红十字国际委员会主席在红十字国际学院的演讲
9月7日，红十字国际委员会（ICRC）主席斯波利亚里茨访问红十字国际学院，并发表题为“国际人道法与世界和平”的主题演讲。
以下为斯波利亚里茨主席演讲中文译文：
尊敬的陈竺会长，
尊敬的红十字国际学院王汝鹏院长，
尊敬的各位嘉宾、女士们、先生们：
大家下午好！
今天很荣幸能够与大家在此相会并代表红十字国际委员会出席，红十字国际委员会不仅是中国红十字会的合作伙伴，也是红十字国际学院的共建机构。在此，我谨代表红十字国际委员会，向促成此次苏大之行以及红十字国际学院交流活动的各方致以诚挚的谢意。
我非常高兴在就任红十字国际委员会主席之后首次访华，希望借此机会重新审视委员会与中国的多层面合作关系，肯定相关成果，并重申我们将继续致力于与中国红会和红十字国际学院建立长期伙伴关系。
我此次访华的一大亮点是出席南丁格尔奖颁奖大会，向为医疗卫生和人道服务作出杰出贡献的七位中国护士致敬。
我也很高兴能够参加为纪念红十字国际委员会成立及国际红十字与红新月运动诞生160周年而在北京举办的图片展开幕仪式。该展览通过震撼人心的画面，体现出委员会存在的意义以及我们所服务的对象。
当今时代存在多重全球挑战，凸显出世界各国紧密相连、休戚与共。年轻一代能够以前所未有的方式，打破国界，建立联系，进行沟通协作；而也正是这一代人的行动足迹将深刻影响当前我们所面临的气候挑战的走向。
如今，信息传播已达到前所未有的速度，人工智能技术也呈现出指数级发展势头。然而，在相互依存，却仍担心自身重要利益受到挑战或威胁的各国之间，显见的紧张局势正在影响它们的关系。
各国一直在平衡合作与竞争，寻求推进本国利益，力图施加影响。各国历来惯以和平之名彰显自身军事实力——以期维持现状或威慑对手。
但我们自身的叙事方式也同等重要。事态的走向是相互依存促进繁荣，还是相互竞争引发冲突，既取决于周围发生的事件，也取决于各国领导人和媒体如何解释、看待这些事件。某一叙事角度可能会成为一种自证预言，在人们认识到相关言论是在鼓吹战争之时，可能早已为时过晚。
纵观全球，世界各地目前有100多场武装冲突正在进行，而且均非不可避免的冲突。为和平创造各种条件，是各国肩负的最为重大的责任之一。作为负有保护和援助武装冲突受难者之使命的组织，红十字国际委员会也肩负一项责任：那就是当公共言论中以随意口吻频繁谈及战争设想，达到令人不安的程度时，我们就要代表和平发声。
红十字国际委员会熟稔战争。我们有数千名同事身处一线，深谙武装暴力会对人类造成何种伤害。他们每天都亲眼目睹武装暴力对战斗员和平民所造成的恐怖后果；他们帮助失去家人或家园的民众，治疗重伤患者，并与酷刑或强奸作斗争；他们见证了战争对儿童和童年造成的创伤；他们注意到国家和非国家行为体在世界各地使用全球定位系统制导弹药和自制炸弹施加暴力。
红十字国际委员会代表在投身一线工作时，一般深知无论是通过绝对胜利还是和平谈判来结束战争，这往往都是遥遥无期的。每一次爆发新的冲突，我们都知道战事极有可能久拖不决，以致影响一代人或几代人，导致资源耗尽，发展无望。
于我们而言，武装冲突并非阶段性的罕见事件。160年来，红十字国际委员会还从未经历过战争长期休止，容我们忘却其可怖面貌的时期。因此，不难想象，红十字国际委员会鄙视战争及其所有恶果；而面对现今全世界范围内数量过多的武装冲突，我也理应为和平发声。
人道原则是指导国际红十字与红新月运动的七项基本原则之一，它指导我们促进各国人民之间的相互理解、发展友好关系、建立合作并实现持久和平。
今天，我想强调红十字国际委员会和国际人道法在促进和平方面可以发挥的作用。我不会就具体冲突发表任何看法，红十字国际委员会也不会插手关于冲突应如何解决的任何决定。我们必须始终保持中立。只有遵循这一原则，我们才能抵及所有需要保护的民众，无论他们在冲突哪一方的权力之下。
但中立性和国际人道法的公正性也有其优势。有鉴于此，我想强调红十字国际委员会和国际人道法可以促进实现和平目标的几条途径。同时，我呼吁各国和非国家武装团体借鉴这些方法，努力终止正在发生的武装冲突，并防止未来爆发冲突。
首先，红十字国际委员会可以发挥中立调解人的作用。
敌对各方保持对话，在诸多层面上都至关重要：这有助于缓和局势，避免误判，以及最为重要的是，确保武装冲突一旦爆发，能够有方法尽量减轻其影响，恢复和平。红十字国际委员会帮助建立并维持沟通渠道，以便各方采取关键的初步措施，在和平受到威胁时维系和平，或在冲突已然爆发后恢复和平。
