Systematic attempts to limit the cruelty of war did not begin to develop until the 19th century. Such concerns could be based on the changing view of war by Enlightenment-influenced states. The goal of the war was to defeat the enemy state, which could be achieved by disabling enemy combatants. Thus, “the distinction between combatants and civilians, the requirement that wounded and captured enemy combatants be treated humanely, and that this neighborhood be given, follows some of the pillars of modern humanitarian law, all stemming from this principle.” [14] • International humanitarian law (IHL) is a set of rules aimed at limiting the impact of armed conflict. • It restricts the parties to the conflict with regard to the means and methods of warfare used. • It protects persons who are not taking part in hostilities or who are no longer taking part in hostilities. • It is also known as the Law of War or the Law of Armed Conflict. The principle of humane treatment requires that civilians be treated humanely at all times. [45] Common Article 3 of the GC prohibits violence against life and person (including cruel treatment and torture), hostage-taking, degrading and degrading treatment, and execution without due process against non-combatants, including persons hors de combat (wounded, sick and shipwrecked).

Civilians have the right to respect for their physical and mental integrity, honour, family rights, religious beliefs and practices, morals and customs. [46] This principle of humane treatment has been reaffirmed by the ICRC as the norm of customary international law applicable in international and non-international armed conflicts. [47], to name just a few examples from a long list in history. Fritz Munch summarizes historical military practice before 1800: “The main points seem to be the following: in combat and in forcibly captured cities, fighters and non-combatants were killed and property destroyed or looted.” [15] In the 17th century, the Dutch jurist Hugo Grotius, widely regarded as the founder or father of international law, wrote that “wars, in order to achieve their objectives, cannot be denied, must use violence and terror as their most appropriate agents.” [16] Modern international humanitarian law consists of two historical currents: serious violations of international humanitarian law are qualified as war crimes. International humanitarian law, jus in bello, regulates the conduct of armed forces in wars or armed conflicts. It differs from ius ad bellum, which regulates the conduct of wars or armed conflicts and includes crimes against peace and war of aggression. Together, jus in bello and jus ad bellum form the two streams of martial law that govern all aspects of international armed conflict. International humanitarian law is guided by considerations of humanity and the alleviation of human suffering. It includes a set of rules established by contract or habit, aimed at protecting persons and property/objects affected or likely to be affected by an armed conflict, and limiting the rights of the parties to the conflict to the use of the methods and means of warfare of their choice.

[3] Sources of international law include international treaties (the Geneva Conventions), customary international law, general principles of nations, and jurisprudence. [2] [4] It defines the conduct and responsibilities of belligerent nations, neutral nations and persons at war, towards each other and towards protected persons, usually non-combatants. Designed to balance humanitarian concerns with military necessity, it subjects war to the rule of law by limiting its destructive effects and mitigating human suffering. [5] International humanitarian law is strictly governed by the rules that apply in international armed conflicts and internal armed conflicts. This dichotomy is widely criticized. [6] The relationship between international human rights law and international humanitarian law is controversial among scholars of international law. This discussion is part of a broader discussion on the fragmentation of international law. [7] While pluralistic scholars view international human rights law as distinct from international humanitarian law, proponents of the constitutional approach view the latter as a subset of the former. [8] In short, those who prefer separate and autonomous regimes point to differences in applicability; International humanitarian law applies only during armed conflicts. On the other hand, a more systemic perspective explains that international humanitarian law is a function of international human rights; These include general standards that apply to everyone at all times, as well as specific standards that apply to specific situations such as armed conflict and military occupation (i.e. IHL) or to certain groups of people, including refugees (e.g.

B, the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees), children (the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child) and prisoners of war (Third Geneva Convention of 1949). Necessity and proportionality are principles established in humanitarian law. Under IHL, a prisoner of war can only use the amount and type of force necessary to defeat the enemy. In addition, attacks on military property must not result in the loss of civilians considered excessive in relation to the expected direct military advantage. [42] Commanders must take all feasible precautions to avoid civilian casualties. [43] The principle of proportionality has also been considered by the ICRC to be part of customary international law in international and non-international armed conflicts. [44] While many provisions of IHL are now accepted as customary international law (i.e. they are considered a common practice, are accepted as laws and exist independently of contract law), IHL is increasingly violated by warring parties. Violations of IHL remain one of the greatest challenges for the protection of civilians and the protection of humanitarian and medical personnel. The buildings of humanitarian organizations are attacked, vehicles and convoys are hijacked and employees are murdered or abducted. Violence against these workers affects civilians and prevents millions of people from receiving life-saving assistance.

Durham warns that while the traditional practices and legal norms of IHL are largely compatible, it is important not to assume perfect alignment. There are areas where legal norms and cultural practices collide. Violence against women, for example, is often legitimized by cultural arguments and is nevertheless prohibited by IHL and other international law. In such cases, it is important to ensure that IHL is not negatively affected. With the adoption of the Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions of 1977, the two legal tribes began to converge, although the Hague Act already contained provisions on humanity (i.e. the protection of certain prisoners of war and civilians in the occupied territories). The 1977 Additional Protocols on the Protection of Victims in International and Domestic Conflicts contained not only aspects of Hague and Geneva law, but also important human rights provisions. [32] Given that most humanitarian operations take place in the context of armed conflict, violations of international humanitarian law have a significant impact on the objectives of EU humanitarian aid in order to meet the needs of the affected population and also compromise the security of the EU`s humanitarian partners. As one of the largest humanitarian donors, the EU has therefore always been committed to promoting global respect for international humanitarian law. Both currents take their name from a number of international conferences that drafted treaties on war and conflict, in particular the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 and the Geneva Conventions, the first of which was drafted in 1863.

Both deal with jus in bello, which deals with the question of whether certain practices are acceptable during armed conflicts. [11] International humanitarian law (IHL), also known as the law of armed conflict, is the law governing war (jus in bello). [1] [2] It is a branch of international law that aims to limit the effects of armed conflict by protecting persons not taking part in hostilities and by restricting and regulating the means and methods of warfare available to combatants. The ICRC is the only institution that has been explicitly designated as a monitoring authority under international humanitarian law. The ICRC`s legal mandate derives from the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 as well as from its own statutes. Customary international law consists of rules that derive from “general practice recognized as law” and that exist independently of contract law. We help people around the world affected by armed conflict and other violence, and do everything in our power to protect their dignity and alleviate their suffering, often with our Red Cross and Red Crescent partners. We also seek to prevent hardship by promoting and strengthening humanitarian law and upholding universal humanitarian principles. The principle of distinction protects the civilian population and civilian objects from the effects of military operations.

It obliges parties to an armed conflict to distinguish at all times and in all circumstances between combatants and military targets, on the one hand, and civilians and civilian objects, on the other; and only to target the former. It also provides that civilians lose this protection if they take a direct part in hostilities. [40] The principle of distinction has also established that the ICRC is reflected in state practice; It is therefore an established norm of customary international law in international and non-international armed conflicts. [41] The Geneva Conventions are the result of a process that developed in several stages between 1864 and 1949 […].