Q: Do you think there’s any way to find a consistent approach to civilian protection across all armed conflicts, when geopolitical priorities are constantly shifting?

A: I think this is always a challenge. With Canada having galvanised attention to the protection of civilians around the Security Council, we learned very quickly that the key is, really, to retain the momentum.

Promoting the Secretary-General’s 'culture of compliance' requires a range of measures that can be consistently undertaken at the field level or at the political (multilateral or bilateral) levels. Things like awareness raising, education, training, consistent advocacy against violations – and advocacy, especially from civil society – will all help.

It’s clear that states get distracted based on what’s happening in the world, which means that those on the ground then have an even more important role to play, in making sure these don’t fall off the radar. And it doesn’t necessarily have to be through media attention. Issues can be brought to individual states' attention, and situated on the agenda of the Security Council and of the rest of the General Assembly.

And then there are other things - like fact-finding missions, exposure of violations, prosecution of grave breaches and serious violations.

We have a whole set of tools at our disposal. It’s just a question of making sure that we have a community of states and individuals that can consistently make sure these issues receive and sustain the kind of attention they demand and require.

Q: In terms of civilian protection, what achievements have been made in recent years and what are the main challenges as we go forward?

A: In the last couple of years, we have really made remarkable progress in raising awareness of the safety of individuals and the importance of protecting civilians.

I think we had a critical moment in time where we were really able to put that issue at the centre of international action. The fact that the Security Council passed resolutions explicitly saying that it would take action where civilians were deliberately under threat, or assistance to them was obstructed (which operative paragraph 10 of Resolution 1265 says), that’s remarkable.

That’s a huge shift, because, before then, we really used to just focus on protecting humanitarian assistance: we did not focus on protecting people as such. So I think that’s a remarkable achievement.

The landmines initiative, the International Criminal Court, the operative paragraph to the children in armed conflict – those are also incredibly important accomplishments. Specific instances, too, where we have seen action on the ground in support of civilians are also important – like East Timor, and even Kosovo.

It’s amazing, also, to look at specific Council resolutions that, for the first time, take into account civilian protection as part of UN peacekeepers’ mandate. In the DRC [first mandate] and Sierra Leone, they actually called on peacekeeping troops to, within their area of deployment, take armed action to protect civilians under threat. Again, that language has recently been included in the Security Council resolution on Cote d’Ivoire. That’s amazing.

The key challenge will be implementation, and maybe that goes on the other side of your balance sheet. That is to say, our rhetoric has gone very high; we have managed to achieve a great deal in terms of norms and standards, and advocacy. The challenge is always in making sure we’re able to, effectively, make that shift on the ground.

Looking at some of the other challenges, I think the proliferation of small arms and light weapons is a serious challenge. It’s one we’re all still trying to get our heads around. Certainly, the UN Conference on Small Arms and Light Weapons in all its aspects which took place in New York July 2001 was a step ahead, and some of the work the Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue and the Small Arms Survey have been doing is really important.

That’s a serious challenge – and it’s a challenge that governments recognise. The Mali Moratorium, for example, was important - especially [in] that it was an African country that pushed ahead on it.

The way that war is waged obviously remains a significant challenge. The fact that, in a lot of circumstances, we’re seeing armed groups that don’t have standard ‘command and control’ functions, that don’t operate with standard military rules of procedures, that sometimes they’re child soldiers, who are on drugs or who have been kidnapped – this is obviously complicating the environment.

They may be just unfamiliar with – or not care about – the proper rules of engagement. For them, attacking civilians is a deliberate war aim. And how we try to grapple with that is really the question.

Q: Is the international community coming to civilian protection a little late in the day?

A: We have to be clear that agencies have been doing this kind of work for a long time. Certainly, the ICRC would probably take offence at any suggestion that we’re only getting into protecting civilians now.

We have lessons going back decades – although in terms of broad international awareness, that has perhaps come much more recently. And I think it’s because we had a particular window where we were able to really put this on the agenda.

I think the human security agenda really was able to galvanise that attention and bring these issues together in a package that people could understand. Often, we were dealing with these things one-on-one, and the human security agenda really helped to bring them together under an umbrella.

It helped make clear the range of issues that we’re trying to grapple with, and the range of threats. From that perspective, it’s a really powerful advocacy tool.