Origins of the norm against chemical weapons

The use of chemical weapons in Syria in August 2013 led to calls for a tough international response in order to uphold the norm against what is often portrayed as a particularly odious form of warfare. The condemnation of poison weapons has a long history and this article examines the origins of the international norm against their use. It focuses particularly on the proceedings of the first Hague Peace Conference and suggests that this represented the emergence of an important distinction between the customary norm against poison and poisoned arms, and a newly codified norm against the use of asphyxiating gas projectiles, which was primarily an attempt to limit the potential of new weapons technologies. However, psychological responses to the wide‐scale use of chemical weapons in the First World War underscored a deep revulsion to this form of warfare and blurred the distinction between gas projectiles and poison. While the Hague Conventions ultimately failed to avert the use of chemical weapons, the formation of the 1925 Geneva Protocol reaffirmed the norm against the use of poison in war and represented both a legal and moral condemnation of chemical and biological weapons that continues to be enshrined in international law today.     

The United States, The United Nations and Iraq: 'Multilateralism of a kind'

Much is made of the need for any second war against Iraq (following Desert Storm of 1991) to be sanctioned by a resolution of the UN Security Council, approved necessarily by all five Permanent Members. Yet only two of the five, the USA and the UK, show any enthusiasm for renewed war in the Persian Gulf; and British policy is undeniably following rather than leading American actions on the diplomatic and military fronts. What are the sources of this American policy? Some critics say oil; the latest arguments of proponents invoke humanitarian concerns; somewhere between the two are those who desire ‘regime change’ to create the economic and political conditions in which so‐called western political, economic and social values can flourish. To understand the present crisis and its likely evolution this article examines American relations with Iraq in particular, the Persian Gulf more generally and the Middle East as a region since the Second World War. A study of these international relations combined with a critical approach to the history of American actions and attitudes towards the United Nations shows that the United States continues to pursue a diplomacy blending, as occasion suits, the traditional binaries of multilateralism and unilateralism—yet in the new world‐wide ‘war on terrorism’. The question remains whether the chosen means of fighting this war will inevitably lead to a pyrrhic victory for the United States and its ad hoc allies in the looming confrontation with Iraq.     

Distinction and the Ethics of Violence: On the Legal Construction of Liminal Subjects and Spaces

This paper interrogates the relationship among visibility, distinction, international humanitarian law and ethics in contemporary theatres of violence. After introducing the notions of “civilianization of armed conflict” and “battlespaces”, we briefly discuss the evisceration of one of international humanitarian law's axiomatic figures: the civilian. We show how liberal militaries have created an apparatus of distinction that expands that which is perceptible by subjecting big data to algorithmic analysis, combining the traditional humanist lens with a post‐humanist one. The apparatus functions before, during, and after the fray not only as an operational technology that directs the fighting or as a discursive mechanism responsible for producing the legal and ethical interpretation of hostilities, but also as a force that produces liminal subjects. Focusing on two legal figures—“enemies killed in action” and “human shields”—we show how the apparatus helps justify killing civilians and targeting civilian spaces during war.     

Recognizing synesthesia on the international stage: The first scientific symposium on synesthesia (at The International Conference of Physiological Psychology,Paris, 1889)

ABSTRACT

At the first ever worldwide international conference of psychology in Paris, 1889, one symposium included a round-table event devoted entirely to the neurodevelopmental condition of synesthesia. Details of this seminal gathering on synesthesia and its international reception have been lost to historical obscurity. A synesthesia study committee emerged from this meeting, as well as a new research tool. Moreover, the scientific findings discussed during this symposium would be echoed over a hundred years later, when a new wave of synesthesia research in the late-twentieth century arose. This article sheds new light on this seminal gathering and aims to answer the following historical questions: Why was synesthesia included in this conference? What science was discussed? Who were the members of the committee and how did they come to be involved? What were their contributions to synesthesia research before, during, and after the conference? What has history shown us about the impact of this symposium on the science of synesthesia?     

