Humanitarian traditions existed long before 1864. Religious teachings, military customs and legal thinkers had all sought, with varying success, to restrain violence and protect those no longer able to fight. The historic achievement of the Geneva Convention was to transform this moral impulse into a formal agreement among states. Care for wounded soldiers would no longer depend entirely on charity, military convenience or the goodwill of individual commanders. It became an international legal obligation.

The Battle of Solferino - From Solferino to Geneva

“Tutti Fratelli” - "All brothers"

The origins of the Convention can be traced to the Battle of Solferino, fought in northern Italy on 24 June 1859 between Austrian forces and the Franco-Sardinian alliance. The battle produced casualties on a scale that overwhelmed the available medical services. Thousands of wounded soldiers were left without adequate treatment.

Henry Dunant, a Swiss businessman who encountered the aftermath, helped mobilize local inhabitants to care for the wounded without distinction of nationality. The experience inspired his book A Memory of Solferino, published in 1862.

Dunant proposed the creation of voluntary relief societies, organized during peacetime and prepared to assist military medical services during war. He also called for an international agreement protecting wounded soldiers and those providing their care.

His appeal helped inspire the establishment in Geneva in 1863 of the organization that would become the International Committee of the Red Cross. The following year, the Swiss government convened a diplomatic conference attended by representatives of sixteen states. On 22 August, twelve states signed the first Geneva Convention.

Dunant’s achievement was not simply that he witnessed suffering. He connected personal testimony with organized civic action and international diplomacy. A battlefield experience became a book, the book inspired a movement, and the movement helped produce a treaty.

When compassion became law

The Convention introduced several principles that became central to international humanitarian law. Military hospitals and ambulances were to be recognized as neutral and protected. Medical personnel and civilians assisting the wounded were also granted protection. Most importantly, wounded and sick combatants were to be collected and cared for, regardless of their nationality.

The agreement also recognized a common protective emblem, a red cross on a white background. Its purpose was practical. It identified medical personnel, facilities and transports entitled to protection. Other emblems, including the red crescent, subsequently became part of the international humanitarian system.

These provisions reflected a significant change in the legal understanding of warfare. A wounded soldier who was no longer fighting was not merely an enemy. He was a human being entitled to care. Medical workers were not ordinary participants in hostilities, but protected actors performing a humanitarian function.

The Convention did not attempt to abolish war or determine whether a state’s decision to use force was lawful. Its purpose was to regulate conduct after armed conflict had begun. This distinction remains fundamental. International humanitarian law does not legitimize war. It limits its effects, regardless of the causes invoked by the opposing parties.

From a limited treaty to a universal framework

The first Convention was modest in scope. It applied principally to wounded soldiers and military medical services in land warfare. Its effectiveness also depended upon states incorporating its provisions into military practice.

Nevertheless, it provided the foundation for a much broader legal system. Its rules were revised and expanded during the following decades. Protection was extended to wounded, sick and shipwrecked members of armed forces at sea, while a separate convention concerning prisoners of war was adopted in 1929.

The devastation of the Second World War exposed the inadequacy of existing protections, particularly for civilians. In response, states adopted four Geneva Conventions on 12 August 1949. They protect wounded and sick members of armed forces on land; wounded, sick and shipwrecked members at sea; prisoners of war; and civilians in time of war. Additional Protocols adopted in 1977 and 2005 further developed this framework.

The four Conventions of 1949 have achieved universal ratification. This represents an exceptional diplomatic and legal accomplishment. Every state has accepted the principle that people who do not participate, or who can no longer participate, in hostilities must be treated humanely.

A legal order under pressure

Universal acceptance does not guarantee universal observance. Contemporary conflicts continue to expose civilians, medical workers, humanitarian personnel, detainees and the wounded to grave danger. Hostilities in densely populated areas, attacks affecting essential infrastructure, hostage-taking, forced displacement and restrictions on humanitarian assistance all test the international community’s commitment to the rules it created.

The contemporary relevance of these rules is visible across very different theatres of war. Russia’s war against Ukraine has caused immense civilian suffering and widespread destruction. In Sudan and the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo, prolonged violence has displaced millions and placed essential services under severe pressure. The Hamas-led attacks in Israel on 7 October 2023, including the killing of civilians and the taking of hostages, and the devastating war in Gaza that followed have again placed the protection of civilians, detainees, medical facilities and humanitarian access at the centre of international concern. More recent military escalation involving Israel and Iran has demonstrated how rapidly conflict can spread across borders and expose entire populations to danger. These conflicts differ in their origins and legal circumstances, but the principle governing them is the same: international humanitarian law applies to every party, without exception and regardless of the cause it claims to defend.

New technologies raise further questions. Cyber operations, artificial intelligence, autonomous weapons and increasingly remote methods of warfare may alter how military decisions are made, but they do not remove legal responsibility. The principles of distinction, proportionality and precaution continue to apply. Technological innovation must not create a space in which human accountability disappears.

The central problem is therefore not an absence of law, but a persistent failure to respect and enforce it. Humanitarian law is weakened when governments apply it selectively, excuse violations committed by allies or treat military necessity as an unlimited exemption. Military necessity operates within the law. It does not replace it.

Credible enforcement is essential. States must integrate humanitarian law into military training, operational planning and national legislation. Alleged violations require independent investigation, and serious breaches must lead to legal consequences. International institutions have an important role, but primary responsibility remains with states and the parties to each conflict.

The continuing promise of Geneva

The Geneva tradition rests upon a restrained but profound proposition: when political order collapses into armed violence, legal and moral limits do not disappear. The wounded remain entitled to care. Prisoners retain their dignity. Civilians cannot lawfully be used as instruments of pressure. Medical and humanitarian work must be protected.

The first Geneva Convention did not make war humane. No legal text could remove its destruction or suffering. Its achievement was more precise and more durable. It established that humanity must not be abandoned on the battlefield.

One hundred and sixty-two years later, the Convention’s significance lies not only in the agreement signed in 1864, but also in the continuing responsibility it created. The Geneva Conventions are not historical monuments to be admired from a distance. They are living obligations whose value is measured precisely when restraint is most difficult.

Defending their promise does not mean ignoring the realities of war. It means insisting that no military objective, political cause or technological development can extinguish the dignity of those who are wounded, captured, displaced or caught between opposing forces.

The limits of war are increasingly under pressure. That is not a reason to abandon the Geneva Conventions. It is the clearest evidence of why the world still needs them.

In Memoriam: The Five Who Made the First Geneva Convention Possible

The first Geneva Convention was not the achievement of Henry Dunant alone. Its intellectual and organizational foundations were established by five men who combined humanitarian vision, legal organization, military authority and medical experience.

Henry Dunant (1828–1910), a Swiss humanitarian and businessman born in Geneva, supplied the original vision. After witnessing the aftermath of the Battle of Solferino, he published A Memory of Solferino in 1862 and campaigned across Europe for voluntary relief societies and an international agreement protecting wounded soldiers and those caring for them.

Gustave Moynier (1826–1910), a Swiss lawyer and president of the Geneva Public Welfare Society, transformed Dunant’s appeal into an organized programme. He persuaded the Society to examine Dunant’s proposals and played a central role in the institutional, legal and diplomatic work that followed.

General Guillaume-Henri Dufour (1787–1875), a Swiss military commander, engineer and statesman, gave the initiative authority and credibility among governments and military establishments. He became the committee’s first president and later presided over the diplomatic conference of 1864.

Dr Louis Appia (1818–1898), a surgeon born in Hanau to a family originating in Piedmont, settled in Geneva and acquired Genevan citizenship in 1860. His experience in military medicine helped connect the committee’s humanitarian principles with the practical realities of battlefield care. In 1864, he also undertook a field mission during the Second Schleswig War.

Dr Théodore Maunoir (1806–1869), a Swiss physician born in Geneva, contributed medical expertise, administrative work and persuasive advocacy. His interventions helped the emerging initiative gain support beyond a small circle of specialists.

Together, Dunant, Moynier, Dufour, Appia and Maunoir formed the Committee of Five in 1863. It became the International Committee for Relief to the Wounded and was later renamed the International Committee of the Red Cross.

The five men prepared the intellectual and practical groundwork, but they did not act alone. The Swiss Federal Council formally convened the diplomatic conference, and representatives of sovereign states negotiated and adopted the Convention. Dufour and Moynier participated as members of the Swiss delegation, while Dunant, Appia and Maunoir attended the discussions as non-participating observers.

Their collective achievement demonstrates how personal testimony, medical knowledge, civic organization, diplomacy and state cooperation can converge to create lasting international change. Their names deserve to be remembered as those of five pioneers who helped establish a foundational principle of modern humanitarian law: wounded soldiers must be protected and cared for without distinction, including when they belong to the enemy.