就此而言，红十字国际委员会保持中立性至关重要，可确保各方信任我们纯属人道性质。了解委员会的各国和武装团体依靠我们开展斡旋，促成了各种倡议举措：他们仰赖委员会为其领导人参与和谈提供安全通道；将被拘留者送回祖国；陪伴离散家庭成员穿越前线与亲人团聚；护送排雷任务团穿越战区并帮助他们开展工作；传递有关组织停火、同步释放战俘、从有争议或被困地区撤离人员的信息；并分享有关失踪人员的信息。
但是，作为中立调解人，红十字国际委员会的作用不仅限于各项具体工作的简单相加。通过公正、独立的中间机构开展任何形式的对话，均有利于帮助不愿或不能直接对话的各方播撒信任的种子。而且，红十字国际委员会的行动通过促进并协助专门针对人道问题开展的对话，可从源头上帮助防止各方沟通渠道彻底崩溃。正如最近一位和谈人员所说：迈向和平有百步之遥，而其中第一步就是人道行动。
其次，尊重国际人道法与实现和平相辅相成。
人们容易孤立地看待国际人道法，认为该法仅仅是一套规制战争实施方式的规则。甚至还有谬论，认为国际人道法将武装冲突合法化，也有人将其作为诉诸武力的借口。
但是，必须重申的是国际人道法只是庞大国际法律架构中的一小部分，而和平是这一架构的核心。和平一直是各国制定战争法旨在实现的首要目标。各国通过1949年日内瓦四公约《第一附加议定书》时，公开表示“其愿见和平普及于各国人民之间的热望。”
各国在规制常规武器时，申明其目标是“……停止军备竞赛和建立各国间信任……，从而实现全世界人民和平生活的愿望。”从人道层面限制作战方式与切实开展工作促进和平，这两个方面并不矛盾。
实际上，忠实适用武装冲突法可以在诸多重要方面加强各项和平倡议。在冲突期间尊重国际人道法有利于向和平过渡，因为此举至少可以消除建设和平的部分障碍：减少流离失所者、难民和受损房屋，就可以减少返乡或重新安置方面的谈判工作；更加严格地遵守拘留场所相关法律保障，有助于更简单明确地确定应在何时释放哪些人员；解决失踪人员的案件，实现家庭重聚，有助于相关人员从共同的痛苦和怨恨中解脱出来，而这两种情绪是和平道路上不可逾越的阻碍；减少战争罪行，也可减少刑事调查，从而减少有关后冲突时期司法和问责的争论；以及，减少冲突中的残酷行径，亦可减少阻碍冲突解决的仇恨情绪，这适用于所有关系。
此外，国际人道法还通过减少战争的物质代价来促进恢复和平。遵守该法，有利于对国内和国际商贸举足轻重的民用机构持续开展业务。除了挽救生命外，保护关键基础设施和基本服务还可以帮助民众维持一定程度的经济安全，降低冲突后恢复正常生活的难度。
国际人道法还为敌对各方建立信任创造机会：例如，在前线两侧为寻找失踪人员、离散人员和死者并将其送还家属而开展的必要协同合作，有助于开启进一步对话。
国际人道法还载有具体条款，协助有意进行和平谈判的各方开展谈判。尽管国际人道法是规制作战行为的法律体系，但该法也为结束战争提供了指南，例如为各方协商订立“特别协定”提供了法律基础。“特别协定”包括有关停火、释放被拘留者的协定、大赦协议、和平协定。而且，从更宏观的角度来看，该法提供了一个国际认可的框架，在此框架内，交战双方可仅仅以“各方”互称，而不受关于冲突过错的观点或敌方法律地位和合法性的影响。
我还敦促所有利益相关方继续努力澄清和发展国际人道法，不仅因为此项工作可为这一法律体系做出贡献，而且还因为这能提醒我们利益攸关之所在。国家间的磋商、政治宣言和新的公约使我们更加清晰聚焦战争可能给人类带来的代价，也激发我们共同渴求避免这种伤害。关于国际人道法的多边对话——无论是在裁军框架内，还是在我们的红十字与红新月国际大会的背景下开展——均能构建信任，形成共同使命感。
我们每一次重申武装冲突法的要求，都是在重申我们共同的人道精神。一视同仁地平等看待每个个体和社区的价值是和平的基础。我的希望和动力就是红十字国际委员会履行自身职责所捍卫的国际人道法能够为这一崇高目标作出贡献。
最后，我呼吁各国投入和平建设工作。
今天我与各位分享上述观点，并非以冲突解决专家的身份发言，而是代表了成千上万名竭诚奉献的同事，他们都对战争所造成的人类代价了如指掌；他们的经历不断诉说着同一个以破坏和失去为主题的故事。事实上，国际人道法和恪守原则的人道行动能够拯救生命，并防止武装冲突所导致的恶果，但却无法改变战争的本质及其对我们共同人道的攻击。
