Abstract
The purpose of this chapter is to analyze the international humanitarian law and its effectiveness in contemporary conflicts. In particular, it focuses on the analysis of the challenges that international humanitarian law faces in contemporary international or non-international armed hostilities. While the ongoing progress in the modern world offers new challenges, the issue of the effectiveness of humanitarian law becomes controversial. Therefore, the chapter presents an academic paper, and it is based on the analysis of the various articles, reports, analytical papers, and case studies, depending on which it became possible to answer the main research question and to demonstrate the effectiveness of international humanitarian law enforcement mechanisms in modern conflicts.
TopIntroduction
Despite the changes of time, the current progressive events in the modern world, and the increase in interstate cooperation, war, and armed conflicts are still used as one of the main means of achieving the goal and pursuing personal interests by states. Unfortunately, the consequences of the war affect most of the innocent population. Even in today’s world, the rate of deaths of civilians as a result of armed hostilities, the number of people forced to leave their homes, and the need for humanitarian assistance are constantly growing. It is evident that, based on the perception of the seriousness of the damage caused by the war, the foundation was laid for the creation of international humanitarian law. Nevertheless, the current technological or other changes in the modern world create new challenges and even give armed conflicts a different direction.
Changes like armed conflicts, terrorism, and the protection of the principles of international humanitarian law by states are the main topics on which this chapter is based and aims to answer the main research question: How effective is International Humanitarian Law in modern conflicts. The chapter offers qualitative research and it is based on the analysis of various articles, reports, analytical papers, and case studies.
To answer the research question, this chapter begins by analyzing the reasons for the establishment of international humanitarian law and discusses all the conventions on which it was founded. It then focuses on its sources, principles, and actors, and to better understand the essence and specificity of international humanitarian law, it is compared to international human rights. The chapter also focuses on the mechanisms of enforcement of international humanitarian law and at the same time discusses the challenges that may become a precondition for its ineffectiveness. Moreover, to determine its resilience to modern challenges, terrorism and the effectiveness of international humanitarian law concerning terrorist acts are also discussed. Finally, to outline how the principles of international humanitarian law are being neglected and modified by specific states, the Nagorno-Karabakh war 2020 and the relations of the Russian Federation with Georgia and Ukraine have been discussed as case studies.
Key Terms in this Chapter
Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907: A series of international treaties and declarations negotiated at two international peace conferences at The Hague in the Netherlands. Along with the Geneva Conventions, the Hague Conventions were among the first formal statements of the laws of war and war crimes in the body of secular international law. A third conference was planned for 1914 and later rescheduled for 1915, but it did not take place because of the start of World War I.
War Crime: Is a violation of the laws of war that gives rise to individual criminal responsibility for actions by the combatants, such as intentionally killing civilians or intentionally killing prisoners of war, torture, taking hostages, unnecessarily destroying civilian property, deception by perfidy, wartime sexual violence, pillaging, the conscription of children in the military, committing genocide or ethnic cleansing, the granting of no quarter despite surrender, and flouting the legal distinctions of proportionality and military necessity.
International Humanitarian Law: The law that regulates the conduct of war (Jus in Bello). It is a branch of international law that seeks to limit the effects of armed conflict by protecting persons who are not participating in hostilities and by restricting and regulating the means and methods of warfare available to combatants.
Geneva Convention 1949: The Third Geneva Convention, relative to the treatment of prisoners of war, is one of the four treaties of the Geneva Conventions. The Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War was first adopted in 1929 but significantly revised at the 1949 conference. It defines humanitarian protections for prisoners of war. There are 196 state parties to the Convention.
International Human Rights Law (IHRL): Is the body of international law designed to promote human rights on social, regional, and domestic levels. As a form of international law, international human rights laws are primarily made up of treaties, agreements between sovereign states intended to have binding legal effect between the parties that have agreed to them; and customary international law. Other international human rights instruments, while not legally binding, contribute to the implementation, understanding, and development of international human rights law and have been recognized as a source of political obligation.
Law of War: Is the component of international law that regulates the conditions for initiating war (jus ad Bellum) and the conduct of warring parties (Jus in Bello). Laws of war define sovereignty and nationhood, states and territories, occupation, and other critical terms of the law.
Combatant: The legal status of an individual who has the right to engage in hostilities during an armed conflict. The legal definition of “combatant” is found in article 43(2) of Additional Protocol I (AP1) to the Geneva Conventions of 1949. It states that “Members of the armed forces of a Party to a conflict (other than medical personnel and chaplains covered by Article 33 of the Third Convention) are combatants, that is to say, they have the right to participate directly in hostilities.
Geneva Conventions: Four treaties, and three additional protocols, that establish international legal standards for humanitarian treatment in war. The singular term Geneva Convention usually denotes the agreements of 1949, negotiated in the aftermath of the Second World War (1939–1945), which updated the terms of the two 1929 treaties and added two new conventions. The Geneva Conventions extensively define the basic rights of wartime prisoners (civilians and military personnel), established protections for the wounded and sick, and provided protections for the civilians in and around a war zone; moreover, the Geneva Convention also defines the rights and protections afforded to non-combatants. The treaties of 1949 were ratified, in their entirety or with reservations, by 196 countries. The Geneva Conventions concern only prisoners and non-combatants in war; they do not address the use of weapons of war, which are instead addressed by the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907, which concern conventional weapons, and the Geneva Protocol, which concerns biological and chemical warfare.
International Committee of the Red Cross: The ICRC is the only institution explicitly named under international humanitarian law as a controlling authority. The legal mandate of the ICRC stems from the four Geneva Conventions of 1949, as well as from its Statutes. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) is an impartial, neutral, and independent organization whose exclusively humanitarian mission is to protect the lives and dignity of victims of war and internal violence and to provide them with assistance.