A number of authors, some featured in past issues of the Review,Footnote 1 have argued that throughout history, various religions, traditions and cultures have established rules aimed at preserving humanity during war. Their contributions show how people with diverse creeds and ethical backgrounds have shared this goal for centuries, long before the adoption of the First Geneva Convention in 1864. They can also demonstrate that today, the Geneva Conventions are universal not only because all States in the world have formally accepted them, but also because they express truly global values.
The idea of different faiths and beliefs converging towards humanity in war, before it ever became a universal legal obligation, is comforting. It proves that the need for rules limiting the suffering in war is naturally associated with the human condition, regardless of international diplomacy, political assessment or economic calculus. However, researching the links between IHL, on the one hand, and traditions, cultures and religions, on the other, bears at least four risks. First is the risk of over-emphasizing the role of anecdotes, legends, myths and fables, uncritically crediting them as the regulating framework of a given society. Second, there is the risk of “embellishing” vague information on ancient rules aimed at regulating behaviour in war, interpreting them in light of today’s IHL norms rather than in their context at a given time. Third is the risk of undermining the legitimacy of IHL, inadvertently and wrongly suggesting that it can only apply because – and as far as – its rules confirm pre-existing traditional, cultural or religious provisions. Finally, there is the risk of serving a political agenda: showing that a specific group and their ancestors have always embraced the principle of humanity in war might fuel an incendiary, hyper-nationalistic discourse of moral superiority vis-à-vis other groups.
Furthermore, comparing cultures, traditions and religions with IHL raises methodological issues. For example, while IHL is a body of law, this is not always the case for the other element of the comparison. Consequently, traditional, cultural or religious norms rarely show a level of precision and clarity comparable to a legislative corpus. This appears to be the case particularly for traditions passed down orally from one generation to the next. Researching such traditions means relying on people’s memory, which might be influenced by emotions, the homogenizing pressure of globalization, traumatizing migration processes, or a disconnection between the diaspora and the homeland, among many other factors. Unlike IHL, the exact scope and content of orally transmitted rules cannot be ascertained objectively through a legal manual. As such, the methodology for researching these rules should be flexible enough to capture the dynamic and sometimes elusive nature of the spoken word and to tolerate memory flaws or inaccuracies. At the same time, it should be meticulous and solid enough to draw, as clearly as possible, the contours of a certain traditional rule, and to construct a dialogue between this rule and some specific provisions of contemporary IHL.
To address these methodological issues, the ICRC convened a colloquium of experts, including some authors who have contributed to the Review in the past. The event took place in Geneva on 29 May 2024, as part of the celebrations for the 75th anniversary of the Geneva Conventions. It also aimed at exploring the impact and the potential of referring to traditions, cultures and religions in order to foster greater adherence to IHL today.
The report of the colloquium, together with the scholarship that the Review has produced and other projects that the ICRC has developed,Footnote 2 will contribute to further conceptualizing a comprehensive research framework for studying the connections between religions, traditions, cultures and IHL. The ICRC thanks all the experts who have so far supported the institution in this collective reflection and welcomes further research on the matter, as part of its endeavour to build bridges between cultures, religions and IHL set out in its 2024–27 Institutional Strategy.Footnote 3
International colloquium on IHL, religions, cultures and traditions
Introduction
In 2024, to commemorate the 75th anniversary of the Geneva Conventions, the Advisory Service on International Humanitarian Law (IHL) of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) organized the first ever international colloquium on the dialogue between IHL and religions, traditions and cultures. The overall objective of the colloquium was to exchange ideas on research methodologies, dos and don’ts, and the risks and opportunities related to this matter. The event built on years of experience in legal research in numerous countries,Footnote 1 and followed the ICRC’s Institutional Strategy for 2024–27:
In an ever-changing world, the ICRC fosters principled and inclusive dialogue with stakeholders across continents – addressing evolving challenges; listening to diverse perspectives; building bridges between cultures, religions and IHL; and integrating local preventive and protective traditions into this dialogue, so as to promote adherence to IHL in armed conflicts. This approach enriches the ICRC’s narratives on IHL, anchoring them more effectively in diverse settings and customs.Footnote 2
The colloquium took place at the ICRC’s headquarters in Geneva on 29 May 2024. It gathered twenty-three participants from Asia and the Pacific, Africa, Europe and the Americas, who engaged in a full day of discussion on the dialogue between religions, traditions, cultures and IHL. The participants’ backgrounds included law, history, humanitarian action, the military, and religious studies.
The colloquium focused on three specific objectives: the impact that the dialogue between religions, traditions, cultures and IHL may have on better respect for IHL; the recommended methodology for carrying out compatibility studies between IHL and religions, traditions and cultures; and the possible risks and opportunities in studying the relationship between religions, traditions and cultures and IHL.
Within the framework of the mandate of the Advisory Service on IHL, the overall goal of the colloquium was to explore ways to emphasize the universal relevance of IHL. How can different religions, traditions and cultures contribute to a better understanding, implementation and respect of IHL today?
The colloquium identified the tension that might exist in some contexts between the formal acceptance of IHL by the State (through the ratification of relevant treaties and the adoption of domestic laws) and the actual level of ownership over IHL by policy-makers, weapon bearers, academics, students and the general public within the State. While IHL remains a legal obligation, people might at times question whether it genuinely captures universal values. The participants explored some possible causes for this tension. They mentioned that double standards erode people’s trust in IHL – for example, IHL proved ineffective at protecting indigenous people from the colonial powers. They also underlined the lack of participation of some of today’s States in the drafting of the Geneva Conventions in the 1940s.
The colloquium discussed how to include religion, traditions and cultural perspectives in the efforts to promote IHL ownership. At the same time, it was noted that since the drafting of the Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions in the 1970s, IHL’s law-making processes have become much more participative and inclusive, which is also helping to strengthen IHL ownership.
Participants highlighted the ongoing issue of the dehumanization of “the enemy”. The concept of “enemy” was analyzed through the lens of historical traditions and religions from different contexts, to assess whether such perspectives could offer some lessons to counter contemporary dehumanization processes and have a positive impact on today’s conflicts.
Participants addressed some of the methodological complexities encountered when researching religions, traditions and cultures and comparing them with IHL, such as the diversity and richness of the sources, including oral ones (e.g., songs and poetry); the challenges in identifying and accessing the experts (e.g., elders, musicians, poets, clan leaders, former fighters); the risk of distorting/misrepresenting traditions or religions; and the need to understand each tradition, culture and religion as a unique system, without “forcing it” into the framework and concepts of IHL. Participants presented some of their good practices, such as sharing the transcripts of interviews with the interviewees to gather their comments or ensuring that their body language is also captured (e.g., through video recordings, with the agreement of the interviewees).
The colloquium identified potential risks in using religions, traditions and cultures to promote IHL and identified mitigating measures. For example, there is the risk that such promotion could be perceived as replacing the promotion of positive IHL obligations or seen as an alternative; in multi-culture or multi-faith States, there is also the risk that one culture will be favoured over others. For these reasons, the dialogue between traditions, religions and IHL should not be conducted systematically and everywhere, but primarily in contexts where IHL appears to suffer from a lack of ownership, after an in-depth analysis of the reasons for the latter and of the potential risks at stake (e.g., traditions might be used to fuel violent nationalist narratives). This dialogue might also make sense in contexts in which protection of people affected by armed conflicts will be better achieved by linking IHL to local experiences and values.
The colloquium identified several further critical questions which will need to be explored and addressed in a follow-up colloquium and/or in new publications. The ICRC encourages further research and looks forward to other contributions to this discussion.
Background and objectives
The members of the ICRC’s Advisory Service on IHL introduced the background and objectives of the colloquium: as the 75th anniversary of the 1949 Geneva Conventions was approaching, and based on years of experience in conducting compatibility studies between local frameworks and IHL, the Advisory Service wished to pay tribute to the universal humanitarian principles enshrined not only in the Conventions, but also in traditions, religions and cultures from across the world. Furthermore, in line with the new ICRC’s Institutional Strategy,Footnote 3 the Advisory Service aimed at exploring and strengthening the existing bridges between cultures, religions and IHL, reinforcing the idea that IHL is a common heritage of humanity.Footnote 4 Finally, the Advisory Service wanted to reflect on whether and how cultures and religions can foster and enhance IHL’s application today.