只要有一方认为再无更好的出路，武装冲突的灾难就会发生。
让我们一起投入和平建设工作。考虑替代方案；创造解决方法。务必要承认一点：只要参与任何武装冲突——无论这是所谓正义之战还是必要之战——都会令人类付出惨痛代价。
红十字国际委员会将继续低调本分行事，严格保持中立，但我们的作用将不容小觑。让我们各尽其责，共建和平。
谢谢大家。
Distinguished President Chen Zhu，
Mr Wang Rupeng, Dean of International Academy of Red Cross and Red Crescent,
Distinguished Guests, Ladies and gentlemen,Good afternoon. Ni Men Hao.
It is a privilege to be with you today, and to represent the ICRC as a partner of the Chinese Red Cross and co-founder of the international Academy of the Red Cross and Red Crescent. On behalf of the ICRC, let me express my thanks and gratitude for making this moment of sharing possible, with the international Academy of the Red Cross and Red Crescent, on the campus of the Suzhou University.
I am pleased to be visiting China for the first time in my tenure as President of the ICRC, to take stock of and recognize the multidimensional engagements of the ICRC with China and reaffirm our commitment to building a long-term relationship with the Chinese Red Cross and its Academy.
A highlight of my visit was participating in the award ceremony of the Florence Nightingale medals to pay tribute to seven Chinese nurses for their exemplary contributions to healthcare and humanitarian services.
I was also pleased to inaugurate a photo exhibition in Beijing to mark the 160th anniversary of the ICRC and the broader International Red Cross Red Crescent Movement, which, through powerful images, showed what we exist for, and those for whom we act.
We live in a time of compounding global challenges which show how deeply interconnected our world has become. A generation is coming of age with an unprecedented ability to connect, communicate and collaborate across borders. It is also a generation whose material imprint will greatly influence the direction of the climate challenge we all now face.
