opinio juris. 
South Africa, North Gauteng High Court, Boeremag case, Judgment, 26 August 2010, p. 66.
Bosnia and Herzegovina
In an appeal issued in 1992, the Presidency of the Republika Srpska of Bosnia and Herzegovina stated: We shall make efforts to provide, as soon as possible, conditions for operations of the Red Cross and other humanitarian organizations and, in particular, to ensure respect for their representatives, vehicles and supplies and their safe work.” 
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Republika Srpska, Appeal of the Presidency concerning the International Committee of the Red Cross Operations, Pale, 7 June 1992.
Brazil
The Report on the Practice of Brazil refers to an ICRC booklet compiled by the ICRC delegation in Brazil and used for the instruction of the Brazilian armed forces. The booklet highlights the duty of armed forces to respect relief objects. 
Report on the Practice of Brazil, 1997, Chapter 4.2.
Djibouti
In 2010, in the History and Geography Textbook for 8th Grade, Djibouti’s Ministry of National Education and Higher Education, under the heading “Basic rules of IHL” and in a section on “Specific protection”, stated: “[H]umanitarian relief supplies and operations shall be respected and protected.ˮ 
Djibouti, Ministry of National Education and Higher Education, History and Geography Textbook for 8th Grade, 2010, p. 194.
Djibouti
In 2011, in the History and Geography Textbook for 9th Grade, Djibouti’s Ministry of National Education and Vocational Training, under the heading “[O]ffences related to violations of humanitarian law”, listed “intentionally directing attacks … against … installations, material, units or vehicles involved in a humanitarian mission”. 
Djibouti, Ministry of National Education and Vocational Training, History and Geography Textbook for 9th Grade, 2011, p. 210.
Egypt
According to the Report on the Practice of Egypt, “because of the importance of relief personnel and objects for the survival of the civilian population, Egypt believes that their protection is a sine qua non conditio”. 
Report on the Practice of Egypt, 1997, Chapter 4.2.
Ethiopia
It was reported in the context of the conflict in Ethiopia, that “the Ethiopian air force had bombed relief convoys” and that “the EPLF [Eritrean People’s Liberation Front], too, attacked food convoys, claiming that the regime was using them to ship weapons to its troops”. 
Thomas P. Ofcansky and LaVerle Berry (eds.), Ethiopia: A Country Study, Government Printing Office, Washington D.C., Fourth edition, 1993, p. 328.
Germany
In 1991, during a parliamentary debate on the situation in Sudan, a member of the German Parliament said that the bombing of Red Cross and UN supply depots by governmental forces in southern Sudan was proof of “completely perverse behaviour”. His protest was shared by all parliamentary parties. 
Germany, Lower House of Parliament, Statement by Dr. Werner Schuster, Member of Parliament, 21 June 1991, Plenarprotokoll 12/35, p. 2966.
Islamic Republic of Iran
According to the Report on the Practice of the Islamic Republic of Iran, it is the opinio juris of the Islamic Republic of Iran that relief objects are “immune from attack”. 
Report on the Practice of the Islamic Republic of Iran, 1997, Chapter 4.2.
Israel
In 2009, in a report on Israeli operations in Gaza between 27 December 2008 and 18 January 2009 (the “Gaza Operation”, also known as “Operation Cast Lead”), Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated: “The IDF’s [Israel Defence Forces’] operational plans and rules of engagement order special precautions with regard to military activity in proximity to United Nations and Red Cross facilities (of which there are several hundred in Gaza)”. 
Israel, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, The Operation in Gaza 27 December 2008–18 January 2009: Factual and Legal Aspects, 29 July 2009, § 259.
Israel
In July 2010, in a second update of its July 2009 report on Israeli operations in Gaza between 27 December 2008 and 18 January 2009, Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated:
In connection with the review of operations affecting incidents involving harm to U.N. and other international facilities, the IDF [Israel Defense Forces] Chief of General Staff re-emphasized the importance of better familiarizing IDF units at all levels with the location of sensitive facilities within their assigned combat zones. He ordered that regulations regarding safety distances from sensitive facilities be highlighted, specifically with regard to the use of artillery, and also ordered that additional steps be looked at to improve the coordination between the IDF and U.N. agencies in the field. 
