International Humanitarian Law Faces Collapse as Civilian Protections Erode
GENEVA – International humanitarian law, the body of rules governing conduct during armed conflict, is facing a critical juncture, with widespread impunity for violations threatening to dismantle decades of progress in protecting civilians and those detained during wartime. A new analysis reveals a disturbing trend: abuses are no longer isolated incidents but increasingly systematic, brazen, and unpunished, leading to catastrophic consequences for vulnerable populations.
The report, authored by international lawyer Stuart Casey-Maslen of the Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights, highlights a consistent pattern of civilian deaths, abuse, and starvation across 23 armed conflict zones between July 2024 and the end of 2025. The findings point to a “deeper failure – the collapse of meaningful restraint in the conduct of hostilities.”
“We are seeing violations no longer concealed or exceptional, but open, systematic, and unpunished,” Casey-Maslen wrote in the report, published by Inter Press Service. “This is not a matter of gaps in legal knowledge; the rules exist. The problem is political choice – and a persistent failure to enforce, clarify and update the law.”
The situation is particularly dire in Gaza, where the report cites evidence of genocidal violence. A renewed risk of genocide is also present in Sudan, alongside mass atrocities occurring in other regions. Conflict-related sexual violence has reached “epidemic levels,” with documented cases of rape, sexual slavery, and sexual violence used as a weapon of war in countries including Colombia, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Myanmar, and Sudan. Alarmingly, a growing number of victims are children, some as young as one year old.
Arms Trade Fuels Impunity
A key driver of this erosion of protection is the continued flow of arms to conflict zones, despite clear evidence of violations. The United Nations Arms Trade Treaty, ratified by major exporters like China, France, and the United Kingdom, theoretically requires states to deny transfers where there’s a risk weapons will be used to commit serious violations. However, strategic and political considerations frequently override these legal obligations.
Continued arms exports to Israel and Russia, despite documented civilian harm, are specifically cited as examples of this failure.
“Closing this gap does not require a raft of new rules,” Casey-Maslen argues. “It requires the consistent application of existing ones: enforceable, evidence-based export controls; independent scrutiny of licensing decisions; and real accountability where transfers are authorised despite a clear risk that the law will be breached.”
Evolving Warfare, Outdated Laws
The challenges extend beyond the arms trade. The report identifies a lack of clarity surrounding the permissible level of civilian harm during military operations. Specifically, questions remain about how close an attack can be launched to a military target while remaining compliant with international law, and how much incidental civilian harm is acceptable when targeting a legitimate military objective.
The rise of new technologies, such as drones, further complicates the landscape. In Ukraine, Russian forces have used drones to target civilians, sometimes broadcasting the attacks online. Non-state armed groups, including JNIM in the Sahel, Islamic State in Somalia, and the Arakan Army in Myanmar, are also increasingly employing drones, creating a need for stronger mechanisms to investigate and prosecute unlawful attacks.
Underfunded Institutions, Eroding Accountability
Efforts to hold perpetrators accountable are hampered by underfunded and overstretched institutions. Domestic courts and international tribunals are facing paralysis or closure due to a lack of resources, and even judges at the International Criminal Court have been sanctioned for carrying out their mandates.
“If States are serious about protecting civilians, political and financial support for these institutions must be treated as a core obligation and a policy priority, not an optional gesture,” the report emphasizes.
The situation echoes a warning from the late international lawyer Hersch Lauterpacht, who cautioned that international humanitarian law existed at the “vanishing point” of international law. Casey-Maslen argues that this warning is no longer theoretical.
The future of international humanitarian law hinges on the political choices made by states now. Whether it continues to serve as a meaningful constraint on warfare, or devolves into mere rhetoric, will determine the fate of countless civilians caught in the crossfire.