[3] Since the mid-19th century, however, many such rules have been codified by States in international treaties, like the Hague Regulations and Geneva Conventions.
[4] Not withstanding this increasing codification of IHL, customary rules remain relevant in contemporary armed conflicts.
[4] Here, customary international humanitarian law can be used to fill gaps in the protection provided in situations of armed conflict.
Part Two, based on Volume II of the print edition, presents what the authors believe is state practice relating to most aspects of IHL, purportedly expressed in national legislation, military manuals, official statements, and case-law, and the practice of other entities such as international organizations and international courts and tribunals.
Part Two is updated regularly through a joint project of the ICRC and the British Red Cross Society, based at the Lauterpacht Centre for International Law, University of Cambridge.
On 13 December 2012, the ICRC made available its updated collection and analysis of what it considers practice from 23 countries[10] – Argentina, Bangladesh, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Burundi, Chad, Chile, Colombia, Croatia, Djibouti, El Salvador, Guatemala, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Japan, Mexico, Peru, Serbia, Serbia and Montenegro, Senegal, Spain, Switzerland, Uruguay, and Viet Nam.