In 2025, the International Committee of the Red Cross, together with a team of renowned experts, published online an updated Commentary on Geneva Convention IV (GC IV), a cornerstone of the international legal framework protecting civilians in armed conflict. Another article in this issue of the Review provides an introduction to GC IV and to the updated Commentary, summarizing the key protections set out in GC IV and their interpretation in the Commentary. This companion article provides a more substantive overview of the Commentary, exploring nine selected thematic areas in detail and highlighting key interpretive developments in each of them. More specifically, the article considers the Convention’s scope of application; its interpretation in light of diverse experiences and requirements in armed conflict; technological change; humanitarian activities; the distinct roles of Protecting Powers and the ICRC; internment; occupation; measures to be taken in peacetime; and mechanisms of enforcement and accountability.

The legal appraisal of civilian mental harm amounting to trauma is something that has been discussed by international scholars when it comes to warfare and its aftermath, but no discussion has taken place on how such civilian war trauma can be compensated for. The question becomes even starker in cases of cumulative war trauma, where the trauma incurred appears as an externality of warfare and as a natural repercussion stemming from the latter. Along these lines and drawing from climate change litigation that has taken place before international courts and tribunals over the last few years, this article details how arguments derived from that litigation scheme can present prospects as well as limitations with regard to how cumulative war trauma, caused by States as well as by non-State actors, can be subject to compensation.

The prioritization of belligerent perspectives at the expense of civilian protection and welfare has a long history in just war theory and practice, from the works of early just war theorists to the legal and scholarly defenses of colonial conquest to the contemporary moral injury discourse. In this article, I show how this history has contributed to the ongoing infliction of devastating harms on civilians, as evidenced in the case studies of drone warfare and the war in Gaza, and I argue for the inclusion and prioritization of noncombatant civilian perspectives in academic, policy, and legal analyses of war. Doing so, as I demonstrate, radically disrupts traditional just war thinking and has important implications for broader social, legal, and policy approaches to armed conflict and its aftermath.

Since their publication in the 1950s and 1980s respectively, the Commentaries on the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their Additional Protocols of 1977 have become a major reference for the application and interpretation of those treaties. The International Committee of the Red Cross, together with a team of renowned experts, is currently updating these Commentaries in order to document developments and provide up-to-date interpretations of the treaty texts. This article provides an introduction to the updated Commentary on Geneva Convention IV (GC IV), published online in 2025. It describes the methodology behind the updated Commentaries before explaining the historical background of bringing civilian protection into the framework of the Geneva Conventions. It then discusses how the structure of GC IV impacts its application and explains GC IV’s personal, geographic and temporal scope of application. The article summarizes key substantive protections provided in the Convention for civilians and their property during armed conflicts, including in situations of occupation, and points to where these are addressed in the updated Commentary.

According to the dominant narrative in international humanitarian law, the 1949 Geneva Convention on Civilians is part of the discipline’s humanitarian progress, driven by the International Committee of the Red Cross, in response to atrocities committed during World War II. This paper argues that historical research enables a more nuanced historical account which challenges when, how and by whom the protection of civilians was developed. It demonstrates that the Convention’s protection regime was shaped by the efforts of a variety of non-state actors during the inter-war years. In particular, it focuses on attempts by the International Committee of the Red Cross, International Law Association and International Committee of Military Medicine and Pharmacy to advance the law independently and in cooperation in relation to ‘enemy civilians’ and safety zones after World War I. However, it suggests that these actors were to some extent inhibited by conceptual limitations and self-restraint, which ultimately led to some of the weaknesses in the protection regime under the 1949 ‘Civilian Convention’. The paper thus reveals the struggle over the conceptualisation of individuals who are today considered civilians in the inter-war years which is embedded in the text of the adopted treaty.

This essay provides insights into the circumstances and potential societal impact of more than 10 million evacuees who fled Japan's firebombed cities during World War II. Informed by interviews conducted by the United States Strategic Bombing Survey with Japanese citizens immediately after surrender, this analysis establishes a new vantage point from which to understand the complex social circumstances of Japan in the final months of the war.

This essay assesses the morality of Ukraine's use of drones to attack targets inside Russia. Following its invasion by Russian forces, Ukraine has had a just cause to wage a war of self-defense. However, its efforts to achieve that cause remain subject to moral limits. Even a state that has been unjustly attacked may not, for example, respond by deliberately targeting the attacking state's civilian population. To do so would violate the jus in bello principle of discrimination. The essay first describes how drone technology has frequently enabled long-range strikes against Russian military assets as well as other targets inside cities. It then explains why it would be morally wrong for Ukraine to attack its enemy's population centers. First, Russian civilians are not liable to attack, and this nonliability is undiminished by the injustice of Russia's invasion or by any in bello wrongs committed by the Russian military. Second, attacking Russian cities with drones would arguably achieve little or no self-defensive benefit for Ukraine, and it could even be counterproductive.

The notion of solidarity, although not new to the humanitarian sector, has re-emerged in recent discussions about effective and ethical humanitarian action, particularly in contexts such as Ukraine and Myanmar where the traditional humanitarian principles have been facing certain pressures. Because solidarity appears as a good but can also involve selectivity and privilege, and because it risks continued militarism and normalization of civilians participating within that militarism, the notion of solidarity merits rich and rigorous thinking. This article explores how the notion of solidarity is being utilized by those currently re-emphasizing its importance and what it might mean in practice in today's humanitarian contexts. The article argues that if solidary action involves not only a political stance but solidary working methods, the recent calls for solidarity demand respect for the variety of principles and practices within the humanitarian ecosystem, while nevertheless upholding mutual obligations owed within that professional community – that is, within careful limits as to what is considered humanitarian action.

The end of World War I brought not only the end of a great slaughter but also the creation of new countries, great expectations of better living conditions, and the promise of an end of scarcity. In Maribor, a contested border town occupied by Slovenian troops and annexed to the newly established State of Slovenes, Croats, and Serbs, expectations were even higher. A part of the population opposed the town's annexation to the newly established state and compared the living conditions at home with those in Austria. As early as November 1918, the Slovene City Food Council was established in Maribor to feed the city's population. It introduced measures similar to those introduced during the war, such as food ration cards. Despite these measures, food shortages and hunger were part of everyday life, especially in the winter of 1918–19. This article discusses civilians' survival strategies, as well as continuities and discontinuities between wartime and postwar measures to improve the food supply. It shows that despite the efforts of the new Yugoslav authorities, they often continued wartime practices and food remained of poor quality and difficult to access for most of the population throughout 1919.