Some have suggested that neutral humanitarianism is dead in the aftermath of the Cold War and 9/11. This article challenges the critical view called neo-humanitarianism and suggests that organizations such as the ICRC can carefully carve out an image of relative neutrality. This article argues that the difficulties associated with neutrality are not new and the ICRC has been grappling with them for decades. Various examples from history, including the Italian-Ethiopian War, World War II, and the Korean War, suggest the various complexities associated with neutrality. The fundamental focus of this article is how to construct an image and policies that are perceived to be relatively neutral in order to allow access to victims in need of humanitarian assistance and protection.

The fundamental right to Freedom of Religion and Belief (FoRB), codified in Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), is often in the news due to the denial of this right by states and non-state actors. Various politicians lament the fact that individuals around the world are not able to practice and live up to the tenets of their faith due to government persecution or hostility from non-state actors. Given the widespread violation of this basic right, why has US foreign policy had a limited impact globally? Besides perceived national interests trumping this right, the tendency to conflate religious freedom and religious tolerance limits Washington's impact. Religious tolerance is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for FoRB. To establish this difference, this article explores how different societies in different times pursued religious tolerance and later religious freedom. A greater understanding of the diverse motivations and pathways from persecution to religious tolerance, and in a more limited number of cases FoRB, is essential if Washington-or InterGovernmental Organizations (IGO) and Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO)-wants to develop meaningful policies to improve the realization of this human right.

While much optimism about the future was expressed at the time of the Egyptian revolution in January 2011, little progress has been made on human rights including the protection of the fundamental right of freedom of religion and belief. In fact some argued that the situation in Egypt is worse today. This paper examines why many individuals (Copts, Atheists, Shiites, etc…) are unable to freely express their beliefs or practice their religion in Egypt. Some have argued that the denial of freedom of religion and belief is due to statism. But analysis of freedom of religion and belief that focus only on statism capture one aspect of the denial of this human right in Egypt. They neglect the intolerance in society that allows non-state actors to contribute to the difficult environment of FoRB in Egypt. This essay attempts to explore both the role that statism plays concerning the denial of FoRB, as well as how social hostilities contribute to an intolerant climate. This has important policy implications for future progress on this issue. Without more attention to attitudes and dispositions, Egypt will only make limited progress in the future.

The International Committee of the Red Cross and the Graduate Institute of International Studies, Geneva-assisted by a generous grant from the Hauser Foundation-will hold a training seminar on international humani tarian law (lHL) for full-time university teachers who give courses on public international law or human rights law and who are ready to make a commit ment to start teaching IHL in their universities. The seminar will be held at the Graduate Institute on 12-17 July 1993. The organizers will cover APEX-type airfare to Geneva and living expenses in Geneva for the participants (arrival: 11 July, departure: 18 July). This seminar, which is designed to promote the teaching of IHL in univer sities, will cover IHL and relevant aspects of human rights law applicable in international and internal armed conflicts (including the law on the conduct of hostilities, treatment of the wounded and sick, prisoners of war, occupation, internal conflicts, relief and intervention, implementation, responsibility and war crimes, and teaching methods). The instructors will be academics, ICRC specialists and practitioners. The language of instruction will be English. Applications, including full C.V.S, and statements explaining the candi dates' interest in and plans for teaching IHL, must reach

No abstract