日内瓦会议:新中国多边外交的初步尝试

日内瓦会议作为新中国以大国身份参加的第一次国际会议 ,也是新中国开展多边外交实践的初步尝试 ,其成就主要体现为推动印度支那和平的恢复、搭建中美沟通的桥梁和改进中英关系。尽管由于冷战格局和“一边倒”外交战略的制约和影响 ,日内瓦会议作为多边外交实践的作用和功能无法和今天意义上的多边外交相提并论 ,但对于当时的中国来说 ,仍然不失为一次比较成功的多边外交实践     

Policing the Desert: The IOM in Libya Beyond War and Peace

The war that took place in Libya in 2011 forced 1.5 million people to leave the country. Many of them, from sub‐Saharan Africa, were helped to return to their countries of origin by the International Organization for Migration (IOM). This paper questions the purely humanitarian nature of the IOM intervention with references to its activities before and after the conflict. It shows that this organization has long participated in the implementation of European migration policies in Libya, and more widely in the Sahara, without being accountable to any people. Through the replacement of local politics by international crisis management, the Sahara is gradually integrated into a zone of international bureaucratic expedience. War and humanitarian intervention appear as contingencies in the progressive implementation of a global system of surveillance, spatial control and management of mobility in Africa.     

Was Iraq an unjust war? A debate on the Iraq war and reflections on Libya*

This article is based on a debate held on 22 March 2011 at Chatham House on ‘Was Iraq an unjust war?’ David Fisher argues that the war fully failed to meet any of the just war criteria. The war was undertaken to disarm Iraq of its WMD but the evidence that it had such weapons was inadequate. There were concerns about the justice of the cause, reinforced by doubts that those initiating military action avowedly on behalf of the UN had the requisite competent authority to do so, given the absence of any international consensus in favour of military action. The doubts were further reinforced by concern that action was being undertaken too soon and not as a last resort. Crucially, no adequate assessment was undertaken before military action was authorized to seek to ensure that the harm likely to result would not outweigh the good achieved. The individual failures mutually reinforced each other, so building up cumulatively to support the conclusion that the war was undertaken without sufficient just cause and without adequate planning how to achieve a just outcome following military action to impose regime change. It thus failed the two key tests that have to be met before a war can be justly undertaken, designed to ensure that military action is only initiated if more good than harm is likely to result. By contrast, current coalition operations in Libya are, so far, just. This is a humanitarian operation undertaken to halt a humanitarian catastrophe that is taking place, with wide international support, including authorization by the UN Security Council. Nigel Biggar argues that the fact that the invasion and occupation of Iraq suffered from grave errors, some of them morally culpable, does not yet establish its overall injustice. All wars are morally flawed, even just ones. Further, even if the invasion were illegal, that need not make it immoral. The authority of moral law trumps that of international law, and where the politics of the Security Council prevent the UN from enforcing the law, unauthorized enforcement could be morally justified. Further still, massive civilian casualties do not by themselves make an unjust war. The decisive considerations are those of just cause, last resort and right intention. Proportionality is not among them, because estimating it is far too uncertain. The persistently atrocious nature of the Saddam Hussein regime satisfies just cause; evidence of collapsing containment grounds last resort; and the Coalition's costly correction of early errors proved the seriousness of its good intentions. In sum the invasion and occupation of Iraq was, despite grave errors, justified. Regarding Libya, Biggar notes the recurrence of conflict over the interpretation of international law. He wonders how those who distinguish sharply between protecting civilians and regime change imagine that dissident civilians are to be ‘kept’ safe while Qadhafi remains in power. Against those who clamour for a clear exit‐strategy, he counsels agility, while urging sensitivity to the limits of our power. What was right to begin may become imprudent to continue.     

What is national self‐determination? Nationality and psychology during the apogee of nationalism*

Abstract. The idea of national self‐determination propounded at the 1919 peace conference centred in Paris marked a new era in international relations. In this article I re‐examine the history of the idea of national self‐determination in this period by situating it in the context of ‘the psychological turn’. I argue that national self‐determination came to serve as a popular philosophical basis for post‐war democracy among Entente liberals at a time when the Enlightenment equivalence between democracy and ‘self‐determination’ was under challenge from new scientific depictions of the unconscious and irrational, and the biologically determined self. The focus of my discussion is the psychological discourse that threaded through the versions of national self‐determination articulated by British and French intellectuals during World War I.     

A normative case for pluralism: reassessing Vincent's views on humanitarian intervention

While R. J. Vincent's overall goal in Human rights and International Relations was to demonstrate how human rights might be promoted in international society, there was one area in which he was sceptical about allowing human rights to serve as the basis for international conduct: military intervention. This article begins by demonstrating that Vincent's greatest fear—that legitimizing humanitarian intervention would lead to countless wars—has proved largely unfounded. Nonintervention in the face of gross violations of human rights has marked the post‐Cold War period more than rampant interventionism. Moreover, while the use of force for humanitarian purposes has become acceptable in very exceptional circumstances, the manner in which it has been legitimized and the depth of the consensus around its appropriateness illustrate lingering scepticism among states about infringements of sovereignty. The article concludes by showing how Vincent's writings on humanitarian intervention, in particular his caution about an imperialist advance of cosmopolitanism, might provide a basis for a more robust normative defence of pluralism in contemporary international society.     

