International Humanitarian Law (IHL) was developed in response to the atrocities of war and the pressing need to protect civilian lives. Rooted in the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their additional protocols, IHL seeks to limit the human cost of war by regulating how conflicts are fought and protecting those not involved in combat. The core values of IHL—humanity, neutrality, and impartiality—are meant to ensure that civilians are spared from unnecessary suffering. Yet today, IHL faces severe challenges. As wars become increasingly asymmetrical, technologically advanced, and politically entangled, the question arises: can these humanitarian norms still serve their purpose?
One of the most pressing challenges to IHL is the growing involvement of non-state actors in armed conflict. Unlike national militaries, non-state groups such as militias, rebel factions, and terrorist organisations do not consistently follow rules of engagement. They often avoid wearing identifiable uniforms, do not carry arms openly, and frequently target civilian areas to sow fear and gain strategic advantage. Their tactics—ranging from suicide bombings to cyberattacks—blur the lines between civilian and combatant. The rise of such actors, active in regions like Syria, Afghanistan, and most recently Gaza, has pushed IHL into uncharted legal and ethical territory.
In the context of counterterrorism, these issues are further magnified. Since 9/11, many states have adopted broad definitions of security threats, expanding military actions beyond traditional battlefields. The U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen, or targeted killings of suspected terrorists, have raised alarms regarding civilian casualties, lack of transparency, and legal justifications. The framework of IHL becomes harder to apply when military actions are justified under national security doctrines rather than declared wars. This legal ambiguity often leads to inconsistent enforcement and allows powerful states to act with near impunity.
Urban warfare poses another severe challenge. Unlike traditional wars fought in open fields or remote terrains, modern conflicts often unfold in crowded cities where distinguishing between military targets and civilian life is incredibly difficult. The ongoing war in Ukraine and the recurrent bombardments in Gaza exemplify the devastating consequences of this shift. In Ukraine, critical infrastructure such as power stations, water supplies, and hospitals have been repeatedly targeted, leaving civilians in freezing conditions without access to heat or medicine. In Gaza, airstrikes in densely populated neighbourhoods have resulted in widespread destruction and the deaths of thousands of civilians, including children and the elderly. These examples reveal how urban warfare defies the IHL principle of proportionality and frequently results in indiscriminate harm.
Compounding the problem is the evolving nature of modern weaponry. Advances in military technology, especially artificial intelligence, autonomous drones, and cyber capabilities, have outpaced existing legal frameworks. Unlike conventional weapons, AI-guided systems can act independently based on programmed parameters. When such systems malfunction or target civilians, the question of legal responsibility becomes murky. Who is accountable— the commander, the programmer, or the machine itself? Furthermore, cyberattacks targeting infrastructure like hospitals, water systems, or communication networks may cause immense civilian suffering without firing a single bullet, yet fall into grey areas within IHL.
Technology has also altered the emotional and psychological relationship between soldier and victim. Drone operators located thousands of kilometres from conflict zones can execute deadly missions through screens and joysticks. This distance may reduce their sense of moral accountability. Meanwhile, the victims of such strikes—many of whom are civilians—are left with no legal avenue for justice. While Article 36 of the First Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions requires states to assess the legality of new weapons, the absence of robust enforcement mechanisms renders this obligation weak in practice.
Another layer of complexity is added by global issues such as climate change and forced displacement. Environmental degradation, droughts, floods, and resource scarcity often exacerbate existing tensions or fuel new conflicts. In regions like the Sahel or parts of South Asia, communities already burdened by poverty are being displaced by both climate and conflict. International Humanitarian Law, traditionally focused on battlefield conduct, struggles to address these overlapping crises. Refugees and internally displaced persons face heightened risks of exploitation, sexual violence, and forced labour, yet there is no comprehensive legal framework under IHL to ensure their protection outside formal conflict zones.
