Reckoning With Indifference: A Call to Reinforce International Humanitarian Law

[Dr Erica Harper is Head of Research and Policy Studies at the Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights]

International humanitarian law (IHL) stands at a crossroads. Once a universal touchstone for safeguarding basic human dignity during conflict, its foundational norms are eroding at an alarming pace. The IHL in Focus: Annual Report (June 2023-July 2024) (‘the Report’) paints a stark picture: violations that were once considered shocking exceptions have become persistent, widespread, and too often tolerated. This post—adapted from the report’s Executive Summary—underscores the severity of these breaches and highlights emerging patterns that demand our collective attention. From civilian loss of life and the rise of non-state armed groups, to environmental collapse and the disruptive sway of new military technologies, we must reckon with the grim reality that key IHL principles risk being hollowed out by sustained indifference.

A Surge in Violence, A Tangle of Conflicts

The Report analyzed situations of active warfare in 22 countries, identifying 57 non-international armed conflicts (NIACs) and 14 international armed conflicts (IACs). Readers should treat these numbers with caution. Conflict classification is a contested science, with different methodologies, definitions and access to data muddying direct comparisons. Yet the broader trends are impossible to ignore: more conflicts are active simultaneously today than in recent memory, a conclusion supported by external data from the International Committee of the Red Cross and several academic conflict-tracking initiatives. Equally notable is how protracted wars overlap with novel clashes, raising questions about whether we are moving into a more volatile period of global security. Occupations in parts of Ukraine and Syria endure alongside cross-border confrontations like those between Armenia and Azerbaijan. Meanwhile, transnational involvement—whether in the form of private military companies or covert state support—compounds the risk of escalation.

Civilians Caught in the Crossfire

A core observation from the Report is the unrelenting toll that armed conflicts take on civilian life. Across nearly every setting examined, a disturbing catalogue of harms was revealed, including hostage-taking, arbitrary detention, torture, enforced disappearance, and displacement. No region was spared. In Burkina Faso, improvised explosive devices  in market areas led to mass casualties and stifled humanitarian efforts. In Afghanistan, female aid workers were disproportionately targeted, curtailing access to vulnerable women and children. In the Occupied Palestinian Territory, fuel shortages and infrastructure destruction created compounding crises, increasing both immediate and long-term risks for the local population. These patterns of denial—often under siege conditions—threaten not only the survival of communities but drastically impacts the most vulnerable, including the elderly, the poor, those with chronic disease and disability, and children.   

Another common thread was the risks to especially vulnerable populations. The recruitment of children into armed groups, for example, places them at high risk of physical harm, psychological trauma and sexual exploitation. Too often, these children slip between the cracks of demobilization and reintegration programs, perpetuating cycles of violence across generations. Sexual violence likewise remains a horrifying constant during war, with violations taking many forms, from rape and sexual slavery to forced marriage. And while women are the primary targets, the report highlights that men and boys are not exempt. 

New Actors, Old Dilemmas: The Complexity of Non-State Armed Groups

While the global figure is far higher, the Report identified 61 non-state armed group (NSAG) parties to conflict across 57 NIACs. While such groups vary widely in size, organization and aims, they raise specific concerns with respect to compliance and accountability. Many have limited familiarity with IHL or outright reject its validity, claiming not to be bound by “international norms” established by states. Others knowingly flout their legal obligations, finding that fear and brutality yield quicker tactical gains. Particularly alarming is the continuing and widespread presence of entities affiliated with the Islamic State (IS) or al-Qaeda, which have repeatedly demonstrated a willingness to engage in wanton violence and ideological extremism. 

Another NSAG to monitor closely is Private military companies (PMCs). For states facing resource shortages, PMCs can handle a broad range of activities, from providing military training through to participating in direct combat operations. For other governments, PMCs facilitate a military footprint in regions where deploying official troops might provoke domestic opposition or international backlash. However, PMCs frequently operate without the same oversight or accountability as state militaries, making it harder to trace violations of IHL and enforce legal responsibility. The report underscores that more coherent regulatory structures are urgently needed. Indeed, if trends continue, we risk undermining the uniform application of IHL and opening the door to an unregulated market of force where impunity becomes normalized.

Conflicts, Resources, and the Environment: A Perpetual Feedback Loop

Beyond immediate civilian harm, the Report highlights the relationship between conflict and environmental degradation—an aspect often overshadowed by more direct violence. From the climate-driven vulnerabilities in the Sahel region to scorched farmland in Ukraine, these landscapes offer sobering examples of how warfare and environmental damage are mutually reinforcing. Sieges, for example, often produce cascading effects: as people’s access to water and energy is cut off, farmers abandon fields, supplies of fertilizer dwindle, and once-fertile land becomes unusable. The resulting scarcity inflates food prices and punishes the most impoverished first, magnifying social tensions. While the short-term damage can be measured in deaths and displacements, the long-term aftershocks may linger for decades, impeding post-conflict reconstruction. Only by applying a “systems lens” can policymakers and humanitarian actors fully account for these interdependencies. By studying how violent acts merge with resource shortages, climate shifts, and existing socio-economic fragilities, organizations might better anticipate and mitigate the worst humanitarian fallout, whether it is famine, mass displacement, or renewed conflict.

Unmanned Weapons and the Lure of “Risk-Free” Warfare

One of the most striking evolutions in contemporary conflict is the growing use of drones and other unmanned systems. While still not as widespread as small arms or improvised explosives, drones are becoming cheaper, more accessible and thus no longer the preserve of powerful states.  Proponents argue that drones can reduce risk to military personnel and sometimes provide more precise targeting. Yet the remote nature of drone operations can lower the psychological threshold for using lethal force, effectively making it easier to strike. Equally important, the difficulty of attribution in drone warfare opens up new possibilities for proxy engagement or covert operations. The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into weapon systems will only deepen these challenges. 

Conclusion – Rebuilding the Ramparts of International Humanitarian Law

The alarming state of IHL today is more than a reflection of increased conflict. It is a symbol of our collective failure to prioritize the principles of humanity upon which the modern international order rests. Certainly, for the millions of civilians impacted by armed conflict, upholding the rules of war is not an abstract exercise, but a lifeline. This raises a fundamental question around whether international humanitarian law is still fit for purpose? The answer, from the viewpoint of the Report, is yes, but with some caveats. The normative framework itself remains sound, having evolved from a century of hard-earned lessons, yet a global consensus that IHL is not a discretionary code but a foundational obligation, is glaringly absent. Against this backdrop, the question of how to incentivize States to commit to IHL with renewed vigor should sit at the fore of diplomatic and policy debate. Indeed, conflicts are only going to become more complex—from cross-border occupations and the rise of extremist non-state groups to disruptive technologies— and more deeply entrenched. Arguably then, now is the moment to push back on this tide, invigorate compliance measures, and ensure that even in the darkest conflicts, the spirit of IHL endures.

Key Steps Toward Reinforcement

1. Bolster Monitoring: Monitoring initiatives and investigatory bodies, such as human rights fact-finding missions, can play an important role in understanding events and promoting IHL compliance, particularly in highly politicized situations. Better evidence on the linkages between such processes, belligerent behavior, and violation deterrence is urgently needed.
2. Enhance Training for all Belligerents: Whether they are armed forces of states or non-state armed groups, combatants need sustained exposure to IHL norms and strategies for compliance. Tailored educational programs can bridge gaps in understanding—especially important for NSAGs with informal structures.
3. Develop Stronger Controls on Emerging Technologies: Drones, AI systems, and other novel tools require clearer legal frameworks. Where existing IHL provisions apply, states must commit to transparent oversight; where gaps exist, new guidelines must fill them.
4. Recommit to Humanitarian Principles: Restricting humanitarian aid or attacking medical facilities directly undermines fundamental norms. States, donors, and civil society need to maintain unwavering dedication to the unimpeded flow of humanitarian assistance—even under challenging security conditions.
5. Adopt a Systems Mindset for Prevention: Tracking how conflict interacts with environmental, political, and social factors can help identify early indicators of escalation. International actors should invest in proactive, multilayered measures that address resource scarcity, internal displacement, and governance shortfalls before they erupt into large-scale violence.

Disclaimer: This post is adapted from the Executive Summary of the IHL in Focus: Annual Report. For detailed case studies, conflict classifications, and methodologies, please refer to the full publication.