Israel, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Gaza Operation Investigations: Second Update, 19 July 2010, § 157.a
Kuwait
According to the Report on the Practice of Kuwait, it is the opinio juris of Kuwait that humanitarian relief objects must be protected. 
Report on the Practice of Kuwait, 1997, Chapter 4.2.
Mexico
In 2010, in a statement before the UN Security Council on the situation in the Middle East, including the Palestinian question, the permanent representative of Mexico stated:
We are dismayed and surprised by the grave events that took place along the coasts of the Mediterranean off the Gaza Strip today. We condemn in the strongest terms the armed attack carried out by the armed forces of Israel in international waters against the flotilla of civilian boats seeking to carry humanitarian aid to the inhabitants of the Gaza Strip. …
Attacks in armed conflict situations directed specifically against … [objects] subject to protection … are serious violations of the norms and principles of international humanitarian law, in accordance with the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their Additional Protocols of … [1977]. They also constitute international crimes. 
Mexico, Statement by the permanent representative of Mexico before the UN Security Council, 6325th meeting, UN Doc. S/PV.6325, 31 May 2010, pp. 6–7.
Nigeria
According to the Report on the Practice of Nigeria, during the conflict in Biafra, the Nigerian Commissioner for Information maintained that “Nigeria would continue to stand by its promise to the ICRC to keep some ‘corridors of mercy’ safe from military activities so that relief supplies could at all times be channelled to Biafra through these corridors”. As no practice deviated from this, the report concludes that the opinio juris of Nigeria is that the protection of relief objects is part of customary international law. 
Report on the Practice of Nigeria, 1997, Chapter 4.2.
Norway
In 2006, during a debate in the UN Security Council regarding the situation in Lebanon and Gaza, the Norwegian Minister for Foreign Affairs stated: “[H]umanitarian and relief workers must be given unrestricted and safe access both for themselves and for relief supplies.” 
Norway, Statement by the Minister for Foreign Affairs in the UN Security Council regarding the situation in Lebanon and Gaza, 21 July 2006.
Switzerland
In 2005, in a report in response to a parliamentary postulate on private security and military companies, Switzerland’s Federal Council stated: “International humanitarian law also limits the conduct of military operations permissible under international law. Thus for example, attacks against protected groups and property such as civilians and civilian property as well as the staff or property of the Red Cross … are forbidden.” 
Switzerland, Report by the Swiss Federal Council on Private Security and Military Companies, 2 December 2005, Section 5.3.1, pp. 45–46.
Switzerland
Switzerland’s ABC of International Humanitarian Law (2009) states:
Emblems (distinctive sign)
In Armed conflicts recognisable emblems serve above all to protect military and civilian medical installations as well as the buildings of national relief organisations and their personnel from attack (protective function). This protection is guaranteed not by the emblems themselves but is based directly in international law. 
Switzerland, Federal Department of Foreign Affairs, ABC of International Humanitarian Law, 2009, p. 18.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
The Report on UK Practice states: “As regards protection of relief personnel and objects, the United Kingdom has, both in words and in action, demonstrated support for this principle, as in Iraq, and in the former Yugoslavia.” 
Report on UK Practice, 1997, Chapter 4.2.
United States of America
In 1992, in a report submitted pursuant to paragraph 5 of Security Council Resolution 771 (1992) on grave breaches of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV committed in the former Yugoslavia, the United States included among “deliberate attacks on non-combatants” reports that “a convoy of United Nations trucks carrying aid supplies to Bosnian civilians was mortared” and that a “G-222 aircraft, which was carrying five tons of blankets to Sarajevo on a United Nations relief mission, was shot down by up to three ground-to-air missiles”. 
United States, Former Yugoslavia: Grave Breaches of the Fourth Geneva Convention, annexed to Letter dated 22 September 1992 to the UN Secretary-General, UN Doc. S/24583, 23 September 1992, p. 8.