The Suez Crisis of 1956 as a moment of transnational humanitarian engagement

Abstract

The Suez Crisis of 1956 is generally seen in historical research as a moment both of Great Britain’s imperial decline and of Egyptian and Arab political self-determination in the Middle East. Yet the humanitarian aspect of this crisis is still neglected, even though it provoked important humanitarian engagements from different sides, Arab as well as Western. By focusing on the Red Cross and the Red Crescent Movement, this article investigates not only motives, forms and structures of humanitarian relief, but also analyses the successes and difficulties of transnational co-operation between Western and non-Western agencies with a special focus on the application of the Geneva Conventions of 1949. Finally, the article addresses the political dimension beyond concrete forms of help by arguing that the Suez Crisis attested to both the persistence of post-colonial structures and the institutionalisation of new, transnational patterns of co-operation.     

Book reviews

Book reviewed in this articles. Constructivism and international relations: Alexander Wendt and his critics. Edited by Stefano Guzzini and Anna Leander. Agents, structures and international relations: politics as ontology. by Colin Wight. Harry Potter and international relations. Edited by Daniel H. Nexon and Iver B. Neumann. The ethics of territorial borders: drawing lines in the shifting sand. by John Williams. The parliament of man: the United Nations and the quest for world government. by Paul Kennedy. Peace at any price: how the world failed Kosovo. by Iain King and Whit Mason. The first ten years of the WTO, 1995‐2005. by Peter Gallagher. Normalization of US‐China relations: an international history. Edited by William C. Kirby, Robert S. Ross and Gong Li. Of law and war. by David Kennedy. War and the law of nations: a general history. by Stephen C. Neff. The making of a terrorist: recruitment, training and root causes. Edited by James Forest. Economic justice in an unfair world: toward a level playing field. by Ethan B. Kapstein. The next great globalization: how disadvantaged nations can harness their financial systems to get rich. by Frederic S. Mishkin. Italy and Albania: financial relations in the fascist period. by Alessandro Roselli. International law and sustainable development: lessons from the law of international watercourses. by Alistair Rieu‐Clarke. From world war to Cold War: Churchill, Roosevelt and the international history of the 1940s. by David Reynolds. War and state formation in ancient China and early modern Europe. by Victoria Tin‐bor Hui. A time for peace: the legacy of the Vietnam War. by Robert D. Schulzinger. The rift between America and old Europe: the distracted eagle. by Peter H. Merkl. The geopolitics of Euro‐Atlantic integration. by Hans Mouritzen. Managing EU‐US relations: actors, institutions and the new transatlantic agenda. by Rebecca Steffenson. Designing democracy: EU enlargement and regime change in post‐communist Europe. by Geoffrey Pridham. The year of Europe: America, Europe and the energy crisis 1972‐4. Edited by Keith Hamilton and Patrick Salmon. Albania as dictatorship and democracy: from isolation to the Kosovo war, 1946‐8. by Owen Pearson. I. B. Military and society in post‐Soviet Russia. Edited by Stephen L. Webber and Jennifer G. Mathers. Russian conservatism and its critics: a study in political culture. by Richard Pipes. The Middle East in international relations: power, politics and ideology. by Fred Halliday. Constructing international relations in the Arab world. by Fred H. Lawson. The trouble with Africa: why foreign aid isn't working. by Robert Calderisi. Security dynamics in Africa's Great Lakes region. Edited by Gilbert M. Khadiagala. In the line of fire: a memoir. by Pervez Musharraf. China's rise in Asia: promises and perils. by Robert G. Sutter. Making China policy: from Nixon to G. W. Bush. by Jean A. Garrison. Hungry for peace: international security, humanitarian assistance, and social change in North Korea. by Hazel Smith. How Bush rules: chronicles of a radical regime. by Sidney Blumenthal. The one percent doctrine: deep inside America's pursuit of its enemies since 9/11. by Ron Suskind.     