The Advisory Service expressed the wish that this day of study – the first ever of its kind – could represent a crucial step towards a genuinely global exchange on the interplay between IHL and other legal, religious or cultural values or norms. Participants were invited to maintain a critical approach throughout the discussions, addressing both the risks and opportunities surrounding work on traditions, religions and IHL; their expertise was very valuable for further research that the Advisory Service intends to undertake on the matter.
Discussion 1: Assessing the impact of the dialogue between religions, traditions, cultures and IHL
Objective: to better identify and frame the impact that research on the regulation of warfare within religions, traditions and cultures can have on respect for contemporary rules of IHL.
Guiding questions:
• How do ancient traditions influence the way wars are fought today?
• In your research, did you find instances where traditional or cultural norms are used directly by weapon bearers today as a way to constrain their behaviour during warfare?
• What are the ultimate goals of warfare regulations encountered in traditions, religions and cultures? Can we define some of these goals as corresponding to values that are understood today as “humanitarian”?
• Who is the audience for your research? Did you have an audience in mind when carrying out your research? Who do you think can be the audience for the ICRC? What are the objectives when using such research with these audiences?
• How can a secular normative system (IHL) dialogue with other normative systems that have a much broader scope, aiming not only at regulating present behaviour but also at addressing the sum of people’s actions in their entire existence and/or in previous existences, in order to decide their fate in future existences?
“Ownership”
The discussion focused on the existing gap, in some contexts, between “formal acceptance” and “ownership” of IHL. The fact that IHL treaties are ratified and that IHL entails clear obligations for States Parties – and, in non-international armed conflicts, for non-State organized armed groups – does not necessarily mean that people unanimously feel that IHL reflects universal beliefs and values, including their own. Participants explored possible reasons for this perceived lack of ownership, such as the fact that many of today’s States did not participate in the negotiations of the Geneva Conventions in the 1940s, not least because many of them were still under colonial rule. Lack of ownership – which may be found in different segments of society (e.g., policy-makers, weapon bearers, general public, academics, students) – may at times also be fuelled by the perception of double standards in the application of IHL.
Today, the Geneva Conventions have been universally ratified, and since decolonization, all States have had the opportunity to contribute to the interpretation, clarification and development of IHL (for example, through the negotiations of the 1977 Additional Protocols). Nevertheless, various factors, including past legacies, may still affect today’s ownership of IHL as a body of law. Colloquium participants investigated the possibility of promoting IHL ownership and advocating for the respect of IHL through local traditions and values; they stressed that the horror felt vis-à-vis war is a common human reaction, not something that is linked to a specific culture. There is a global tradition of restricting the ravages of war, because the value of life is a universal concept: almost all religions, traditions and cultures believe that wars have rules. In some cases, the rules focus only on jus ad bellum aspects (e.g., the concept of “just wars” in ancient Egypt or medieval times), while in others, the whole system aims at minimizing harm in society, similarly to IHL (e.g., Buddhism).
Dehumanization of the enemy
One of today’s great challenges for IHL is the presence of pervasive dehumanizing narratives against the enemy. Colloquium participants explored the perception of the enemy in different religions, cultures and traditions, addressing the differences between the rules governing “internal warfare” (i.e., against enemies with the same religion, culture and tradition) and those governing “external warfare” (i.e., against enemies belonging to a different religion, culture and tradition). In some religions and traditions, the rules are the same in both instances; in others, the rules are different, but there is often a minimum standard which applies to both types of warfare (e.g., not killing children, not poisoning the wells, not attacking religious sites). However, it was pointed out that, in many cases, some of these rules may be inspired by self-interest and practical reasons, rather than by humanitarian considerations (e.g., children may become a workforce, wells will be used by the fighters after the conflict, religious sites have treasures that can be exploited). Furthermore, participants agreed that atrocities have been committed historically in both “internal” and “external” conflicts, and the narrative of wars “against barbarism” has provided a legitimate ground for perpetrating abuses against people portrayed as inferiors (for example, while the 1899 Hague Convention prohibited the use of so-called “dum-dum” bullets, some colonial powers kept defending their use in the wars against “savages”Footnote 5). Participants also agreed on the importance of considering the socio-economic perspective: in some societies, some rules apply only among people of the same “class” (e.g., in the Middle Ages, knights had to respect each other, but they were not expected to apply the same standards to people belonging to the lower classes).
Discussion 2: Methodological challenges
Objective: to identify methodological challenges faced by researchers when comparing IHL with religions, traditions and cultures, and to better understand the potential impact of methodological choices on the overall objective (better respect for IHL today).