In another such report, the United States referred to a report that “an International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) convoy carrying food and medical relief on 18 May was attacked as it entered Sarajevo, despite the security guarantees obtained from the parties concerned”. 
United States, Former Yugoslavia: Grave Breaches of the Fourth Geneva Convention (Third Submission), annexed to Letter dated 5 November 1992 to the UN Secretary-General, UN Doc. S/24791, 10 November, p. 19.
United States of America
According to the Report on US Practice, it is the opinio juris of the United States that “buildings used for relief and other charitable purposes are not subject to bombardment”. 
Report on US Practice, 1997, Chapter 4.2.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 1994, the UN Security Council demanded that “all parties in Rwanda strictly respect the … premises of the United Nations and other organizations serving in Rwanda”. 
UN Security Council, Res. 918, 17 May 1994, § 11, adopted without a vote.
This demand was reiterated in a subsequent resolution. 
UN Security Council, Res. 925, 8 June 1994, § 11, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 1994 on the conflict in Liberia, the UN Security Council demanded that all factions “return forthwith” equipment seized from humanitarian relief agencies. 
UN Security Council, Res. 950, 21 October 1994, § 8, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 1996 on the conflict in Liberia, the UN Security Council:
Condemns all attacks against personnel of ECOMOG, UNOMIL, and international organizations and agencies delivering humanitarian assistance as well as the looting of their equipment, supplies and personal property, and calls for the immediate return of looted property. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1059, 31 May 1996, § 6, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 1997 on the situation in Liberia, the UN Security Council:
Condemns all attacks against and intimidation of personnel of ECOMOG, UNOMIL, and the international organizations and agencies delivering humanitarian assistance as well as the looting of their equipment, supplies, and personal property, [and] calls upon the leaders of the factions to ensure the immediate return of looted property. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1071, 30 August 1996, § 8, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 1996, the UN Security Council:
Demands that all parties and others concerned in Angola take all necessary measures to ensure the safety of United Nations and other international … premises, including that of non-governmental organizations, and to guarantee the safety … of humanitarian supplies throughout the country. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1075, 11 October 1996, § 18, voting record: 15-0-0.
This demand was reiterated in a subsequent resolution later the same year. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1087, 11 December 1996, § 16, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 1996 in the context of the conflict in Liberia, the UN Security Council condemned “the looting of … equipment, supplies, and personal property” of personnel of international organizations and agencies delivering humanitarian assistance. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1083, 27 November 1996, § 7, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 1999, the UN Security Council strongly condemned “attacks on objects protected under international law” and called on all parties “to put an end to such practices”. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1265, 17 September 1999, § 2, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 2003 on children in armed conflict, the UN Security Council underlined the importance of “the full, safe and unhindered access of humanitarian personnel and goods and the delivery of humanitarian assistance to all children affected by armed conflict”. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1460, 30 January 2003, preamble, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 2003 following the invasion of Iraq by US and coalition forces, the UN Security Council:
Urges all parties concerned, consistent with the Geneva Conventions and the Hague Regulations, to allow full unimpeded access by international humanitarian organizations to all people of Iraq in need of assistance and to make available all necessary facilities for their operations and to promote the safety, security and freedom of movement of United Nations and associated personnel and their assets, as well as personnel of humanitarian organizations in Iraq in meeting such needs. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1472, 28 March 2003, § 8, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 2003 on the “Protection of United Nations personnel, associated personnel and humanitarian personnel in conflict zones”, the UN Security Council:
1. Expresses its strong condemnation of all forms of violence … to which those participating in humanitarian operations are increasingly exposed, as well as attacks on humanitarian convoys and acts of destruction and looting of their property;
4. Urges all those concerned as set forth in international humanitarian law, including the Geneva Conventions and the Hague Regulations, to allow full unimpeded access by humanitarian personnel to all people in need of assistance, and to make available, as far as possible, all necessary facilities for their operations, and to promote the safety, security and freedom of movement of humanitarian personnel and United Nations and its associated personnel and their assets. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1502, 26 August 2003, §§ 1 and 4, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 2004 on children in armed conflict, the UN Security Council underlined the importance of “the full, safe and unhindered access of humanitarian personnel and goods and the delivery of humanitarian assistance to all children affected by armed conflict”. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1539, 22 April 2004, preamble, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 2006 on the situation in the Middle East, the UN Security Council affirmed that all parties are responsible for ensuring “humanitarian access to civilian populations, including safe passage for humanitarian convoys”. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1701, 11 August 2006, § 7, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 2007 on Somalia, the UN Security Council:
18. Encourages Member States whose naval vessels and military aircraft operate in international waters and airspace adjacent to the coast of Somalia to be vigilant to any incident of piracy therein and to take appropriate action to protect merchant shipping, in particular the transportation of humanitarian aid, against any such act, in line with relevant international law.  
UN Security Council, Res. 1772, 20 August 2007, § 18, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In 1994, in a statement by its President on the situation in Rwanda, the UN Security Council called upon all parties “to ensure the safe passage for humanitarian assistance”. 
UN Security Council, Statement by the President, UN Doc. S/PRST/1994/21, 30 April 1994, p. 2.
UN Security Council
In 1994, in a statement by its President on the conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the UN Security Council noted with particular concern “reports of the recurrent obstruction and looting of humanitarian aid convoys destined for the civilian population of Maglaj”. 
UN Security Council, Statement by the President, UN Doc. S/PRST/1994/11, 14 March 1994.
UN Security Council
In 1997, in a statement by its President following the military coup d’état in Sierra Leone, the UN Security Council called for “an end to the looting of premises and equipment belonging to the United Nations and international aid agencies”. 
UN Security Council, Statement by the President, UN Doc. S/PRST/1997/29, 27 May 1997.
UN Security Council
In 1997, in a statement by its President on Sierra Leone, the UN Security Council expressed its deep concern about “the deteriorating humanitarian situation in Sierra Leone, and at the continued looting and commandeering of relief supplies of international agencies”. 
UN Security Council, Statement by the President, UN Doc. S/PRST/1997/42, 6 August 1997.
UN Security Council
In 1997, in a statement by its President on the situation in Afghanistan, the UN Security Council expressed “serious concern over the looting of United Nations premises and food supplies” and urged all parties “to prevent their recurrence”. 
UN Security Council, Statement by the President, UN Doc. S/PRST/1997/55, 16 December 1997, p. 2.
UN Security Council
In 2000, in statement by its President on the Protection of United Nations Personnel, Associated personnel and Humanitarian Personnel in Conflict Zones, the UN Security Council strongly condemned “acts of destruction and looting” of the property of UN and associated personnel and of humanitarian personnel. 
UN Security Council, Statement by the President, UN Doc. S/PRST/2000/4, 11 February 2000, p. 2.
UN Security Council
In 2004, in a statement by its President on the question concerning Haiti, the UN Security Council called upon “all sides in Haiti’s conflict to facilitate the distribution of food and medicine and ensure the protection of civilians. It calls upon all sides to respect international humanitarian personnel and facilities and to ensure that humanitarian assistance reaches those who need it”. 
UN Security Council, Statement by the President, UN Doc. S/PRST/2004/4, 26 February 2004, p. 1.
UN Security Council
In 2004, in a statement by its President concerning the situation in the Darfur region of Sudan, the UN Security Council called on “all parties, in accordance with the provisions of resolution 1502 (2003), to allow full unimpeded access by humanitarian personnel to all people in need for their operations, and to promote the safety, security and freedom of movement of humanitarian personnel and their assets”. 
UN Security Council, Statement by the President, UN Doc. S/PRST/2004/18, 25 May 2004, pp. 1–2.
UN Security Council
In 2006, in a statement by its President concerning the situation in Côte d’Ivoire, the UN Security Council strongly condemned “the recent violent attacks against the United Nations Operation in Côte d’Ivoire (UNOCI) and international NGO facilities in Côte d’Ivoire by street militias and other groups associated with the ‘Young Patriots’, as well as their instigators”. 
