Why do Some Wars Matter More Than Others? And Why Must That Change?

[Jérôme de Hemptinne is an Assistant Professor at Utrecht University]

Why do the wars in Ukraine and Gaza attract such sustained and intense attention from legal scholars, while numerous other conflicts—particularly those unfolding in the Global South—remain largely ignored? I do not presume to offer definitive answers. What follows is a general call to acknowledge and critically assess a phenomenon that is neither new nor straightforward, but deeply troubling.

The Privileged Conflicts: Ukraine and Gaza in the Spotlight

It is undeniable that the wars in Ukraine and Gaza have come to dominate contemporary academic—and to a considerable extent, media—discussions on armed conflict. This prominence is not incidental. It reflects their geographic and symbolic proximity to Europe, shaped by longstanding historical, political, and cultural ties. Their visibility is further amplified by the extreme violence these conflicts involve, as well as by their far-reaching impact on the continent. Russia—a permanent member of the Security Council—has launched a ruthless aggression against Ukraine that represents a direct threat to the territorial integrity and sovereignty of neighboring states and, by extension, to Europe’s broader security framework. It has also caused mass displacement and placed significant economic strain, particularly through soaring energy prices and the renewed imperative of rearmament. Meanwhile, the war in Gaza—sparked by Hamas’s brutal attack and followed by an Israeli military response of unprecedented intensity—has prompted strong reactions and become a source of polarization in many countries, further exacerbated by the presence of sizable Jewish and Palestinian diasporas throughout Europe. Taken together, these dynamics have not only elevated the visibility of the wars in Ukraine and Gaza but have also heightened their perceived immediacy and relevance within European societies. 

Do not get me wrong: I am not suggesting that this sustained attention is misplaced. On the contrary, it is not only justified but essential. The magnitude of suffering and destruction in these conflicts calls for rigorous legal scrutiny and unequivocal international condemnation. Nowhere is this more evident than in Gaza, where the loss of life has been extensive and largely indiscriminate: women, children, the elderly, journalists, humanitarian workers, and medical personnel have all been affected on a massive scale. Civilian infrastructure—including homes, schools, hospitals, and United Nations facilities—has been extensively damaged or reportedly targeted. Similarly, in Ukraine, the ongoing war has resulted in a staggering number of military casualties, potentially reaching into the hundreds of thousands or more, including many young soldiers. Equally urgent is the need to confront Western complicity and its accompanying double standards. This requires a critical examination of the continued military, financial, and diplomatic support many governments extend to Israeli authorities in their operations in Gaza, as well as the inconsistent—and at times strikingly weak—responses to Russia’s blatant violations of the United Nations Charter.

In such contexts, scholars must continue to critically assess the resilience of the legal framework governing armed conflicts and evaluate the effectiveness of existing mechanisms for addressing—and ultimately resolving—these crises. Their role is no less crucial in promoting accountability for grave violations of international law by confronting enduring obstacles to justice, particularly those related to state cooperation, evidence collection, jurisdiction, and the immunities of high-ranking officials. These challenges are far from mere technicalities; they raise the fundamental question of whether international law can ever be truly robust and effective in crises defined by intense geostrategic stakes and shaped by complex layers of historical, social, and geopolitical turmoil.

The Forgotten Wars: Global Blind Spots and Indifference

However, this intense focus on a few high-profile conflicts comes at a significant cost: the neglect of other wars that cause just as much human devastation and involve comparable violations of international law, particularly in certain regions of Africa (for a similar observation, as well as a brief analysis of the humanitarian and political consequences of this situation, see here). Consider Sudan, where civil war resumed in April 2023, resulting in the deaths of over 150,000 people, the displacement of more than 12 million, and a looming famine threatening nearly half of the country’s 44 million inhabitants. Similarly, South Sudan continues to grapple with persistent violence and humanitarian crises despite a fragile peace agreement, with over 7 million people—more than half the population—facing severe food insecurity and ongoing clashes driving displacement. Across the Sahel, insurgencies and military coups in Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger have caused over 10,000 civilians deaths since the conflict began in 2012 and have severely weakened state institutions. Ethiopia has fallen back into violent conflict, marked by indiscriminate airstrikes and widespread atrocities, leading to huge population movements and food insecurity. In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the resurgence of the M23 group—allegedly backed by Rwanda—has triggered further massacres and mass displacement. Somalia remains trapped in endemic violence fueled by the Al-Shabaab insurgency. Altogether, more than 45 million people across Africa were displaced by conflict in 2024 alone—a dramatic 14% increase from the previous year.  

Beyond Africa, similarly severe crises continue with little legal and media attention. In Myanmar, civil war following the 2021 military coup has killed 5,000 civilians and displaced more than 3,3 millions . In Latin America, Colombia struggles with ongoing bloodshed involving the National Liberation Army (ELN) and dissident factions of the Revolutionary Armed forces of Columbia (FARC), while Venezuela faces state heavy repression of human rights defenders. Ecuador has recently declared an internal armed conflict in response to rampant gang violence. These are just a few examples. Many other ongoing conflicts—Eritrea, Haiti, Pakistan, the Philippines, Syria, Yemen, among others—could also be mentioned.