Guiding questions:
• On oral traditions: how can oral traditions on warfare be collected and compared to legal rules formally accepted by the international community as law? How can we research oral traditions on warfare without distorting or misrepresenting them in the process?
• Who represents a given community’s traditions on warfare? Which members of a given community could be interviewed to study the community’s traditions on warfare (e.g., elderly, former fighters, community leaders)?
• On non-oral traditions: in addition to oral media, what other sources for identifying traditions on warfare can be explored?
• How should we compare general principles and values on warfare existing within traditions, on the one hand, with often detailed and precise IHL rules, on the other?
• How can a researcher properly capture “a tradition”, given that this concept may have a dynamic and ever-changing nature? What does this mean when comparing traditional norms and customs to a body of law like IHL?
Challenges
Colloquium participants have faced several challenges in investigating traditional rules of warfare. In “modernized” societies, which have undergone a significant evolution over the last decades, these rules are increasingly being lost due to the passing of time and the decreasing number of individuals and communities that are familiar with them. It may also be difficult to gain access to indigenous communities or other actors that are familiar with these rules (e.g., logistic constraints, lack of trust). Furthermore, researchers need to master a religion, a tradition or a culture in order to be able to analyze its rules of war and give them proper context. This is especially true when researchers are not from the community itself. In addition, as many traditions rely on oral history, it is difficult to collect and record them in a reliable way, also considering the risk that interviewees may convey an idealized version of their own traditions. In addition, the same process of translating and transcribing interviews with experts from the community is problematic, as nuances may be lost in the process. While some research limitations are inevitable (such as small discrepancies among interviewees, or more access to some clans and less access to others), participants shared recommendations that they had acquired throughout their experience.
Participants also discussed the complexities of the comparative process between traditional or religious rules and IHL norms. Researchers must appreciate each tradition and religion in its entirety and approach it as a unique self-regulatory system, with its own objectives and implementation mechanisms. Such a system cannot be “forced” into the IHL framework; for example, some rules found in traditions from African peoples aim to address the effects of war from a community perspective, while international law today rather focuses on individual responsibility. For this reason, it might be a mistake to seek in traditions or religions exact equivalences to IHL rules, especially when it comes to technical IHL rules (e.g., the concept of military necessity). As a general rule, comparisons should focus on general principles and what they intend to preserve: we should compare the underlying ideas, rather than the rules. Moreover, the comparative process must be understood as a tool for dialogue, for engaging with others, for identifying distinct features and common areas, and for further conversation and understanding.
Honour and shame
Some participants suggested that humanitarians should also consider the concepts of “honour” and “shame”, which arguably exist in almost all cultures and religions, as a methodological lens through which to compare the rules of war in different religions and traditions. This suggestion triggered a rich debate. Some participants noted that “honour” is not always in line with humanitarian principles (e.g., drinking from the enemy’s skull was considered honourable in some cultures, but the same practice would be a glaring violation of basic IHL obligationsFootnote 6). Participants also debated whether the concepts of “honour” and “shame” are really universal. For example, does “honour” correspond to “dharma” in Hinduism and Buddhism, and does “shame” correspond to “karma”? The experts expressed many doubts, observing for example that the concept of “honour” seems very self-focused and built around the “ego”, which is unfamiliar to some traditions and religions (e.g., Buddhism). As an alternative to “honour” and “shame”, which may not be universal, some participants proposed a focus on the more general concepts of “what is right” and “what is wrong” or on “what is permissible” and “what is prohibited”.
Recommendations emerging from the colloquium on the methodology for investigating and comparing traditions, religions, cultures and IHL
All in all, the colloquium shed light on a number of aspects and produced a tentative set of recommendations, which are as follows.
When investigating traditions, religions and cultures:
1. Adopt an open methodological approach which could include written sources as well as interviews.
2. Ensure that comparative studies on traditions, religions, cultures and IHL are led by members of the concerned community (including the diaspora). This increases the chances that the researchers will be accepted by the community; it also ensures that the researchers will understand the dynamics of the community and minimizes the risk that the interviewees will convey to the researchers an idealized version of their own traditions.
3. Since oral traditions may raise issues of reliability, it is important to interview different people and compare their feedback. Interviewees may include poets, musicians, people in charge of managing water pumps in villages, leaders of basic political units such as clans, religious leaders, and family connections of the interviewers themselves.