Book reviews

Books reviewed in this article: International Relations theory Classical and modern thought in International Relations: from anarchy to cosmopolis. By Robert Jackson Human rights and ethics A new deal for the world: America's vision for human rights. By Elizabeth Borgwardt Planetary politics: human rights, terror and global society. Edited by Stephen Eric Bronner Protecting human rights: a comparative study. By Todd Landman The right war? The conservative debate on Iraq. Edited by Gary Rosen International law and organization The ‘war on terror’ and the framework of international law. By Helen Duffy The humanitarians: the International Committee of the Red Cross. By David P. Forsythe Irrelevant or indispensable? The United Nations in the twenty‐first century. Edited by Paul Heinbecker and Patricia Goff Denial of justice in international law. By Jan Paulsson Law in the service of human dignity: essays in honour of Florentino Feliciano. Edited by Steve Charnovitz, Debra P. Steger and Peter Van den Bossche Foreign policy British foreign policy under New Labour, 1997—2005. By Paul D. Williams Conflict, security and armed forces The utility of force: the art of war in the modern world. By General Sir Rupert Smith Electing to fight: why emerging democracies go to war. By Edward D. Mansfield and Jack Snyder Al‐Qaeda now: understanding today's terrorists. Edited by Karen J. Greenberg Politics, democracy and social affairs Modernization, cultural change and democracy: the human development sequence. By Ronald Inglehart and Christian Welzel Globalization, governmentality and global politics: regulation for the rest of us? By Ronnie D. Lipschutz with James K. Rowe The coming democracy: new rules for running a new world. By Ann Florini Political economy, economics and development Freakonomics: a rogue economist explores the hidden side of everything. By Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner History The global Cold War: Third World interventions and the making of our times. By Odd Arne Westad History The Cold War. By John Lewis Gaddis British documents on the end of empire: Central Africa (parts I and II). Part I: Closer association, 1945–1958. Part II: Crisis and dissolution, 1959–1965. Edited by Philip Murphy Europe The Balkans in the new millennium: in the shadow of war and peace. By Tom Gallagher War and peace in the Balkans: the diplomacy of conflict in the former Yugoslavia. By Ian Oliver Perspectives on European development cooperation: policy and performance of individual donor countries and the EU. Edited by Paul Hoebink and Olav Stokke La politique étrangère de l'Union Européenne. By Romain Yakemtchouk Russia and Eurasia Russia's empires: their rise and fall from prehistory to Putin. By Philip Longworth Ukraine's Orange Revolution. By Andrew Wilson Middle East and North Africa Jordan: living in the crossfire. By Alan George Sub‐Saharan Africa Why Botswana prospered. By J. Clark Leith Season of hope: economic reform under Mandela and Mbeki. By Alan Hirsch Rethinking the labour movement in the ‘new South Africa’. Edited by Thomas Bramble and Franco Barchiesi State of the nation: South Africa 2005—2006. Edited by Sakhela Buhlungu, John Daniel, Roger Southall and Jessica Lutchman A dirty war in West Africa: the RUF and the destruction of Sierra Leone. By Lansana Gberie Asia and Pacific The changing face of China: from Mao to market. By John Gittings Emerging democracy in Indonesia. By Aris Ananta, Evi Nurvidya Arifin and Leo Suryadinata The India—Pakistan conflict: an enduring rivalry. Edited by T. V. Paul Power shift: China and Asia's new dynamics. Edited by David Shambaugh North America Taming American power: the global response to US primacy. By Stephen M. Walt Quest for identity: America since 1945. By Randall Bennett Woods Latin America and Caribbean The judicialization of politics in Latin America. Edited by Alan Angell, Rachel Sieder and Line Schjolden US intervention in British Guiana: a Cold War story. By Stephen G. Rabe Transforming Latin America: the international and domestic origins of change. By Craig Arceneaux and David Pion‐Berlin     

