48th Jean-Pictet Competition (French-speaking edition)

Public international law is the body of rules governing relations between states and, increasingly, between states and other actors such as international organizations, individuals, and corporations. Its modern foundations are often traced to the Peace of Westphalia (1648), which entrenched the principles of sovereign equality and non-interference, and to the work of jurists such as Hugo Grotius. The system was progressively codified through the 19th-century Hague Conferences, the League of Nations, and most decisively the United Nations Charter of 1945, which outlawed the use of force except in self-defense or under Security Council authorization. The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969), the Statute of the International Court of Justice, and the proliferation of specialized regimes (law of the sea, trade, human rights, environment) have since produced a dense but fragmented legal order. The core tensions of contemporary international law concern its enforcement and universality. Powerful states are accused of selective compliance — invoking sovereignty when convenient and intervening abroad when interests align — while smaller states often see international law as their main protection against coercion. Recent flashpoints include Russia's invasion of Ukraine and the resulting ICJ and ICC proceedings, the ICJ's South Africa v. Israel case on the Genocide Convention, disputes in the South China Sea following the 2016 arbitral award, and debates over the legality of unilateral sanctions and extraterritorial jurisdiction. The fragmentation of the legal order across overlapping tribunals (ICJ, ITLOS, WTO, regional human rights courts, investment arbitration) further complicates coherence. Looking ahead, international law faces structural challenges: regulating new domains such as cyberspace, outer space, autonomous weapons, and artificial intelligence; reconciling state sovereignty with global commons issues like climate change (as reflected in the ICJ's pending advisory opinion on climate obligations); and responding to a perceived crisis of multilateralism. Whether the system can adapt without losing its claim to universality is the defining question for the next generation of jurists and diplomats.

International humanitarian law (IHL), or the law of armed conflict, seeks to limit the effects of war on persons and property by balancing military necessity against humanity. Its modern codification began with Henry Dunant's witnessing of the Battle of Solferino (1859) and the founding of the ICRC, leading to the first Geneva Convention of 1864. The framework was expanded through the Hague Conventions (1899, 1907), the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 (universally ratified), and their Additional Protocols of 1977 and 2005. Customary IHL, identified in the ICRC's 2005 study, applies even to states that have not ratified specific treaties. Core principles — distinction, proportionality, precaution, and the prohibition of unnecessary suffering — apply in both international and non-international armed conflicts. Contemporary practice has placed IHL under severe strain. Conflicts in Gaza, Ukraine, Sudan, Yemen, Syria, the Sahel, and Myanmar feature recurring allegations of indiscriminate attacks, starvation as a method of warfare, sexual violence, attacks on hospitals and humanitarian workers, and obstruction of relief. The ICC has issued arrest warrants concerning the situations in Ukraine and Israel/Palestine, while the ICJ is seised of cases invoking the Genocide Convention. Non-state armed groups, the privatization of warfare, urban combat, and the conduct of occupying powers raise persistent classification and compliance questions. The dual role of the ICRC — as guardian of the Conventions and as a neutral humanitarian operator — depends on access that is increasingly denied or politicized. Emerging issues include the regulation of autonomous weapons systems and AI-enabled targeting, cyber operations during armed conflict (addressed in the Tallinn Manual process), environmental protection in warfare, and the treatment of foreign fighters and their families. Debates also continue over the interplay between IHL and international human rights law in occupation and counterterrorism contexts, and over accountability mechanisms when the Security Council is paralyzed. For practitioners — the audience of the Jean-Pictet tradition — the challenge is to defend the universality and operational relevance of IHL at a moment when its violation is broadcast in real time yet too rarely sanctioned.