India firmly believes that it is the solemn responsibility of the international community to protect civilians and safeguard their human rights. Naturally, this also entails that the peacekeeping missions that we mandate should be adequately resourced. Notwithstanding the development of International humanitarian law, United Nations human rights law and Security Council resolutions and mandates, civilians continue to suffer.

India believes that the primary gap is that of resources. First of all, the number of troops sanctioned for a peacekeeping mission should be such that it is in a position to provide meaningful support to national authorities. Similarly, those responsible for the development of normative frameworks and guidelines for the mission should invariably include the protection of civilians as necessary component.

Efforts to protect civilians may be hampered by a variety of reasons, such as the unwillingness of parties to a conflict to abide by international humanitarian law, the lack of resources, information gaps, or the lack of understanding about what peacekeepers should and can do to protect civilians. In such a situation, new and innovative approaches are required that are comprehensive in nature.

Another important aspect of the protection of civilians in the armed conflict is the strengthening of national capacities. The protection of civilians is a national responsibility and requires institutions and conditions that are conducive to their functioning. Peacekeepers must be there to aid in the development of these national capacities.

Yet despite, or rather because of, the flagrant violations committed by parties to conflict around the world, the ICRC firmly believes that the relevance and importance of international humanitarian law is reaffirmed, not weakened. That is echoed in the five core challenges in the Secretary-General's reports in 2009 (S/2009/277) and 2010 (S/2010/579) on the protection of civilians.

Working to ensure respect for international humanitarian law in situations of armed conflict remains at the heart of our mandate and our missions. For the ICRC, protection and assistance go hand in hand. Our presence on the ground ensures our proximity to the victims. We engage in confidential dialogue with State and non-State actors to uphold the rights of people affected, aiming as much as possible to prevent violations.

This is the reality facing the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) in our daily work in far too many armed conflicts and other situations of violence around the world. The reality is that, in some places, men, women and children are being killed or raped, forced out of their homes, losing all their possessions and living in a state of fear. Hospitals are being bombed and health workers attacked.

The United Nations has gone a long way in including protection activities in the mandates of its peacekeeping missions and in improving protection for specific groups such as women and children, refugees and internally displaced persons. The ICRC will continue to work for the protection of civilians within the limits of our mandate and expertise, based explicitly on a neutral and independent approach.

So why is the reality on the ground so often dismal compared to the progress in policy and doctrine? The fundamental reason is as obvious as it is challenging. It is the lack of respect for international humanitarian law by State and non-State actors. That, coupled with the prevailing culture of impunity, is the main cause of the human suffering we are witnessing. Various factors compound that challenge.

In any event, women, men and children in need of protection must truly be at the centre of any action that is undertaken. The challenge of turning words and intentions into concrete, meaningful action is one we all face. That challenge ultimately rests with States and non-State actors, both bound by international humanitarian law.