The Dutch social democrats and the South African war, 1899–1902

This article examines the attitude of the Dutch Social Democrats towards the South African War (1899–1902). At the beginning of the war the SDAP (Social Democratic Workers’ Party) had three seats in the Staten‐Generaal (Parliament). By 1902 this had increased to seven. The South African War created a wave of nationalism in the Netherlands. The Boers were of Dutch descent, and the Dutch generally saw the war as their own. As much as it wanted to assist the Transvaal, the Dutch government, however, could not afford to annoy Britain upon whom she depended for commercial protection of her East Indian colonies. In Social Democratic circles there was a mixed reaction to the war, particularly as their enemy, the Dutch bourgeoisie, had taken the side of the Boers. Arguments were raised for and against on the one hand, humanitar‐ianism and the law of nations, and on the other, historic‐materialistic considerations. The organs of the SDAP—De Sociaaldemokraat and later Het Volk—supported the Boer cause. Their internationalism almost compelled the Social Democrats to stand aloof from the chauvinistic Dutch bourgeoisie. They pointed out that the Netherlands, with its policy on Acheh, an independent sultanate on Sumatra, was in actual fact also an imperialistic nation. Anti‐British sentiment among the Social Democrats rose sharply when the Amsterdam diamond cutters also became victims as many lost their jobs in the wake of the war. Chamberlain (the British Colonial Secretary) and Kitchener (British Commander‐in‐Chief) were seen as war criminals. When, towards the end of 1901, the Amsterdam Water Transport Leagues attempted to organise an international boycott of British shipping, the SDAP sympathised with the plan, but did not give its official approval. Nothing came of the attempt. The Dutch Social Democrats reluctantly accepted the peace, feeling that the Boers would in the future be exploited by British capitalism.     

Righting the course? Humanitarian intervention,the war on terror and the future of Afghanistan

The US‐led post 9/11 ‘intervention’ in Afghanistan was, by definition, not a humanitarian intervention. The intervention in Afghanistan was defined as an act of self‐defence by the US and it was one of the first steps in the ‘war on terror’ by the US and its allies: it had no intention or clear strategies for long‐term stabilization, state‐building or development. The US‐led international coalition failed to ‘find’ Al‐Qaeda in the short term and new arguments had to be made to justify continued international presence. The initial agenda was quickly blurred by a mismatch of intentions including those of long‐term stabilization and state‐building. The ideas developed through the Bonn Agreement (2001–5) and continued through the Afghanistan Compact (2006–10) have focused on building a centrally governed state (sometimes defined as democratic) that has a monopoly on the use of force. Their shortcomings are already well‐documented: the urgency of the Bonn Conference and of the adoption of the Bonn Agreement ostensibly meant trading expediency and stability for accountability and a clean slate, which is not to say that there were no good intentions at Bonn from stakeholders, but that Afghans and the international community put power‐sharing before progress. The choices made at Bonn may have contributed to the culture of impunity and the entrenched poverty that is gripping Afghanistan today. This article responds to the claims that state‐building and all that goes with it are not the responsibility of the ‘international community’ by addressing the accountability and humanitarian paradoxes. The question remains, however, about who should be responsible for reform and politically accountable in the aftermath of non‐humanitarian (and indeed even humanitarian) interventions?     

American propaganda and Ireland during world war one: the work of the Committee on Public Information

Soon after America entered the war in April 1917, President Woodrow Wilson established the Committee on Public Information (CPI) which used the tools of propaganda and persuasion to fight the war in the US and in allied, enemy and neutral foreign countries. This article examines the CPI’s work in relation to Ireland and Irish issues during the First World War. Among the questions examined are: What was the nature of the CPI’s Irish work between 1917 and 1918? What does it reveal about first, the CPI and second, Wilson’s view of Irish-American loyalty during the war? Why did the CPI’s British and Irish services become involved in Irish military recruitment? Was there any contact between the CPI officials in London and their British counterparts in the Ministry of Information to co-ordinate the push to encourage Irishmen to enlist? How did the CPI negotiate a space for its messages in post-rising Ireland where home rulers, republicans, unionists and British authorities pursued their respective agendas? The article seeks to add an American dimension to the narrative of Ireland and the First World War and examines themes relating to Anglo-American co-operation on the Irish question and diasporic identity.     

On the shock of civil war: cultural trauma and national identity in Finland and Ireland

What role does national identity play after civil war? Is reconstruction possible on the basis of an existing identity, or does a new identity have to be found? Much depends on whether narratives of conflict are unifying. I use the tools of cultural sociology to explain why the Finnish Civil War of 1918 has become a unifying ‘cultural trauma’ for the Finns, whereas the Irish Civil War of 1922–23 never became the dominant referent in Irish national identity. The difference is explained by the greater shock civil war posed to Finnish national identity.     

The Imperial War Relief Fund and the All British Appeal: Commonwealth,Conflict and Conservatism within the British Humanitarian Movement, 1920–25

This article explores the intersection of internationalist and imperial humanitarian ideals in the aftermath of the First World War via a case study of a hitherto overlooked humanitarian organisation—the Imperial War Relief Fund. In an era of increased international collaboration between humanitarian organisations, the Imperial War Relief Fund instead promoted an imperial approach, seeking to unite the ‘efforts of the dominions and mother country’ for the relief of Europeans suffering the effects of the First World War. The Fund was enthusiastically supported in Britain by a number of leading conservative public figures, who hoped that an empire-wide humanitarian campaign might guard against imperial disintegration and reverse Britain's perceived loss of prestige in the postwar order. Despite its initial successes, the Imperial Fund was subsequently usurped by British humanitarian organisations which were more internationalist in their outlook and rhetoric, most significantly the Save the Children Fund. This did not represent, however, a straightforward displacement of imperial co-ordination in favour of more internationally focused humanitarian action. Rather, the Save the Children Fund was able to draw support away from the Imperial Fund only by echoing its imperial rhetoric. This article argues, therefore, that, while the Imperial Fund was a relatively short-lived venture, its lasting legacy was to ensure that the British humanitarian movement was a space in which notions of Britain's imperial status, and its concomitant duties, would survive within an humanitarian landscape in which internationalist ideals were increasingly prevalent.     

The Great War,the child’s body and the American Red Cross

Abstract

This article examines the child-relief activities of the American Red Cross in Hungary in the aftermath of the Great War, offering an insight into the workings of humanitarianism in interwar Europe. A close look at this one Central European ‘playground’ of transatlantic intervention helps us understand the logic and the underlying political, economic and ideological motives behind Allied humanitarian aid to ‘enemy’ children. Analysis of the ways in which the war’s aftermath affected children, their bodies and their relief throws light on the relationship between violent conflicts, children in need and humanitarian intervention. The article looks particularly at the role of the child’s damaged body and its photographic representation, making it what Cathleen Canning calls an ‘embodied experience of war’. Exploration of the humanitarian discourse around the suffering child helps us identify the humanitarian reaction to the unforeseen social consequences of wartime confrontation. The article argues that the harmed body of the ‘enemy child’ served to mobilise transnational compassion that challenged the war’s deeply anchored ‘friend–foe’ mentality. The child turned into a means of configuring and translating human suffering beyond ideological and political borders. At the same time humanitarian child relief helped to further consolidate asymmetric international power relations.     

Waging a war to save biodiversity: the rise of militarized conservation

This article examines the rise in militarized approaches towards conservation, as part of a new ‘war for biodiversity’. This is a defining moment in the international politics of conservation and needs further examination. The claims that rhinos and elephants are under threat from highly organized criminal gangs of poachers shapes and determines conservation practice on the ground. Indeed, a central focus of the 2014 London Declaration on the Illegal Wildlife Trade is the strengthening of law enforcement, and recent policy statements by the US government and the Clinton Global Initiative also draw the link between poaching, global security and the need for greater levels of enforcement. Such statements and initiatives contribute substantially to the growing sense of a war for biodiversity. This article offers a critique of that argument, essentially by asking how we define poachers, and if militarized approaches mean conservationists are becoming more willing to engage in coercive, repressive policies that are ultimately counterproductive. Further, this article examines how the new war for biodiversity is justified and promoted by referring to wider debates about intervention in a post‐Cold War era; notably that the international community has a responsibility towards wildlife, especially endangered species, and that military forms of intervention may be required to save them.     

Dealing with ‘genocide’: the ICRC and the UN during the Nigeria–Biafra war, 1967–70

This article examines how international and humanitarian organizations participated and positioned themselves in relation to discourses on genocide during the Nigeria–Biafra war (1967–70). During the first half of the conflict, the powerful Biafran propaganda regularly accused the Nigerian government of genocide against the Biafran population. The article looks at the way in which the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), one of the main humanitarian organizations present on the ground, reacted to Biafran accusations. In doing so, it analyses how information received from delegates in the field were apprehended and used—or not—by the headquarters. It shows that the ICRC attitude towards public denunciation was more nuanced than is often presented. Furthermore, the article sheds light on the involvement of the UN in the promotion of the counter-discourse developed by the Nigerian government to deny the genocide accusations. With a focus on the outcomes in the field, it fathoms the leeway the organization had in this situation—a civil war—and how it used it. The limits of the counter-discourse, illustrated by the persistence of the accusation of genocide by groups like the French doctors, reveal the complexities involved in the usage of this term by relief workers. Finally, in studying the way in which these international and humanitarian organizations dealt with genocide claims, this article contributes to the history of the violence that took place during the war.