International Humanitarian Law or IHL is a treaty that focuses on humanitarian aspects in time of armed conflicts. IHL is considered as the law of war, it tries to limit the effect of armed conflicts by regulating means of war and protecting both combatants and non-combatant. It is based on four Geneva Conventions with the most recent happening in 1949. The convention was also supplemented by three additional protocols in 1977 and in 2005 (International Committee of the Red Cross, 2014).
However, despite its noble and beneficial goals, International Humanitarian Law sometimes fails to achieve its main goal. The International Criminal Court and the United Nations (UN) are two of many international institutions that encounter substantial constraints in implementing these rules, resulting in the vulnerability of civilians and the lack of accountability for criminals.
There are many factors that could be attributed to the question of “if international humanitarian law is for greater good, how come it doesn’t stop such notorious acts against humanity happening in the world?”. There are several reasons why the enforcement of International Humanitarian Law is ineffective, firstly international humanitarian law lacks robust enforcment mechanisms. IHL relies on states to investigate alleged violations of international humanitarian law (International Committee of the Red Cross, 2019).
The system of self-policing is deemed to be flawed, as states, especially powerful ones, rarely hold themselves accountable for a violation of IHL. One notable example on this matter can be seen with the study case of Rohingya Crisis in Mnyanmar, a lot of human rights activists has pin point out that Mnyanmar military government have been violating international humanitarian law against Rohingya ethnics, this violation includes, mass killing, rape, and forced displacement (Amnesty International, 2023).
In spite of widespread international criticism and growing amounts of evidence, the Myanmar government has consistently denied any culpability and impeded investigations conducted by the United Nations and independent organizations focused on human rights. It clearly shows that self-policing mechanisms can not be conducted if there is lack of government cooperation, and without an external enforcement authority, states can successfully protect themselves from facing penalties for breaking International Humanitarian Law.
Second factor that may hinder the effectiveness of International Humanitarian Law enforcement, is the political interest within the members of the international community. The United Nations’ Security Council is well known for its responsibility for maintaining global peace and security (The United Nations, 2024). The council consists of 15 member states with 5 permanent members.
These permanent members, the US, China, Russia, France and the United Kingdom have veto rights that can block the security council action in enforcing International Humanitarian Law. An example of political interest hindering the enforcement of International Humanitarian
Law can be seen in Palestinian-Israeli Conflict with the US using its rights to veto UN resolutions (Al Jazeera, 2024). Israel is considered as the US main allies, with that being said Israel won’t be held accountable for their actions towards Palestine which many in the international community consider Israel action as an act against humanity. This example clearly shows that political interest could hinder the ability to uphold International Humanitarian Law.
Third factor for this topic is that international institutions have their limitations, as previously stated before. The International Criminal Court or ICC was established in 2002, is an international court that have jurisdiction to prosecute individuals for war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity, which is in accordance with International Humanitarian Law.
However, the court’s effectiveness is hampered by its limited reach. The court has jurisdiction to prosecute only individuals from states that have ratified the Rome Statute, which is the court’s founding treaty, or those who have been referred to by the UN Security Council. This exclusion ignores a significant amount of the global population and establishes a framework in which influential nations can protect their citizens from legal consequences (Schabas, 2004).
Another factor that limits the effectiveness of International Humanitarian Law enforcement is the advancement of modern conflict. International Humanitarian Law was created after world war two ended, hence the scope of it was between state actors, unfortunately modern conflicts are happening between non-state actors such as rebel groups and terrorist groups. The limitation of scope that is possesed in International Humanitarian Law is making it difficult to prosecute violations that have been committed by these non-state actors (Milanovic, 2014).
A further significant challenge comes from the difficult task of collecting evidence in areas affected by armed conflict. Conducting investigations into acts of brutality often takes place in situations of ongoing violence and forced migration, which poses challenges in obtaining witness testimonies and preserving forensic evidence (Sanders, 2022). The lack of evidence can lead to the difficulty of building strong cases against perpetrators, hence making it hard to prosecute perpetrators and hindering accountability efforts.
The consequences of ineffective enforcement of international humanitarian law are extremely severe. primarily the absence of accountability that gives perpetrators a reason to commit additional violations. Without any means of justice, civilians continue to bear the weight of the harm caused by armed conflict, both physically and psychologically speaking. This undermines the legitimacy of international law and makes it more difficult to engage in efforts to build peace. It is a stark reminder of the devastating consequences of failing to uphold international humanitarian law with many armed conflicts, with its enormous humanitarian cost, violations serves as an example.
The International Humanitarian Law is a fundamental component of international law that was established with the purpose of minimizing the horrific acts that occur during war and protecting civilians who are caught in the crossfire. The limitations of this admirable framework are, however, brought to light by the harsh realities of armed conflict. Despite having its roots in the Geneva Conventions and subsequent protocols, the implementation of International Humanitarian Law continues to be plagued by loopholes.
This Essay highlights several factors of why the enforcement of International Humanitarian Law is ineffective. This factor includes; The lack of robust enforcement mechanisms which could lead states to not fully cooperate with international institutions when there is violation that happening within the state; Political interest plays massive role in influencing the enforcement of International Humanitarian Law, with The UN Security set a prominent example of that case; International institutions have their own limitations with the renown International Criminal Court mainly focuses on prosecuting individuals from ratifying state, hence non-state actors and non ratifying states are difficult to prosecute; Securing of witness testimony and the preservation of forensic evidence are both extremely challenging tasks to achieve in war zones, which can lead to lost evidence necessary for prosecution this would make it difficult to held perpetrators accountable for their actions.
The repercussions of ineffective enforcement of international humanitarian law are extremely severe. The lack of accountability drives those who commit violations and favors them to commit additional offenses. The majority of the suffering will be endured by civilians, who will be subjected to both physical and psychological trauma. The legitimacy of international law is being undermined, and efforts to facilitate peacebuilding are being hampered.
In the end, it is necessary to reiterate the commitment to the fundamental principles of international humanitarian law. State governments, international organizations, and members of civil society all need to work together in order to ensure that the law is respected. The International Humanitarian Law will not be able to fulfill its promise of reducing the suffering caused by armed conflict and providing victims with some form of justice.
