GUARDIANS OF HUMANITY: NAVIGATING THE

COMPLEX LANDSCAPE OF
INTERNATIONAL LEGAL PROTECTION IN

Armed con ict has a ected millions of civilians over the past few decades. In many armed
con icts, grave breaches of international humanitarian law and human rights law occur
frequently.International humanitarian law and human rights in armed
con icts have been invoked by governments, rebels, politicians, diplomats, activists,
demonstrators, and journalists over the last 20 years. Resolutions passed by the UN Security
Council, discussions held by the UN Human Rights Council, political pamphlets published by
opposition movements, reports from non-governmental organizations (NGOs), military
training, and diplomatic exchanges all frequently refer to them.
Historical Evolution of International Humanitarian Law (IHL)
International humanitarian law aims to minimize the impact of armed con icts on civilians,
non-participants, and those who remain involved as ghters. International humanitarian law
addresses two topics to accomplish this goal: the defense of individuals and limitations on the
tools and tactics of warfare. Treaties and customary international law are the foundations of
international humanitarian law.
Contemporary international humanitarian law is based on the
following instruments:
The Hague Regulations respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land;
The Geneva Convention (I) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and
Sick in Armed Forces in the Field;
The Geneva Convention (II) for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick
and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea;
The Geneva Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War;
The Geneva Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of
War;
The Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions and relating to the Protection of
Victims of International Armed Con icts (Protocol I); and
The Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions and relating to the Protection of
Victims of Non-International Armed Con icts (Protocol II).
The Geneva Conventions are now
widely accepted and rati ed. Many of the clauses found in the Geneva Conventions and their
Protocols are regarded as being applicable in any armed con ict and constituting customary
international law.
Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocols
The Geneva Conventions, established in the aftermath of World War II, form the cornerstone
of international humanitarian law (IHL) and provide crucial protections for those a ected by
armed con icts. Comprising four treaties rati ed by a majority of nations, these conventions aim
to safeguard individuals who are not or are no longer participating in hostilities.
Additionally, the two Additional Protocols of 1977 further expanded and re ned the scope of
protection. The rst two Geneva Conventions of 1949 focus on the treatment
of wounded and sick armed forces in the eld, while the third addresses the humane treatment of
prisoners of war. The fourth convention extends protections to civilians, outlining their rights
and safeguarding them from the adverse e ects of hostilities. 3Collectively, these conventions
establish fundamental rules governing the conduct of parties involved in armed con icts. The
Additional Protocols, often referred to as the Additional Protocols I and II, were adopted in 1977 to
address gaps and challenges identi ed in the original Geneva Conventions. Additional
Protocol I reinforces the protection of civilians during international armed con icts,
introducing principles like proportionality and the prohibition of certain weapons. It also
emphasizes the distinction between civilians and combatants and o ers enhanced safeguards for
journalists and humanitarian workers. In contrast, Additional Protocol II focuses on the protection
of civilians in non-international armed con icts, acknowledging the evolving nature
of con icts in the post-World War II era.
Protection of Civilians in International Armed Con ict
Every year, armed con icts claim hundreds of thousands of lives and force tens of millions of
people to ee their homes and livelihoods across the globe. Civilians make up the vast majority
of those killed in current con icts.
At the core of the protection of civilians in armed con ict lies the Geneva Conventions of 1949







