Contemporary Challenges for IHL

This summary article was written by one of the member of academic unit, USIM Moot Club. Have fun reading!

ARTICLE SUMMARY

Title : Contemporary Challenges for IHL

Published : 5 February 2013

Prepared by : Nurazira Natasha Binti Hamdan

Sources : https://www.icrc.org/en/document/contemporary-challenges-ihl

This article concerns the modern challenges for IHL to keep implementing their mission and vision. International humanitarian law is a collection of rules aimed at restricting the consequences of armed conflicts for humanitarian purposes. It protects people who do not or no longer engage in wars and restricts the means and techniques of warfare. International humanitarian law is also known as the law of war or the law of armed conflict. Therefore, there must be many obstacles and challenges that will be faced by IHL especially nowadays since the world has been developing rapidly.

Civilians are the primary victims of IHL abuse by both state and non-state actors in contemporary armed conflicts. In various areas, range from the classification of armed conflicts to the use of emerging technology, the nature of contemporary armed conflicts continues to pose challenges in the implementation and enforcement of IHL. Therefore, the increasing complexity of armed conflicts has given rise to discussions on the notion and typology of armed conflicts, including whether is it sufficient enough to only identify the conflict as international and non-international in order to cover the forms of armed conflicts currently taking place. The relationship between the IHL and the Human Rights Law continues to have practical implications for the conduct of military operations.

The relationship between human rights law and the IHL has an effect on the issues of detention and use of force, in both international and non-international armed conflicts, as well as on the extraterritorial targeting of individuals. IHL 's protective scope is of utmost concern in contemporary armed conflicts. In certain cases, the states which are unable or unwilling to match the basic needs of civilians and, therefore, IHL provided that other actors, including humanitarian organizations, may take relief actions that are subject to the agreement of the State. However, many barriers to humanitarian access remain, including military, political and security concerns, which hinder the provision of assistance to assist the civilians in need.

In recent years, extraterritorial military operations have given rise to new types of military presence in the territory of a State, refocusing attention on the rights and obligations of the occupying power, the control of the use of force in the occupied territory and the applicability of the rule of occupation to the powers of the United Nations. Remote-controlled weapons systems such as drones are increasingly being used by the parties to armed conflicts. Hostilities using far superior military means pitting non-state armed groups operating in populated areas against government forces are also a recurring pattern, revealing the consequences of hostilities to civilians and civilian objects. Some armies have used the intermingling of armed groups with civilians, in violation of the IHL, as an excuse to avoid taking all necessary measures to minimize the risk to civilians, as required by the IHL.

The consequences on civilians and civilian structures of the use of explosive weapons in highly populated areas continue to be of concern in this context. Inadequate enforcement of the availability and misuse of conventional weapons poses an ongoing challenge to the protection of civilians. States have a duty under the Geneva Conventions and customary international law to maintain respect for the IHL. The tendency of states to label as 'terrorist' all acts of war committed against them by non-State armed groups, especially in non-international armed conflicts, has been a recent challenge for the IHL. To achieve the protection of civilians in armed conflict depends on how the IHL is respected, implemented and enforced.

In my opinion, it is crucial for us to differentiate between international humanitarian law and human rights law. Although some of their laws are similar, they have been established separately by these two bodies of law and were included in various treaties. In particular, Human Rights Law applies in times of peace, unlike international humanitarian law, and many of its provisions may be suspended during an armed conflict. Only armed conflict is protected by international humanitarian law; it does not include internal conflicts or disturbances, such as isolated acts of violence. The law only applies once a conflict has begun, and then fairly to both parties, regardless of who began the war.

In respect of all of the contemporary challenges that IHL has to face, clearly I can say that IHL plays a big role to fulfil its responsibility to make sure that all civilians will be protected and treated humanely in all circumstances, without any adverse distinction. Thus, IHL ensures that the armed conflict can be settled down in a reasonable way according to the rule that has been governed.

In conclusion, I believe that international humanitarian law (IHL) will be able to handle all of the contemporary challenges. Ensuring that the IHL can properly resolve the realities of modern warfare and provide protection for victims of armed conflict is a constant priority of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). The ICRC was found in 1863 and functioning globally as they help people who got affected by conflict and armed violence by enforcing laws protecting war victims such as IHL. ICRC is a large and influential organization funded mainly by voluntary donations from governments and National Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies.