Is international humanitarian law (IHL), the law designed to spare civilians as much as possible the hazards of warfare, at risk of imploding? That is the conclusion of a new compendious study of current armed conflicts around the world, citing the killing of civilians and other atrocities in Gaza, Ukraine, Sudan and elsewhere. “While the threat to IHL is not yet existential,” it warns, “it is at a critical breaking point.”
There is no doubt that the disregard for civilian life in these conflicts has been horrendous. In Gaza and Sudan, it has risen to the level of genocide. But do these represent serious violations of the law or its demise?
Let’s consider an analogy: when an ordinary murder is committed on a city street, is that a serious crime or a license to kill? If the authorities investigate, arrest and prosecute the suspect, we consider the murder an unfortunate offense but don’t question the status of the law against it. But if the authorities were to ignore the killing, suggesting that they are just as happy to be rid of the victim, it would be another matter entirely.
By the same token, the key to understanding whether the lethal conflicts of recent years spell the dissolution of IHL is to examine the reaction. The response has been mixed, weaker than it should be, but still considerable. That leads me to believe it premature to pronounce IHL dead.
Take Gaza. There is no denying that the government of Benjamin Netanyahu has ripped up the Geneva conventions and their protocols – the main codification of IHL. The Israeli military has indiscriminately bombed neighborhoods, attacked military targets when it knew the civilian toll would be disproportionate, deliberately fired on civilians, and deprived civilians of food and other necessities.
Yet the international response has hardly been a shrug. The UN security council is stymied by the veto – in this case Washington’s – but repeated condemnations have been issued by the UN general assembly and the UN human rights council, where there is no veto. The monitoring mechanisms established by the council have issued regular reports and even have found Israel to have committed genocide in Gaza. The international court of justice is hearing a genocide case against Israel brought by South Africa – now joined by others – and has demanded Israel end its illegal occupation. The international criminal court (ICC) has charged Netanyahu and his former defense chief, Yoav Gallant, with war crimes and crimes against humanity for starving and depriving civilians.
Of course some responses have been far weaker. The US government in particular has continued to funnel arms and billions of dollars to the Israeli military. But given the extensive global outrage at Israel’s slaughter, Washington looks more like an accomplice to atrocities than a reason to declare the death of the law protecting civilians.
The response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine tells a similar story. Russia’s veto has blocked security council action, but the general assembly and human rights council have issued condemnations. The council set up monitoring and reporting mechanisms for Russia’s war crimes in Ukraine and repression in at home. The ICC has charged the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, and another official with kidnapping Ukrainian children, and four Russian commanders with attacking civilian electrical infrastructure in Ukraine. Many governments have imposed sanctions on Russia, although China and others continue to buy its oil, essentially financing the atrocities. The global reaction can hardly be said to accept Putin’s illegal conduct.
The international reaction has been weaker but still considerable to today’s two most dire situations in Africa – the civil war in Sudan and Rwanda’s invasion of eastern DR Congo. On Sudan, the security council has condemned the atrocities, although the general assembly has not acted. The human rights council has also condemned the severe abuses and established a monitoring and reporting mechanism which has spoken out, as have other UN experts. The ICC prosecutors have briefed the security council on their investigation of recent atrocities in Sudan but have yet to publicly issue charges.
The United Arab Emirates is the principal source of arms for the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces in Sudan as it commits genocide, slaughtering and raping Black African civilians in areas it takes over. But so far the UAE’s wealth has spared it the public condemnation of western governments.
As for eastern DRC, the UN security council (but not the general assembly) has condemned Rwanda’s invasion via its M23 proxy rebel group. The human rights council deplored the abuses and established a monitoring and reporting mechanism that has issued critical reports. The ICC is investigating (though has not yet publicly filed charges for) the atrocities and has endorsed the creation of a special tribunal for the region.
Yet the international response has not been as strong as in the past. In 2013, threats from London and Washington to cut aid forced the Rwandan president, Paul Kagame, to stop supporting the murderous M23 rebel group that was wreaking havoc among the civilians of eastern DRC. The threats led to the M23’s collapse.
Now the M23 is back, but the pro-western Kagame is being treated with kid gloves. Aided by Qatar, the Trump administration negotiated a ceasefire that Rwanda has ignored without consequence. Trump’s main interest appears to be DRC mining deals. By opting not to pressure Rwanda to end its invasion, Trump essentially greenlighted its exploitation of DRC’s mineral wealth, the civilians of the region be damned.
The ICC is the obvious institution to uphold the law and prosecute offenders. Trump has sought to undermine the court by imposing sanctions on some of its prosecutors and judges, mainly for pursuing or upholding charges against Netanyahu and Gallant. But these officials have defied Trump’s pressure and vowed to continue their work.
One serious impediment has been self-imposed. Since May 2025, the prosecutor’s office has been headless because Karim Khan, the chief prosecutor, is on leave while allegations that he sexually assaulted a staff member are investigated. (Khan has denied the allegations.) Rather than expeditiously resolve the matter by vindicating or firing him, the assembly of states parties – the court’s 125 members – has dawdled. The investigator’s report has been with them since December, but they still haven’t acted. This is irresponsible.
The prosecutor’s office is being run by two deputies, but they don’t have the stature to take the major decisions that are on hold. For example, no Israeli officials have been publicly charged for any aspect of the bombing campaign in Gaza or the settlement expansion (also a war crime) in the occupied West Bank. Putin has not been publicly charged for the bombing of civilians and civilian infrastructure under his command in Ukraine.
No public charges have been filed against commanders committing atrocities in Sudan or eastern DRC, let alone against the Emirati and Rwandan officials who are aiding and abetting them. Trump and his senior officials have not been charged with obstructing justice, which his sanctions clearly do. Given the enormous stakes, the member states should act urgently so a permanent chief prosecutor is in place.
The challenges to IHL are certainly great. I would have liked to see a far stronger response. But it would be wrong to characterize that response to this lawlessness as the death knell of IHL – as the way we must accept that wars are now fought. The atrocities in Gaza, Ukraine, Sudan and eastern DRC are still rightly and widely seen as wrong, as illegal. We just need a more consistent effort to defend the victims and uphold the law.