4. Video-record interviews, as the body language of the people interviewed can help capture all the nuances of their stories.
5. Share the transcriptions with the people interviewed in order to gather their comments.
When comparing traditions, religions and cultures with IHL:
6. Approach each tradition/religion as a unique system, trying to understand its own objectives and implementation mechanisms, before comparing it to IHL.
7. During the comparison, focus on the general principles and what they aim at preserving, avoiding a detailed rule-by-rule comparison.
8. Identify “what is right/permissible” and “what is wrong/prohibited” in the tradition, religion or culture and compare it with IHL principles.
9. Think of the comparative study as a tool for dialogue on IHL, as a starting point for engaging with and understanding diverse traditions and religions in relation to IHL and for seeking common ground.
Discussion 3: Addressing risks in the study of religions, traditions, cultures and IHL
Objective: to understand the possible risks that the study and promotion of warfare regulations within traditions, cultures and religions may pose on IHL acceptance today.
Guiding questions:
• How should contradictions between religions, traditions and cultures, on the one hand, and IHL, on the other, be addressed? In your research, did you come across cultural, religious or traditional norms that were in contradiction with IHL? How did you address such contradictions? Can institutions promoting IHL have a purpose-driven approach, where only the norms that resonate with IHL are used?
• By promoting humanitarian values which are found in religions, traditions and cultures, is there a risk of sidelining the positive obligations to respect IHL that have been undertaken by States?
• When engaging on religions, traditions and cultural norms, should an organization like the ICRC aim at being exhaustive, including as many religions, traditions and cultures as possible? Or can it focus only on religions, traditions and cultures that have a direct influence on the behaviour of weapon bearers today?
The Tool on African Traditions and IHL
The ICRC representative from the Pretoria Delegation presented their experience in developing the Tool on African Traditions and the Preservation of Humanity in Warfare.Footnote 7 One of the goals of this tool is to acknowledge and encourage the study of the connections between the traditions of African peoples and IHL. Starting from the ICRC’s lessons learned, participants discussed the risks to bear in mind when promoting traditions, religions and cultures with the objective of advancing IHL ownership. The following risks and possible mitigation measures were discussed.
First, there is a risk that an organization like the ICRC will come across as “paternalistic” when talking about others’ traditions, which can be mitigated by involving local actors, including National Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies. Second, multi-culture or multi-faith States are sometimes the result of a delicate balance between different communities with diverse beliefs, and in these contexts, for an organization like the ICRC (whose work is based on neutrality), highlighting any alignment between the rules of a specific group and IHL might potentially be wrongly interpreted as signalling a preference for one group over the others. Third, there is a risk of being seen by secular State authorities as promoting traditions or religions as alternatives to positive law. This is why it is important to promote research on traditions, religions and IHL primarily in contexts where IHL seems to suffer from a lack of ownership, following a proper assessment (e.g., ensuring that this type of research will not fuel an ultra-nationalist discourse which rejects the application of positive law altogether), or where it may clearly help to strengthen IHL messages. Fourth, since it is impossible to engage with all groups within a given culture, tradition or religion, and these groups might disagree with one another, there is a risk related to the representativeness and acceptance of these comparative studies. To address this risk, participants indicated that, instead of seeking detailed rules within cultures, traditions and religions, research should focus on general rules which are more easily and widely accepted. Finally, participants discussed how to deal with traditional or religious norms that are at odds with IHL rules, such as the concept of reprisals. In those instances, experts should focus on finding a common ground of shared humanity between the tradition and religion analyzed and IHL, without aiming at a total equivalence and without forcing traditions into being what they are not. Total equivalence would not only be impossible to find but would also be legally irrelevant, because today parties to conflict are all bound by IHL. Experts agreed that, once the risks identified in this discussion are dealt with, comparative studies on traditions, religions and IHL are a powerful tool to complement IHL awareness-raising activities. For example, a participant shared his experience of presenting the concept of IHL to a non-State armed group which had no previous knowledge and no ownership whatsoever of IHL; still, the group emphasized to the participant its practice of sparing children from the fight, based on its own traditions.
Does criticism target IHL, or is it directed at international organizations and/or the global international order?