UN Security Council, Statement by the President, UN Doc. S/PRST/2006/2, 19 January 2006, p. 1.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 1996 in the context of the conflict in Liberia, the UN General Assembly deplored “the looting of … equipment, supplies and personal property” of the UN, its specialized agencies and NGOs. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 51/30 B, 5 December 1996, § 4, adopted without a vote.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 1996 on the situation of human rights in Afghanistan, the UN General Assembly demanded that “all Afghan parties fulfil their obligations and commitments regarding the safety of United Nations personnel and other international personnel as well as their premises in Afghanistan”. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 51/108, 12 December 1996, § 8, adopted without a vote.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 1997 on the situation of human rights in Afghanistan, the UN General Assembly demanded that “all the Afghan parties fulfil their obligations and commitments regarding the safety of all personnel of diplomatic missions, the United Nations and other international organizations, as well as of their premises in Afghanistan”. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 52/145, 12 December 1997, § 9, adopted without a vote.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 1999 on the safety and security of humanitarian personnel and protection of UN personnel, the UN General Assembly strongly condemned “acts of destruction and looting” of the property of those participating in humanitarian operations and urged all States “to take the necessary measures … to respect and ensure respect for the inviolability of United Nations premises”. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 54/192, 17 December 1999, preamble and § 2, adopted without a vote.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2000 on the situation of human rights in the Sudan, the UN General Assembly urged the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement/Army (SPLM/A) “not to misappropriate humanitarian assistance”. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 55/116, 4 December 2000, § 3(g), voting record: 85-32-49-23.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2003 on Afghanistan, the UN General Assembly:
Urges the Transitional Administration and local authorities to ensure the safety, security and free movement of all United Nations and humanitarian personnel, as well as their safe and unimpeded access to all affected populations, and to protect the property of the United Nations and of humanitarian organizations, including non-governmental organizations. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 58/27 B, 5 December 2003, § 9, adopted without a vote.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2003 on the safety and security of humanitarian personnel and the protection of United Nations personnel, the UN General Assembly:
Strongly condemning acts of murder and other forms of violence, rape and sexual assault, intimidation, armed robbery, abduction, hostage-taking, kidnapping, harassment and illegal arrest and detention to which those participating in humanitarian operations are increasingly exposed, as well as attacks on humanitarian convoys and acts of destruction and looting of their property,
3. Urges all States to take the necessary measures to ensure the safety and security of humanitarian personnel and United Nations and its associated personnel and to respect and ensure respect for the inviolability of United Nations premises, which are essential to the continuation and successful implementation of United Nations operations. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 58/122, 17 December 2003, preamble and § 3, adopted without a vote.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2004 on emergency international assistance for peace, normalcy and reconstruction of war-stricken Afghanistan, the UN General Assembly:
Urges the Government of Afghanistan and local authorities to take all possible steps to ensure the safety, security and free movement of all United Nations and humanitarian personnel, as well as their safe and unimpeded access to all affected populations, and to protect the property of the United Nations and of humanitarian organizations, including non-governmental organizations, and calls upon the international community to continue to support the efforts of the Government of Afghanistan in the area of security in a coordinated manner. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 59/112 B, 8 December 2004, § 2, adopted without a vote.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2004 on the safety and security of humanitarian personnel and protection of United Nations personnel, the UN General Assembly:
Strongly condemning … attacks on humanitarian convoys and acts of destruction and looting of property,
3. Strongly urges all States to take the necessary measures to ensure the safety and security of humanitarian personnel and United Nations and its associated personnel and to respect and ensure respect for the inviolability of United Nations premises. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 59/211, 20 December 2004, preamble and § 3, adopted without a vote.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2005 on emergency international assistance for peace, normalcy and reconstruction of war-stricken Afghanistan, the UN General Assembly:
Urges the Government of Afghanistan and local authorities to take all possible steps to ensure the safety, security and free movement of all United Nations, development and humanitarian personnel, as well as their safe and unhindered access to all affected populations, and to protect the property of the United Nations and of development or humanitarian organizations, including nongovernmental organizations. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 60/32B, 30 November 2005, § 2, adopted without a vote.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2005 on UNRWA operations, the UN General Assembly:
Recalling Articles 100, 104 and 105 of the Charter of the United Nations and the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations,
Recalling also the Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel,
Gravely concerned about the endangerment of the safety of the Agency’s staff and about the damage caused to the facilities of the Agency as a result of Israeli military operations during the reporting period,
8. Calls upon Israel, the occupying Power, to comply fully with the provisions of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949;
9. Also calls upon Israel to abide by Articles 100, 104 and 105 of the Charter of the United Nations and the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations in order to ensure the safety of the personnel of the Agency, the protection of its institutions and the safeguarding of the security of its facilities in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 60/102, 8 December 2005, preamble and §§ 8–9, voting record: 159-6-3-23.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2005 on the safety and security of humanitarian personnel and protection of United Nations personnel, the UN General Assembly:
Strongly condemning … attacks on humanitarian convoys and acts of destruction and looting of property,
3. Strongly urges all States to take the necessary measures to ensure the safety and security of humanitarian personnel and United Nations and associated personnel and to respect and ensure respect for the inviolability of United Nations premises, which are essential to the continuation and successful implementation of United Nations operations. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 60/123, 15 December 2005, preamble and § 3, adopted without a vote.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2006 on the situation in Afghanistan, the UN General Assembly urged the Government of Afghanistan to “protect the property of the United Nations and of development or humanitarian organizations”. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 61/18, 28 November 2006, § 7, adopted without a vote.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2006 on UNRWA, the UN General Assembly:
Recalling Articles 100, 104 and 105 of the Charter of the United Nations and the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations,
Recalling also the Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel,
Gravely concerned about the endangerment of the safety of the Agency’s staff and about the damage caused to the facilities of the Agency as a result of Israeli military operations during the reporting period,
10. Calls upon Israel, the occupying Power, to comply fully with the provisions of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949;
11. Also calls upon Israel to abide by Articles 100, 104 and 105 of the Charter of the United Nations and the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations in order to ensure the safety of the personnel of the Agency, the protection of its institutions and the safeguarding of the security of its facilities in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 61/114, 14 December 2006, preamble and §§ 10–11, voting record: 169-6-8-9.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2006 on the safety and security of humanitarian personnel and protection of United Nations personnel, the UN General Assembly:
Strongly condemning … attacks on humanitarian convoys and acts of destruction and looting of property,
3. Strongly urges all States … to respect and ensure respect for the inviolability of United Nations premises, which are essential to the continuation and successful implementation of United Nations operations. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 61/133, 14 December 2006, preamble and § 3, adopted without a vote.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2007 on the situation in Afghanistan, the UN General Assembly urged the Government of Afghanistan to “protect the property of the United Nations and of development or humanitarian organizations”. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 62/6, 11 November 2007, § 7, adopted without a vote.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2007 on the safety and security of humanitarian personnel and protection of United Nations personnel, the UN General Assembly:
Strongly condemning … attacks on humanitarian convoys and acts of destruction and looting of property,
3. Strongly urges all States … to respect and ensure respect for the inviolability of United Nations premises, which are essential to the continuation and successful implementation of United Nations operations. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 62/95, 17 December 2007, preamble and § 3, adopted without a vote.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2007 on UNRWA operations, the UN General Assembly:
Recalling Articles 100, 104 and 105 of the Charter of the United Nations and the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations,
Recalling also the Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel,
Gravely concerned about the endangerment of the safety of the Agency’s staff and about the damage caused to the facilities of the Agency as a result of Israeli military operations during the reporting period,
10. Calls upon Israel, the occupying Power, to comply fully with the provisions of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949;
11. Also calls upon Israel to abide by Articles 100, 104 and 105 of the Charter of the United Nations and the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations in order to ensure the safety of the personnel of the Agency, the protection of its institutions and the safeguarding of the security of its facilities in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 62/104, 17 December 2007, preamble and §§ 10–11, voting record: 170-6-3-13.