Despite these daunting challenges, IHL remains a crucial legal and moral compass. Its very existence testifies to humanity’s aspiration to bring order and dignity to times of chaos. The key is not to abandon IHL but to adapt and reinforce it. This requires a multi-pronged approach involving legal reform, institutional support, public education, and international cooperation. First, the legal definitions within IHL must be revised to account for modern actors and technologies. Guidelines for cyber warfare, autonomous weapons, and non-state participation need to be standardized across jurisdictions.
Secondly, education plays a vital role. Civilians, soldiers, aid workers, and policymakers must be trained to understand and implement IHL principles. Schools and universities can introduce humanitarian law as part of civic education. Military academies and international organizations should provide structured training programs to ensure that IHL is not just theoretical knowledge but operational practice. Education also strengthens public pressure on governments to uphold humanitarian values.
Accountability mechanisms must also be strengthened. Violations of IHL should be met with transparent investigations, fair trials, and reparations for victims. International institutions like the International Criminal Court (ICC) play a key role here but often face political roadblocks. Some states refuse to recognize the ICC’s jurisdiction or shield their officials from prosecution. Additionally, many violations occur in internal conflicts where international institutions have limited access. To address this, national legal systems must also take responsibility. Governments must be willing to prosecute war crimes domestically, even when committed by their own forces.
It is equally important to involve non-state actors in the legal framework. While some rebel groups may be brutal and lawless, others have shown willingness to abide by humanitarian norms, especially when doing so improves their legitimacy. Mechanisms can be developed to allow these groups to make unilateral declarations or enter into agreements that bind them to IHL principles. Although controversial, such an approach could enhance compliance and reduce harm to civilians.
Moreover, addressing the humanitarian needs of victims must go beyond mere legal response. Post-conflict rehabilitation, psychological support, and infrastructure rebuilding are essential to restoring dignity and preventing future violence. When survivors are left without food, shelter, or justice, grievances fester, and cycles of violence repeat.
International cooperation is indispensable. No single state can ensure the effectiveness of IHL on its own. Multilateral engagement, peer pressure, and shared responsibility are vital. Countries must collaborate to share intelligence on IHL violations, support international judicial bodies, and coordinate humanitarian aid efforts. Governments should also avoid using IHL selectively based on geopolitical interests. The stark difference in international reactions to conflicts like Ukraine versus Gaza undermines the credibility of the humanitarian system and sends a dangerous message: that some civilian lives matter more than others.
Finally, updating IHL to reflect modern realities must not dilute its foundational values. In fact, the opposite is true. As war becomes more complex, the moral clarity that IHL provides becomes even more necessary. Civilians must never be viewed as acceptable collateral damage. Human dignity must not be sacrificed on the altar of technological efficiency or political expediency. In the words of the Geneva Conventions, even war has limits.
In conclusion, International Humanitarian Law stands at a crossroads. Faced with shifting battlegrounds, elusive combatants, and rapidly evolving technologies, its capacity to protect civilians is under threat. Yet, this is not a reason to give up on IHL. Rather, it is a call to recommit to its principles, modernize its instruments, and hold all violators—state or non-state—accountable. Only then can we ensure that even in war, humanity has not been entirely lost.
References
- International Committee of the Red Cross. Challenges of Contemporary Armed Conflicts. Geneva: ICRC, 2023.
- UNHCR. Global Trends: Forced Displacement in 2023. Geneva: UNHCR, 2024.
- Human Rights Watch. ‘Ukraine: Attacks on Civilian Infrastructure’. Accessed 2024.
- Amnesty International. ‘Israel/OPT: Unlawful Israeli Attacks Devastate Gaza’. Accessed 2024.
- Melzer, Nils. Targeted Killing in International Law. Oxford University Press, 2008.
- Pomès, Olivier. Autonomous Weapons and the Law of Armed Conflict. Hart Publishing, 2022.
- Hoffman, Frank. Hybrid Warfare and Challenges to IHL. Journal of Military Ethics 15, no. 3 (2016): 180–194.
- Cali, Basak, and Thomas Griffin. International Human Rights Law and Practice. Cambridge University Press, 2021.
- Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocols, 1949–2005.
