Although its headquarters have remained continuously based in Geneva and it has long been regarded as a Swiss institution in origin and affiliation, it was also among the first organizations to assume a truly international character. This status reflects its far-reaching role across almost every region of the globe.
Today, the ICRC operates in numerous countries experiencing armed conflict or war, including the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Myanmar, Afghanistan, Sudan, Palestine—particularly Gaza—as well as Yemen and Syria. Some of these conflicts receive far less international attention than others, for a variety of political and media-related reasons.
In this context, the ICRC is directly concerned with violations of International Humanitarian Law (IHL), as embodied in the four Geneva Conventions of 1949, the two Additional Protocols of 1977, and the Third Additional Protocol of 2005, all of which reflect evolving realities in modern warfare.
The ICRC operates across multiple dimensions and performs a wide range of functions. These include acting as a neutral intermediary, providing protection, and delivering humanitarian assistance to civilian populations.
In carrying out these roles, the organization seeks to strike a delicate balance between the risks of being targeted—either as an institution or through its staff in conflict zones—and its obligation to remain present in order to protect and assist civilians who depend on its services.
At the same time, the ICRC is responsible for minimizing, if not entirely avoiding, security risks to its personnel on the ground.
Throughout its history, the ICRC has faced numerous challenges, many of which have grown more complex due to increasing political inaction by the international community in response to the rising number of armed conflicts worldwide.
One such challenge has been the application of double standards by certain states when addressing different conflicts, often based on national interests. Closely related to this is the withdrawal of some countries from international agreements that fall under the framework of International Humanitarian Law.
A third major challenge emerged following the United States’ invasions of Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003, in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. At the time, arguments were advanced questioning the relevance of International Humanitarian Law, on the grounds that the Geneva Conventions did not anticipate non-state actors as primary parties to conflict, nor the rise of terrorism as a defining feature of 21st-century warfare.
While this argument had some surface validity, the counterargument emphasized that the central concern of the 1949 Conventions was the immense human cost of war, regardless of its origins, motivations, or the identity of the parties involved.
A fourth challenge facing the ICRC today stems from its engagement not only with governments, but also with more than 200 non-state armed actors worldwide. Each party to a conflict typically views its cause as just and seeks to persuade the international community, including the ICRC, of the legitimacy of its position. Despite these pressures, the organization has consistently maintained its neutrality.
The most recent, and arguably most serious, challenge confronting the ICRC has been the substantial reduction in funding from donor states. Historically, the United States has been the largest single donor, contributing approximately 20–25 percent of the ICRC’s annual budget.
However, since the advent of the current Republican administration under President Donald Trump, US contributions have been almost entirely suspended, including funds previously channelled through USAID.
The ICRC has only managed to secure the transfer of commitments made under the previous Biden Democratic administration. It should be noted, however, that the United States is not the only country to have revised its funding.
Several European and Asian donors, including Germany, Japan, and the Netherlands, have also scaled back their contributions in recent years. As a result, the ICRC has been compelled to reduce its annual budget, prioritize key operations, and undertake organizational restructuring to contain costs.
Despite these challenges, the ICRC continues to play a vital role in the implementation of International Humanitarian Law in conflict zones. Its broad range of activities includes rejecting the use of humanitarian aid as a political weapon, promoting and mediating exchanges of prisoners of war (POWs) between belligerents, and working to build confidence and credibility—first with warring parties, and subsequently among them.
In addition, the ICRC has recently expanded its efforts to assist victims of natural disasters, such as earthquakes, and has continued to operate physical rehabilitation centers in various conflict-affected regions.
It is also worth noting that the ICRC has historically expressed concern over the concept of “humanitarian intervention,” particularly when certain states have sought international legitimacy for military interventions under humanitarian justifications. The organization’s reservations stem from the belief that such interventions pose significant safety and security risks to civilian populations in the targeted countries.
Most recently, in 2024 in New York City, the president of the ICRC launched an initiative aimed at revitalizing global ownership of International Humanitarian Law. The initiative was co-sponsored by six countries, and to date, 90 states have joined.
Short link: