Core Frameworks of International Humanitarian Law
The laws governing warfare are referred to as International Humanitarian Law (IHL) and it is primarily codified in the Geneva Conventions (1949) and the Additional Protocols (1977, 2005). These treaties, together with the Hague Regulations on combat methods and means, constitute the jus in bello framework, which is separate to jus ad bellum (laws on the use of force). The customary international law also imposes obligations on all involved parties in the conflict, including the non-state actors.
Foundational Principles for Civilian Protection
IHL requires a distinction to be made between the combatants and the civilians and that the civilians cannot be directly attacked. The principle of proportionality prohibits excesses of incidental harm beyond the military gain, whereas the precautionary measures of reducing such risks include warnings to civilians (e.g.). Grave breaches entail attacks on hors de combat: anything, wounded, surrendering or detaining individuals who subsequently show their prowess. These norms are provided to reduce unnecessary suffering.
Special Protections and Prohibitions
Certain IHL protections protect the medical staff, humanitarian workers, and cultural objects. Weapons of indiscriminate nature (chemical weapons, landmines) are prohibited, restricting connectivity or siege that harms the civilian populations is against IHL. IHL complemented by international human rights law applies to conflicts and protects the non-derogable rights of life and prohibition of torture.
Enforcement and Accountability Mechanisms
Intentional attacks on civilians (such as massacres), or torture, constitute war crimes, and the perpetrators may become liable before the International Criminal Court (ICC) or ad hoc tribunals. Sanctions are imposed, action plans (e.g. releasing child soldiers) are mandated and violations referred to the ICC by the UN Security Council. States have to incorporate the IHL into domestic law and to educate militaries.
Contemporary Challenges and Compliance
IHL is strained by persistent violations during conflicts (e.g., Sudan, Syria) and new threats (such as cyber warfare). Although the geopolitical fragmentation and non-state actors undermine enforcement, adherence is reinforced through neutral intermediaries (e.g., ICRC) and public pressure. Enhancing accountability is also important in enforcing these laws.
Conclusion
International humanitarian law is an essential set of rules that could reduce the human cost of the conflict, but now it is necessary to apply those rules unconditionally in order to enable it to work successfully. Such continuing violations indicate that effective accountability processes, including by ICC, national courts and by continuous external pressure are not optional. Implementing the Geneva Conventions, Hague Regulations, and customary norms is not just a preference, but a serious, collective obligation that all warring parties have a dedication to ensure in order to come out of warfare with a gesture that ensures the existence of humanity.
