ICRC counts 130 armed conflicts, the highest number since the Second World War

The president of the Red Cross puts a number on a decade of war

In an interview broadcast on Thursday, the president of the International Committee of the Red Cross said the organisation is classifying more armed conflicts than at any point since the Second World War. Mirjana Spoljaric told France 24’s Spotlight programme that the ICRC counts more than 130 armed conflicts around the world, a figure she presented as a warning about the rules of war.

“You may consider war a human condition,” Spoljaric said. “But brutality, barbarity, is not a human condition.” The remark, days after governments met in Geneva to discuss the laws of war, restated the premise of the 1949 Geneva Conventions: even in war, there can be no lawless space, and certain red lines must never be crossed.

The interview, hosted by François Picard, came days after representatives of more than 100 countries met in Geneva to discuss the rules that protect civilians, the wounded, prisoners and detainees.

More than 130 conflicts, in more than 60 countries

The ICRC’s count stands at more than 130 armed conflicts, about twice the number of 15 years ago, almost four times that of 30 years ago. They span more than 60 countries, and the ICRC works in more than 90.

The warning follows the Global Dialogue on International Humanitarian Law, held in Geneva on 3 and 4 November, hosted by Switzerland and the ICRC. Representatives of more than 100 countries attended, according to AFP, after two years of consultations involving more than 160 states. The talks produced practical guidance, published on 3 November, on protecting civilians, hospitals and essential services.

Twenty-seven states from five continents led seven workstreams, from naval warfare to hospitals. The dialogue is part of the Global Initiative on International Humanitarian Law, launched in 2024 by Brazil, China, France, Jordan, Kazakhstan and South Africa with the ICRC. By November, 127 states had joined, and their leaders meet in Amman, Jordan, on 7 December, hosted by King Abdullah II.

The rules at issue are the four Geneva Conventions of 1949, ratified by every state in the world. Spoljaric said: “We witness emboldened warring parties adopting overly permissive or outright dismissive interpretations of international humanitarian law that perpetuate rather than prevent suffering.” What is needed, she said, is “the political will to make international humanitarian law a priority at the highest level and to uphold it in military decisions.”

What the count does not show, and what December must decide

The ICRC has not published a conflict-by-conflict list of its 130 classifications, so the public cannot see which situations cross its threshold. The gap is definitional: the ICRC counts conflicts under international humanitarian law, including non-international conflicts and non-state groups, which is why its total runs far ahead of trackers that count only wars between states. The International Crisis Group recently counted 65 ongoing conflicts, and the Peace Research Institute Oslo recorded nearly 60 state-based conflicts in 2025, and both call their totals the highest since the Second World War. The direction is unambiguous, but the totals are not the same measure.

The full France 24 interview is a broadcast conversation, and only its headline findings are published in text, so which conflicts Spoljaric discussed in detail is not yet public record. Nor is it clear how she weighs headline wars against protracted ones that rarely reach them.

It is also unknown what the 7 December conference will produce: binding commitments, a political declaration, or a restatement of obligations states already hold. The Geneva guidance addresses governments and armed forces, yet many of today’s wars are fought by armed groups that were not at the table. Finally, it is not settled whether violations are rising, or simply better documented than a decade ago.

When the rules fall, the civilian pays first

The ICRC estimates that 204 million people live in areas controlled or contested by armed groups, 30 million more than in 2021, and that at least 20 of today’s conflicts have lasted more than two decades. “Civilians in over 130 conflicts face unacceptable suffering that could have been avoided had the rules of war been better respected,” Spoljaric said in Rome in October.

The cost is visible where the ICRC works. In Gaza, collapsed infrastructure has left residents defenceless, with hospitals, schools and homes increasingly treated as battlefields. In Sudan, the exodus from El Fasher has driven families into camps where the rules that should protect them are the first casualty. The Bureau’s reporting traces the same pattern in the collapse of Gaza’s infrastructure and the exodus from El Fasher.

That is why the count matters. International humanitarian law is the most codified branch of public international law, yet Spoljaric said in Maastricht that “the law of armed conflict is being twisted to justify killing rather than to prevent it.” A system that counts 130 wars and cannot enforce its own red lines has its credibility on trial.

Why the rise, and the paradox at the heart of the initiative

First, why the rise has been so steady. Wars are lasting longer, growing more complex and trapping generations, the ICRC told the United Nations First Committee in 2025, and today’s conflicts are fought as much inside states as between them. “We are really in a decade of war, and simultaneously, we are seeing the number of violations of the law of war increasing,” Anne Quintin of the ICRC said.

Second, the paradox at the heart of the initiative. International humanitarian law is the most codified branch of public international law, built from the Geneva Conventions of 1949, yet its custodians say it is being twisted into a justification for the killing it exists to prevent. The initiative’s bet is that the missing piece is political will, not new rules, and Amman is where that bet will be tested.

What a December declaration would, and would not, change

If Amman produces a declaration carried by the 127 states, the rules of war gain political weight they have lacked for years, and the Geneva guidance, on military training, national accountability and the protection of hospitals, becomes a test of sincerity rather than a document on a shelf. Signatories will be measured against their words the next time a hospital is struck or a convoy is blocked.

If the conference produces only language, the initiative risks joining the shelf of Geneva processes, and the ICRC’s warning loses force the next time it counts. The count will keep rising either way, and the gap between the law as written and the war as fought will keep widening.

Further out, the stakes reach beyond the hall. Humanitarian funding and access, arms transfers and the standing of the Geneva Conventions all turn on whether December is remembered as the moment governments enforced their own rules, or confirmed that the rules are optional.

All eyes on Amman on 7 December

Next: the High-Level Conference on Humanity in War meets in Amman on 7 December, hosted by King Abdullah II, with the leaders of the 127 member states invited. What to watch is attendance, whether the outcome is a declaration or commitments, and whether any government pledges to write the Geneva guidance into military doctrine.

The ICRC’s count will be watched alongside it. If the number moves again, the question is whether December slowed anything at all, and the United Nations remains the arena for these arguments, as this week, when the Assembly debated the veto that ended a peace mission, in the Bureau’s report.

Between now and 7 December, the warning is measured not by the number but by what governments do with it. Spoljaric’s line sets the standard: war may be a human condition, but brutality and barbarity are not, and the rules that say so are either defended now or defended too late.