Information travels faster than ever, and Artificial Intelligence (AI) is advancing at an exponential pace. Yet, palpable tensions are shaping relations among states which remain interdependent, but which nevertheless feel their important interests are challenged or threatened.
Countries have always balanced cooperation and competition, seeking to advance interests and to strive for influence. States around the world have historically projected military power in the name of peace: to maintain a status quo, or to deter their rivals.
But the story we tell ourselves matters as well. Whether interdependence enhances prosperity or competition leads to conflict, depends as much on the events that surround us as it does on how those events are explained and perceived by world leaders and the media. A narrative lens can become a self-fulfilling prophecy that is recognized as the drumbeat of war only after it is already too late.
As I survey the globe, I see more than 100 armed conflicts around the world, none of which were inevitable. Creating the conditions for peace is one of the most important responsibilities of states. As an organization mandated to protect and assist victims of armed conflict, we at the International Committee of the Red Cross also have a responsibility: to speak on behalf of peace at a time when the prospect of war appears in public discourse with an unsettling casualness and frequency.
The ICRC knows war. My many thousand colleagues in the field know what armed violence does to humanity. They see its horrific toll on combatants and civilians every day. They help people who have lost their families or their homes. They treat gruesome injuries. They struggle against torture and rape. They see what war does to children and childhood. They see this violence inflicted by state and non-state actors, by GPS-guided munitions and home-made bombs, all over the world.
ICRC delegates usually work knowing that war’s end – whether by decisive victory or negotiated peace – will not come any time soon. With every new armed conflict we confront, we know that chances are high it will drag on long enough to affect a generation or more – hindering possibilities for development and draining resources.
Armed conflict is not a periodic, once-in-a-lifetime event for us. In 160 years, the ICRC has never had a respite from war long enough to forget its ghastliness. So, it should come as no revelation that the ICRC despises war and all its ills, and amidst the unconscionable number of ongoing armed conflicts worldwide, it should come as no surprise that I am compelled to speak out.
The principle of humanity, one of seven principles that guide the activities of the international Red Cross and Red Crescent movement, instructs us to promote mutual understanding, friendship, cooperation and lasting peace amongst all peoples.
Today, I would like to highlight the roles that the ICRC and international humanitarian law – IHL – can play when it comes to peace. I will not offer any views on specific conflicts, nor will I suggest that the ICRC has any part to play in determining how conflicts should be resolved. Our neutrality – the principle we rely on to be able to reach everyone in need of protection, no matter in whose hands they might be – must be preserved at all times.
But neutrality and the impartiality of IHL come with their own strengths.
With this in mind, I would like to highlight the ways that the ICRC and IHL can contribute to the goal of peace. And I appeal to States and non-state armed groups to draw on them as part of their efforts to end ongoing armed conflicts and to prevent future ones.
First, the ICRC plays a role as neutral intermediary.
Maintaining dialogue between rivals is critical on many levels: for de-escalation, avoiding miscalculation, and – most importantly - ensuring that should armed conflict break-out, there are ways to minimize its cost and restore peace. The ICRC helps create and maintain channels of communication so that the parties can take the critical first steps toward preserving peace when it is threatened or restoring peace when conflict has already broken out.
In this, the ICRC’s neutrality is key. It secures the trust of all sides in our purely humanitarian role. States and armed groups who know us have relied on our good offices to enable a variety of initiatives: they have looked to the ICRC to provide their leaders with safe passage to participate in peace talks; to bring detainees home; to accompany members of separated families across front lines and reunite them with their relatives; to escort demining missions through combat zones and enable them to do their work; to transmit messages organizing ceasefires, simultaneous releases of detainees, and evacuations from fought-over or besieged areas; and to share information about the missing.
But our role as neutral intermediary is about more than the sum of these specific tasks. Dialogue of any kind through an impartial and independent go-between helps plant seeds of trust when the parties are unwilling or unable to talk directly. And the ICRC’s presence can help prevent the total collapse of communication in the first place by prompting and facilitating dialogue on purely humanitarian issues. As one negotiator put it to us recently: there are 100 steps to peace; the first are humanitarian.