UN Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 1995 on the situation of human rights in the Sudan, the UN Commission on Human Rights expressed its outrage at “the use of military force by all parties to the conflict to disrupt or attack relief efforts aimed at assisting civilian populations” and called for “an end to such practices and for those responsible for such actions to be brought to justice”. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 1995/77, 8 March 1995, § 18, voting record: 33-7-10.
UN Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 2004 on the protection of United Nations personnel, the UN Commission on Human Rights:
Strongly condemns the acts of murder and various forms of physical violence, rape and sexual assault, abduction, hostage-taking, kidnapping, harassment, illegal arrest and detention, acts of destruction and looting of property, shooting at vehicles and aircraft, mine-laying, looting of assets, physical and psychological threats and other hostile acts against United Nations and associated personnel and other personnel acting under the authority of United Nations operations, as well as personnel of international humanitarian organizations. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2004/77, 21 April 2004, preamble, adopted without a vote.
UN Human Rights Council
In a resolution adopted in 2006 on the situation of human rights in Lebanon caused by Israeli military operations, the UN Human Rights Council stated that it was:
Guided by the Charter of the United Nations, relevant human rights instruments and international humanitarian law, in particular the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 on the Laws and Customs of War on Land which prohibit attacks and bombardment of civilian populations and objects and lay down obligations for general protection against dangers arising from military operations against civilian objects, hospitals, relief materials and means of transportation. 
UN Human Rights Council, Res. S-2/1, 11 August 2006, preamble, voting record: 27-11-8.
UN Secretary-General
In 1992, in a report on the situation in Somalia, the UN Secretary-General noted that the two main factions of the United Somali Congress had agreed that a number of sites in Mogadishu, namely the port, airports, hospitals, NGO locations and routes to and from food and non-food distribution points be declared “corridors and zones of peace”. He added that the “corridors of peace” for the safe passage of relief workers and supplies were “of paramount importance”. 
UN Secretary-General, Report on the situation in Somalia, UN Doc. S/23829/add.1, 21 April 1992, Addendum, Consolidated inter-agency 90-day Plan of Action for Emergency Humanitarian Assistance to Somalia, §§ 59 and 96.
Principles of Engagement for Emergency Humanitarian Assistance in the Democratic Republic of the Congo
The Principles of Engagement for Emergency Humanitarian Assistance in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, annexed to the 2000 United Nations Inter-Agency Consolidated Appeal for the Democratic Republic of the Congo, state:
The relevant authorities are responsible for creating conditions conducive to the implementing of humanitarian activities. This must cover the security of local and international staff as well as all assets. The restitution of requisitioned assets is an essential indication of the goodwill of the authorities. Agencies look to the local authorities to take responsibility for ensuring the return of assets wherever possible. 
UNOCHA, United Nations Inter-Agency Consolidated Appeal for the Democratic Republic of Congo (January–December 2000), November 1999, Annex II, Principles of Engagement for Emergency Humanitarian Assistance in the Democratic Republic of Congo, § 2.
Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 1989 on the activities of the International Committee of the Red Cross, the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly stated that it was “preoccupied by the increase in breaches in the security of delegates of the ICRC, its installations and means of transport”. 
Council of Europe, Parliamentary Assembly, Res. 921, 6 July 1989, § 8.
Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 1992 on the crisis in the former Yugoslavia, the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly strongly condemned attacks on convoys and personnel of international organizations bringing relief to the population in Bosnia and Herzegovina and demanded that “violators of humanitarian law [be] held personally accountable for these violations”. 
Council of Europe, Parliamentary Assembly, Res. 984, 30 June 1992, § 8.
European Union
In a declaration by its Presidency in 1998, the EU called upon all parties to the conflict in the Sudan “to respect and guarantee the security of all … relief flights and their crews and other means of humanitarian transport and supply depots”. 
EU, Declaration on Sudan by the Presidency on behalf of the EU, 14 August 1998, § 11.
International Conference for the Protection of War Victims
The Final Declaration adopted by the International Conference for the Protection of War Victims in 1993 urged all States to “make every effort” to protect relief goods and convoys as defined in international humanitarian law. 