fl
fl
fl
fl
fl
fl
fi
ff
fl
fi
fl
fl
fi
fl
fi
fl
ff
fi
fi
fl
fl
fl
ff
fl
fi
fl
ff
fl
 and their Additional Protocols, which provide the primary legal framework governing the
conduct of parties in con ict. The Fourth Geneva Convention speci cally addresses the
protection of civilians, outlining principles such as the prohibition of violence, torture, and
inhumane treatment, as well as the obligation to provide humanitarian assistance to civilian
populations. Additionally, Protocol I and Protocol II further elaborate on the rights and
protections a orded to civilians, particularly in international and non-international armed
con icts, respectively. Despite these legal frameworks, civilians continue to face signi cant
challenges and risks during armed con ict. Civilian casualties, including deaths and injuries,
remain a tragic reality of warfare, often resulting from indiscriminate attacks, aerial bombings,
and the use of explosive weapons in populated areas. The widespread displacement of civilians
due to con ict-related violence and insecurity also exacerbates humanitarian crises, leading to
refugee ows, internal displacement, and the breakdown of essential services. 5One of the
primary challenges in protecting civilians during armed con ict is ensuring compliance with
international humanitarian law by all parties involved. While states have a legal obligation to
abide by IHL principles.
Humanitarian Intervention and the Responsibility to Protect (R2P):
The Responsibility to Protect, or R2P, is an international standard that aims to guarantee that
major atrocity crimes such as genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against
humanity are never again committed without the international community's cooperation.
At the UN World Summit in 2005—the largest-ever assembly of heads of state and
government—the Responsibility to Protect was unanimously endorsed. It is stated in the World
Summit Outcome Document's paragraphs 138 and 139.
Three pillars of responsibility are outlined by R2P:
PILLAR- I
Genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and ethnic cleansing are the four mass atrocity
crimes against which every state must defend its citizens.
PILLAR II
The larger international community must support and encourage individual governments in
ful lling this obligation.
PILLAR III
The international community must be ready to take appropriate collective action in a prompt,
decisive way in compliance with the UN Charter if a state blatantly fails to safeguard its
citizens.
Case study
The case studies that follow will provide a more comprehensive understanding of the key
components of international humanitarian law and its applicability.
1. Case study of Palestine Prisoners in Israel Prisons
Approximately 10,000 Palestinian citizens who were captured during the war are believed to
be detained in Israeli prisons, according to data released by Al Jazeera. They are receiving
harsh treatment and cruelty. This directly violates the law of humanitarianism. The 1949
Geneva Conventions' guarantees of medical assistance are not met, and women are not treated
with respect for their gender—a clear requirement of the 1949 Geneva Conventions. This case
study demonstrates the extent to which international humanitarian laws are broken and how
the Palestinian people are deprived of their fundamental right to exist.10
2. Ukraine – Russia Case Study on International Humanitarian Law
The Russian annexation of Ukraine created a grave problem for human rights, humanitarian
relief, and relocation. Wide-area-impacting weapons were used by Russian forces in careless
attacks that resulted in the deaths of many civilians. When Russian missiles hit a humanitarian
shipment in Zaporizhzhia on September 30, at least 25 civilians were killed. Furthermore, the
Russian military seized control of a sizable portion of the nation and prevented its citizens from
accessing aid from non-governmental organisations. As Ukraine retook control of several
territories, mounting evidence of Russian soldiers' unlawful detention, cruel treatment, sexual
assault, unlawful killings, and various other crimes began to emerge.11
3. Case Study of US War Criminal Prosecutions –
The United States is quite adept at identifying possible war criminals, especially former Nazis.
When they are caught, the US usually decides to either prosecute them for immigration, deny
them fraudulent naturalization, or extradite the individuals without o ering enough assurances
that their identities will be prosecuted. Action violates the United States' constitutional duty to
ensure that suspected war criminals are indicted.
fi
fl
fl
fl
ff
fl
fl
fl
fi
ff
fi
Future Directions and Challenges for International Humanitarian Law
The landscape of armed con ict is constantly evolving, presenting new challenges and
complexities for the protection of civilians and the application of international humanitarian
law (IHL).

One of the key challenges facing IHL is the proliferation of non-state armed groups and
transnational terrorist organizations operating outside traditional state-centric warfare
Furthermore, advancements in technology and warfare tactics pose new dilemmas for the
protection of civilians in armed con ict. The increasing use of drones, cyber warfare, and
autonomous weapons systems raises concerns about the potential for greater civilian harm and
the erosion of traditional IHL principles. the concept of humanitarian intervention and the
responsibility to protect (R2P)
continue to provoke debate and controversy within the international community. While R2P
aims to prevent and respond to mass atrocities, questions remain regarding the legality and
legitimacy of unilateral military interventions for humanitarian purposes. Striking a balance
between sovereignty and interventionism while upholding the principles of IHL remains a
complex and unresolved challenge in the realm of international relations and humanitarian law.
Conclusion

The future of international humanitarian law is critical because it must constantly innovate and
adapt to new issues and the evolving nature of violent con icts. The research paper's
recommendations highlight how crucial it is for everyone to collaborate to advance
international humanitarian law (IHL) and make sure that it continues to be applicable in the
face of changing combat situations and scienti c advancements.
fl
fl
fi
fl