The world's most distinctive programme: we advocate not merely for compliance with international humanitarian law, but for its fundamental reform — including the Geneva Conventions, Security Council veto accountability, and the structural failures of the ICC. Because the rules themselves are part of the problem.
Every human rights organization advocates for compliance with international law. OLJA is the only organization that also publicly advocates for the reform of international law itself — when that law is inadequate, structurally biased, or actively complicit in protecting perpetrators.
This is not a political position. It is a legal one. The evidence is clear: the Geneva Conventions were designed for inter-state warfare between uniformed armies. Modern conflicts are asymmetric, urban, technological, and increasingly waged through siege and starvation. The distinction principle — the foundational rule separating combatants from civilians — is violated daily with near-total impunity. The rules need updating.
The Security Council veto allows five permanent members to shield themselves and their allies from accountability — regardless of the gravity of violations. This is not a bug. It is a structural feature of the system that OLJA is committed to challenging and reforming.
Modernisation for asymmetric and urban warfare
Accountability reform for mass atrocity situations
Structural reform to end selective prosecution
Operationalisation beyond political failure
The four Geneva Conventions (1949) and their Additional Protocols (1977) govern the conduct of armed conflict. They were designed for a world of inter-state warfare between recognisable armies. Modern armed conflicts are overwhelmingly non-international, involving non-state actors, urban combat, drone warfare, cyberattacks, and economic siege. OLJA advocates for a formal revision process to close these gaps and restore the protective function of IHL.
The UN Charter grants five permanent members of the Security Council the power to veto any resolution — including those authorising humanitarian intervention or referring situations to the ICC. This power has been systematically used to prevent accountability for mass atrocities. OLJA advocates for binding procedures that suspend the veto in situations of genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity — as proposed by France and Mexico in the Code of Conduct and the ACT Group.
The International Criminal Court has prosecuted exclusively African defendants for most of its existence. This is not an accident — it reflects structural biases in referral mechanisms, the influence of the Security Council, and the non-membership of major powers including the United States, Russia, China, and India. OLJA advocates for reform of ICC jurisdiction, referral mechanisms, and enforcement powers to achieve genuinely universal application.
The R2P doctrine, adopted unanimously by the UN General Assembly in 2005, establishes that sovereignty does not protect states from international scrutiny when they commit or permit mass atrocities. In practice, R2P has been invoked selectively and has failed in every major atrocity situation of the past two decades. OLJA advocates for the operationalisation of R2P through binding Security Council reform.
International law is made by states — in diplomatic conferences, treaty negotiations, and General Assembly sessions — without meaningful participation by the communities most affected by armed conflict, displacement, and human rights violations. OLJA advocates for structural reforms that guarantee the participation of civil society, affected communities, and indigenous peoples in international law-making processes.
This is the most ambitious and most necessary programme OLJA runs. Changing international law requires sustained, long-term investment in advocacy, research, and coalition-building.