International Conference for the Protection of War Victims, Geneva, 30 August–1 September 1993, Final Declaration, § II(9), ILM, Vol. 33, 1994, p. 301.
Inter-Parliamentary Conference (1993)
In a resolution adopted in 1993, the 90th Inter-Parliamentary Conference in Canberra expressed regret that “the international relief and protection effort during armed conflicts … is encountering serious difficulties and dangers, including … attacks against humanitarian personnel, food supplies and relief”. 
90th Inter-Parliamentary Conference, Canberra, 13–18 September 1993, Resolution on respect for international humanitarian law and support for humanitarian action in armed conflicts, preamble.
No data.
National Societies (Hungary & Yugoslavia)
In a joint statement issued in 1991, the Yugoslav Red Cross and the Hungarian Red Cross expressed their deep concern about “the protracting internal conflict in Yugoslavia” and urged the parties to the conflict “to refrain from armed actions against relief convoys”. 
Yugoslav Red Cross and Hungarian Red Cross, Joint Statement, Subotica, 25 October 1991.
ICRC
In a communication to the press in 1993, the ICRC enjoined the parties to the conflict in Somalia “to facilitate relief operations … and to respect the personnel, vehicles and premises involved”. 
ICRC, Communication to the Press No. 93/17, Somalia: ICRC appeals for compliance with international humanitarian law, 17 June 1993.
ICRC
In 1994, in a Memorandum on Respect for International Humanitarian Law in Angola, the ICRC stated: “The personnel, vehicles and premises of relief agencies shall be protected.” 
ICRC, Memorandum on Respect for International Humanitarian Law in Angola, 8 June 1994, § IV, IRRC, No. 320, 1997, p. 505.
ICRC
In 1994, in a Memorandum on Compliance with International Humanitarian Law by the Forces Participating in Opération Turquoise in the Great Lakes region, the ICRC stated:
Relief operations aimed at the civilian population which are exclusively humanitarian, impartial and non-discriminatory shall be facilitated and respected. The personnel, vehicles and premises of relief agencies shall be protected. 
ICRC, Memorandum on Compliance with International Humanitarian Law by the Forces Participating in Opération Turquoise, 23 June 1994, § IV, reprinted in Marco Sassòli and Antoine A. Bouvier, How Does Law Protect in War?, ICRC, Geneva, 1999, p. 1309.
Institute of International Law
In a resolution adopted at its Edinburgh Session in 1969, the Institute of International Law stated that “those objects which, by their nature or use, serve primarily humanitarian or peaceful purposes” cannot be considered as military objectives. 
Institute of International Law, Edinburgh Session, Resolution on the Distinction between Military Objectives and Non-Military Objects in General and Particularly the Problems Associated with Weapons of Mass Destruction, 9 September 1969, § 3(b).
International Institute of Humanitarian Law
The Guiding Principles on the Right to Humanitarian Assistance, adopted by the Council of the Institute of International Humanitarian Law in 1993, state:
Humanitarian assistance can, if appropriate, be made available by way of “humanitarian corridors”, which should be respected and protected by the competent authorities of the parties involved and if necessary by the United Nations authority. 
Institute of International Humanitarian Law, Guiding Principles on the Right to Humanitarian Assistance, Principle 10, IRRC, No. 297, 1993, p. 524.
International Symposium on Water in Armed Conflicts
At the International Symposium on Water in Armed Conflicts held in Montreux (Switzerland) in 1994, the group of international experts present agreed to “aim for absolute protection of water supplies and systems”. 
International Symposium on Water in Armed Conflicts, Montreux, November 1994, ICRC News, 24 November 1994, quoted in Marco Sassòli and Antoine A. Bouvier, How Does Law Protect in War?, ICRC, Geneva, 1999, pp. 458–459.
União Nacional para Independência Total de Angola (UNITA)
In 1996, during the conflict in Angola, UNITA committed itself to ensuring that relief personnel and objects would be spared from attack. 
UNITA, Statement on the humanitarian situation in Angola, Bailundo, 1 January 1996.