Colloquium participants put forward that we are living at a time of growing hopelessness and disenchantment towards international law, which is often accused of failing the people that it is supposed to protect. However, participants stressed that it is crucial to understand what exactly the target of the criticism is and what are its causes, in order to make the best use of traditions and religions to advance IHL ownership. Some participants suggested that the perception of IHL as a “foreign” concept could be linked to the fact that key IHL treaties were negotiated and signed in Europe. Indeed, some experts underlined that scepticism and criticism against IHL are “more a matter of shape than of content”: they are the consequence of the way IHL has been codified over the past centuries (with negotiations and drafting taking place mainly in Europe and with limited geographic representation), but they do not express a disagreement with IHL core values, which in fact find an equivalence in different cultures (e.g., the concept of ubuntu in African heritage).Footnote 8 Religions, traditions and cultures can help go beyond the aspect of negotiations, showing global similarities and common grounds that lead to a concept of shared humanity. In addition, it should be stressed that today, IHL is negotiated in several fora outside of Geneva, and all States participate in the law-making and development process of IHL. Other participants indicated that resistance and criticism are not necessarily directed specifically against the 1949 Geneva Conventions or even against IHL, but rather against the international law architecture and the practical failure to enforce IHL that is often seen on the ground.
Furthermore, some participants observed that the history of IHL could be presented in a more comprehensive way, acknowledging diverse contributions (rather than focusing on a specific person or a specific battle). While Henry Dunant had a key role in developing the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement and the First Geneva Convention of 1864, he was certainly not the first person in human history to be shocked by war – shock and horror vis-à-vis war are a universal feeling. Furthermore, the story of Henry Dunant can also be presented as a story of civil society empowerment, as the First Geneva Convention of 1864 is one of the first treaties in history created under the pressure of civil society.
Finally, a participant noted that the dialogue between traditional forms of expression and IHL is not buried in time. For example, through poetry and music, people continue to convey their feelings and emotions with regard to ongoing violations of IHL.
Checklist: When and how to use comparative studies on traditions, religions, cultures and IHL to increase IHL ownership
1. Assess the context before engaging in comparative study on traditions, religions, cultures and IHL. Indeed, for the sake of advancing IHL’s local ownership, such comparative studies should not be conducted systematically and everywhere, but in targeted contexts where they can be practically used to complement IHL awareness-raising efforts.
2. A thorough risk assessment should take place before engaging in such comparative studies. Is the study going to favour one group over others in a multicultural State, and how is this going to be perceived by the other groups? Is it going to feed a specific political narrative? Is it going to undermine or question the secular nature of a State? In some contexts, comparative studies must be used with caution, carving the messages carefully. In addition to comparative studies (or alternatively, if the risk of those outweighs their expected benefits), humanitarians should leverage aspects of the history of IHL that can increase its acceptance. For example, the history of the Geneva Conventions is also a history of civil society empowerment, because they were among the first treaties in history to be negotiated under the pressure of civil society.
3. Comparing general principles (rather than specific rules) can not only facilitate the comparative process, as mentioned earlier, but can also increase acceptance of the study where there may be discrepancies on traditional, religious or cultural norms within the same community.
4. Focus on the convergences between traditions, religions and culture, on the one hand, and IHL, on the other, but acknowledge that there are divergences too. We should not aim at a total equivalence; in fact, such equivalence is often impossible.
5. It is problematic to talk about the connections between peoples’ traditions, religions and cultures and IHL without involving the people concerned. Grassroots projects are indispensable to conducting such comparative studies. A non-inclusive approach is not only ethically questionable but also counterproductive, as the concerned communities may reject the comparative study as “paternalistic”. It may also lead to fallacious results which would undermine the credibility of the studies.
Conclusions
The findings of the colloquium will help the ICRC to further frame its work on traditions, cultures, religion and IHL. Participants made the following recommendations to the ICRC (and to any other actors involved in the study on traditions, religions and IHL):
• Favour grassroots projects and delegate work to local actors. This can also promote their ownership of IHL.
• Provide opportunities for publication and acknowledgment letters, which can help researchers on the ground.
• Influence academic circles to involve more scholars in this discussion.
• Build a database recording rules and practices during armed conflicts based on religions, traditions and cultures.
• Involve humanitarian workers from religious humanitarian organizations in the conversation.
• Explore dissemination tools such as poetry and popular contemporary music.
Open access
