Yet, these were not enough to prevent the onset nor the horrors of two World Wars, in which countless millions of people were slaughtered, often in appalling circumstances. After World War II a series of landmark treaties, including the 1945 Charter of the United Nations, the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 (which were further supplemented in 1977) and the 1948 Genocide Convention, were concluded. Other treaties followed, including those dealing with the protection of cultural objects during warfare and the use of chemical and biological weapons. As the consciousness of the world awakened to the need to regulate both the method and means of warfare and to protect the victims of armed conflicts, the use of land mines, incendiary weapons and, more recently, cluster munitions also became the subject of international agreements. Finally, it seemed, there had emerged a comprehensive set of legal rules that would not only control the conduct of hostilities but, equally importantly, protect the rights of civilians and prisoners of war.

Sadly, and despite the efforts of many people and the work of organisations like the Red Cross, the world still continues to be wracked by armed conflicts during which many of these rules are violated, particularly those relating to the protection of civilians. During the period 1990-2003, 59 wars were fought around the world. Over that period, 16 of the world's 20 poorest countries suffered from violent conflict. In 1900, it was estimated that civilians represented approximately 5percent of the casualties of conflict. By World War II this figure had risen to about 65percent.

Human rights groups now calculate that approximately 90percent of all casualties in armed conflicts are civilians, of which 40percent are children. Summary executions, torture and widespread rape and killings still occur on a daily basis in many conflicts.

With regards to restricting the use of certain destructive weapons, the rules do not go far enough.

There is, for example, still no comprehensive ban on the use of nuclear weapons in conflict situations each of the five permanent members of the Security Council, plus countries like India, Pakistan and Israel, already have nuclear capability and fears exist about Iran and North Korea.

Between 1945 and 1996, when the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty was finalised, more than 2000 nuclear tests were conducted, but still the treaty is not in force.

We have recently witnessed another such test in North Korea. Remarkably, in 1996, the International Court of Justice left open the possibility the use of nuclear weapons in extreme circumstances may be legal (although it is likely the decision would be different if a similar case were brought before the court today).

Moreover, many victims of conflicts fall through the cracks of these international rules, which are primarily directed towards ''traditional' conflicts between countries. Although there are some rules relating to internal conflicts, these are far less comprehensive and adequate, compared to the rules that apply to an international conflict between states. National sovereignty is at play here. This itself is a problem, since the vast majority of armed conflicts in the world today could arguably be classified as internal, and thus beyond the express reach of some fundamental international rules restraining the conduct of hostilities.

Added to these complications are the phenomena of the so-called ''non-state actors'' like al Qaeda and other terror groups, which typically would not regard themselves as being bound by traditional principles governing the conduct of armed conflict indeed such is the nature of many tactics of terror.

So, even as we celebrate the remarkable progress over the past 150 years, we must not be complacent. Improving compliance with the existing rules is a crucial step towards limiting human suffering, but equally important is the need to upgrade international law in order that it remains relevant to contemporary modes of conflict. Naturally, political will to allow this to happen is crucial too many countries have a vested interest in maintaining the vagaries and gaps that exist in the present legal regime.

For this situation to improve, it is incumbent on us to regularly remind our political leaders we are interested in the fate of victims of conflict and we support Australia's unflinching involvement in international debates on human rights.

While warfare has been an inherent trait of human existence since time immemorial, this is no reason not to find ways to minimise its adverse impact and to tackle the circumstances that lead people to fight rather than live in peace.

Each one of us owes this to the next generation of innocent people.

Steven Freeland is associate professor of International Law, University of Western Sydney and a visiting professional at the International Criminal Court, The Hague. These are his personal views.