Abstract

War has long been and continues to be the most powerful force on the planet. War, on the other hand, should not be harsh or barbaric in nature. Although it is possible to fight a civilized war following the warfare limits. With the exception of a few uncertain areas, International Humanitarian Law is a collection of regulations that address, among other things, the protection of communities ravaged by war and military tactics and procedures. On the other hand, applying international humanitarian law has been proven difficult. A lot has changed in the way conflicts are waged over the last century. Despite the atrocities of conflict, international humanitarian law standards are routinely ignored with callous indifference. However, putting international humanitarian law into effect has proven difficult, with just a small percentage of it being implemented. The regulations may not be enforced against individuals who violate them while on the winning side, but they will be for those who violate them when on the losing side. As a result, the concept of superior power is reflected in the application of international humanitarian law. Implementing IHL in non-international armed conflicts is more difficult than in international armed conflicts. When international humanitarian law cannot be applied to a certain situation, a legal void may occur. The IHL regime is also characterized by a prevalent culture of impunity as a result of the parties’ lack of interest, Many of the criminals remain on the loose. Because of the belligerents’ callous disregard for the basics of international humanitarian law, the entire system is doomed to fail. The goal of this research is to find the best strategies for overcoming the challenges of implementing IHL in today’s environment.

Keywords: Warfare, War on Terror, humanitarian law, superior power, armed conflict

Introduction

Specific conflict resolution approaches, tactics, and tools are prohibited under international humanitarian law, but combat is not expressly prohibited. It attempts to alleviate the suffering of war victims to the greatest extent possible. It is vital to examine if IHL can solve the new problems caused by conflict’s new dimensions. Is there any other flaw in the international humanitarian law framework? States will engage in armed conflict when they believe it is necessary, sometimes for monetary benefit, sometimes to overthrow the government. IHL applies to and must be respected in all conflicts, whether they are waged for self-defense or the right to self-determination, to combat terrorism, to maintain international peace and security, or for any other reason. Because the aggressors did not follow it, International Humanitarian Law was unable to prevent the death of civilians during hostilities or the torture of prisoners of war. Respect for IHL would considerably minimize suffering on both sides, help people regain their trust, and provide the best hope for laying the groundwork for a peaceful resolution to the war. IHL cannot be implemented, but it does not mean it is a panacea for the heinous consequences of war. However, if they followed and obeyed IHL, both parties’ suffering would be greatly reduced.^[1]

Modern war takes place without the presence of soldiers and makes use of cutting-edge weaponry fired from a safe distance. The attacks on innocent bystanders and the sheer brutality of these gangs’ operations are the two most defining features of their activity. Because there are so many different armed factions involved, the battle is asymmetrical. Taking hostages and murdering civilians are two new tactics of warfare that are becoming more common. Changes in Syria and Iraq during the last few years, as well as the development of ISIS and ISIL, have had a significant impact on IHL. Along with other inmates, journalists and relief workers have been decapitated, and civilians have been killed at random. As Rousseau quotes, “war is not a relationship between man and man, but between state and state”, is less applicable in today’s world, where conflict is more likely to be a relationship between the state and the person.

The basics of international humanitarian law have been described as “inviolable” by the International Court of Justice. All states are required by international humanitarian law to follow its rules. It should come as no surprise that carrying out one’s legal obligations is one of the fundamental foundations of international law. Rules are meaningless if they are not followed. It goes without saying that a verbal pledge alone will not suffice to meet the legal duty to ensure respect. Regardless of the most heinous crimes, it is critical to safeguard and protect fundamental human rights, which is why humanitarian law exists. It attempts to develop unbreakable human rights guidelines.

The applicability of international humanitarian law is dependent on the fulfillment of its standards. If the offenders of the crimes that caused war victims’ suffering are held accountable, states and armed forces will be forced to observe the standards of international humanitarian law. A more efficient implementation is required to provide victims of armed conflict with a higher level of protection. It has been raised on occasion whether international humanitarian law is adequate, not only in terms of its ability to incorporate newly discovered realities of organized armed violence within pre-existing classifications but also in terms of the existence of a sufficient body of substantive norms and their applicability in a given situation.

[1]Bothe, Michael, International Legal Aspects of the Darfur Conflict, in: August Reinisch and Ursula Kriebaum (eds.), The Law of International RelationsLiber AmicorumHanspeterNeuhold, Utrecht, 2007.