In stark contrast to Ukraine and Gaza, these wars are often overlooked, prompting minimal legal analysis, limited academic engagement, and scant coverage in global news outlets. Such a disparity is alarming, especially in light of the immense human suffering and severe violations of international law these conflicts entail.

Upholding Legal Principles Beyond Geopolitics and Media Interests

It is true that selective attention to certain armed conflicts is not a recent phenomenon. In the 1990s, for example, the war in the former Yugoslavia attracted significantly more international focus than the simultaneous—and often more devastating—conflicts in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. This pattern is global in scope. Academics and journalists alike tend to concentrate on crises that are geographically or culturally closer to them. This tendency is not confined to the West; in East Asia, for example, tensions between China and Taiwan, or the conflict in Myanmar, probably receive more engagement than those in Gaza or Ukraine. However, the fact that such bias is long-standing or locally understandable does not render it acceptable. Explanation is not justification! 

Building on this, some may argue that selective attention stems from structural constraints: many conflicts in the Global South take place in remote, unstable, or heavily obstructed regions where access is limited, and documentation is challenging. Others may emphasize geopolitical considerations, viewing these hostilities as peripheral or lacking strategic and political significance unlike the wars in Ukraine and Gaza, which have direct repercussions for the continent. A third explanation is intellectual in nature: these conflicts are frequently seen as presenting fewer novel or complex legal challenges, and thus appear less compelling to scholars seeking conceptual innovation or broader public resonance. Finally, a judicial rationale may also influence this focus: legal experts are more inclined to engage with situations that are the subject of investigations, especially where state or individual responsibility is being adjudicated before international courts and tribunals such as the International Court of Justice or the International Criminal Court (ICC).

Yet these justifications do not withstand serious scrutiny. Structural barriers undeniably complicate the analysis of certain conflicts, particularly those occurring in remote regions of Africa. It is also true that information about these crises is neither as immediately accessible nor as consistently amplified in the media as it is for conflicts such as Ukraine or Gaza. However, these factors alone cannot explain the pervasive lack of engagement, especially in an era when technological and institutional tools enable comprehensive remote monitoring, documentation, and analysis. Moreover, dismissing these conflicts as peripheral overlooks their potential to trigger widespread humanitarian crises—which concern us all—and to destabilize global security with far-reaching consequences. Furthermore, the legal issues that dominate discourse on Ukraine and Gaza—such as siege, disproportionate use of force, starvation as a method of warfare, obstruction of humanitarian aid, targeting of civilians and civilian infrastructure, urban combat, prolonged occupation, civilian involvement in hostilities, protection of humanitarian workers, and environmental destruction—are equally pertinent and urgent in many other, often overlooked conflicts. Finally, if judicial considerations help explain why some conflicts receive more attention than others, one would expect wars in the Global South—such as those in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Sudan, or the Central African Republic—to be regularly examined, particularly since these situations fall within the jurisdiction of the ICC. Nonetheless, this is clearly not the case: judicial proceedings have exerted only a limited influence on how these conflicts are studied and discussed.

Why, then, are legal experts less inclined to engage with and shed light on conflicts occurring in the Global South? Although a definitive answer lies beyond the scope of this post—and would require far more extensive reflection and analysis—several preliminary observations may help clarify the issue. One possible explanation is that violence in these regions is often perceived as endemic, and thus regarded as a normalized feature of local reality. This perception fosters a tacit acceptance that contributes to the chronic neglect of such conflicts. Additionally, conflicts in the Global South often unfold within deeply complex cultural, social and political contexts that remain largely unfamiliar to Western audiences, rendering them inherently more difficult to apprehend and, consequently, easier to overlook. As such, developing a nuanced understanding of these underreported crisis demands considerable intellectual effort and specialized expertise, resources that only a limited number of scholars and practitioners possess. Perhaps the most conspicuous reason, however, is that legal attention tends to follow media coverage and public interest, both of which diminish rapidly once a conflict disappears from the headlines. This dynamic extends to the academic sphere, influencing the distribution of research funding, speaking invitations, publication opportunities, and even career advancement, all of which may depend, at least in part, on the visibility of the concerned conflicts.

Clearly, the prioritization of certain armed conflicts is deeply embedded in broader patterns of perception and valuation, shaped by a complex and often elusive array of factors—such as cultural proximity, emotional resonance, familiarity with distant societies, and media coverage—that collectively influence which human experiences are considered legitimate subjects of attention. That said, at the core of this selectivity lies a profoundly troubling reality: a hierarchy of suffering. Victims of high-profile conflicts seem to be regarded as more deserving of empathy, protection, and legal recognition than those caught in the ‘invisible’ wars of the Global South. Whether conscious or unconscious, this bias reflects the lingering legacy of colonial hierarchies, which historically deemed the lives and hardships of certain populations as less worthy of acknowledgment and response. If international law—and the broader pursuit of justice—is to retain its moral authority and normative coherence, legal professionals, journalists, and other key actors must actively challenge the practice of selective attention. Every armed conflict demands rigorous scrutiny, and violations of international law, along with the profound human suffering they cause, must be unequivocally condemned and effectively addressed. Only through such commitment can international law fulfill its promise as a credible and impartial instrument of accountability, rather than risk becoming a tool shaped by geopolitical interests and media influence.