Second, respect for international humanitarian law and peace are mutually reinforcing.
It is easy to view IHL in isolation, as purely a set of regulations on how to conduct warfare. Or worse, some might wrongly view IHL as legitimizing armed conflict or excusing a resort to force.
But it is important to recall that IHL is just one small part of a vast international legal architecture which has peace at its centre. Peace has always been the overriding objective of the States that created the law of war. When States adopted the First Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions of 1949, they proclaimed “their earnest wish to see peace prevail among peoples.”
When working to regulate conventional weapons, they stated as their goal “the ending of the arms race and the building of confidence among States, and hence to the realization of the aspiration of all peoples to live in peace.” There is no contradiction between applying humanitarian restraint in warfare and working in earnest for peace.
In fact, the faithful application of the law of armed conflict can bolster peace initiatives in important ways. Respect for IHL during conflict can contribute to the transition to peace by removing at least some obstacles to peacemaking: fewer displaced people, refugees and destroyed homes mean less effort spent on negotiating return or resettlement; better respect for legal safeguards in detention means more clarity and simplicity in determining whom to release and when; the resolution of missing cases and the reunification of families means relief from the collective anguish and resentment that can be an unmovable obstacle to peace; fewer war crimes mean fewer criminal investigations and arguments over post-conflict justice and accountability; and, as in all relationships, less cruelty in conflict means less hatred as an obstacle to resolving it.
IHL can also facilitate a return to peace by reducing the material cost of war. It can make it possible for civilian institutions that are important for domestic and international commerce to continue operating. And, in addition to saving lives, the protection of critical infrastructure and essential services can help preserve some measure of economic security for the population and make the resumption of normal life in the aftermath of conflict much easier.
IHL also brings opportunities to build trust between adversaries: for example, the collaboration across front lines that is necessary to account for the missing, separated and dead, and return them to their families can unlock further dialogue.
IHL also contains specific provisions that can enable peace negotiations when the parties so decide. Even though IHL is a body of law that governs conduct in war, it also provides guideposts for a path out of war by, for example, providing a legal basis for the negotiation of “special agreements” – including cease-fires, detainee releases, amnesty deals, and peace accords – between the parties. And more broadly, it supplies an internationally sanctioned framework within which two warring sides can interrelate simply as “parties”, without prejudice to their views on who is at fault for the conflict, or the legal status and legitimacy of the enemy.
I also urge all relevant stakeholders to continue their work on clarification and development of IHL, not only for the contribution it will make to that body of law, but because these efforts serve as a reminder of what is at stake. Consultations among states, political declarations, and new conventions sharpen our focus on the potential human cost of war, and they tap into our collective desire to avoid that harm. Multilateral dialogue on IHL – whether in the framework of disarmament or in the context of our own international conference of the red cross and red crescent – builds confidence and a sense of shared purpose.
Every time we reaffirm the requirements of the law of armed conflict, we at the same time reaffirm our common humanity. Seeing the equal worth of individuals and communities is foundational for peace. It is my hope and motivation that the body of law the ICRC is mandated to safeguard makes some contribution to this higher purpose.
Finally, third, I call on all states to invest in peace.
The perspective I share with you today is not that of an expert on conflict resolution. But I represent thousands of dedicated colleagues with an incomparable depth of knowledge about the human cost of war. Their collective experience tells and retells the same story of devastation and loss. The fact is that IHL and principled humanitarian action can save lives and prevent some of armed conflict’s worst consequences. But they cannot change the nature of war and its assault on our common humanity.
All that is required for the catastrophe of armed conflict to occur is one side’s belief that there is no better path forward.
This is a time to invest in peace. Consider alternatives. Create options. To simply acknowledge that engagement in any armed conflict – whether viewed as justified or necessary – will come with a terrible human cost.
Our role as ICRC will be humble. It will be strictly neutral. But it might prove critical. We all have our part to play.
Thank you.
来源：红十字国际学院IARC