International humanitarian law

International Law · Human rights, conflict and institutions. The idea in plain words, the rules to remember, the mistake to avoid and a worked example, written and checked by Mega Lecture.

Test this topic free All International Law topics

The idea

International humanitarian law (the law of armed conflict) limits the effects of war. It applies to all sides, whoever started the conflict. It has two branches. Geneva law protects people who are not, or are no longer, taking part in the fighting: the wounded, the sick, the shipwrecked, prisoners of war and civilians. Hague law limits the means and methods of warfare, such as weapons and tactics.

Four principles guide every attack: distinction between combatants and civilians, proportionality, military necessity and humanity. The most serious violations of the Geneva Conventions are called grave breaches, and every state must search for and prosecute or extradite those responsible.

Rules to remember

Geneva Conventions 1949: I wounded and sick on land; II wounded, sick and shipwrecked at sea; III prisoners of war; IV civilians.
Additional Protocol I (1977): international conflicts. Additional Protocol II (1977) and Common Article 3: non-international conflicts.
Henri Dunant, moved by the battle of Solferino (1859), inspired the Red Cross and the first Geneva Convention (1864).
Distinction: attack only combatants and military objectives, never civilians or civilian objects.
Proportionality: no attack where expected civilian harm is excessive compared with the concrete and direct military advantage.
Military necessity allows only what is needed for a lawful military aim; humanity forbids superfluous injury and unnecessary suffering. Perfidy is prohibited.
Grave breaches include wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment and taking of hostages; superior orders are no defence, only possible mitigation.

Common mistake

Students think military necessity overrides the other rules. It only permits measures that are not otherwise prohibited, so it cannot justify attacking civilians or mistreating prisoners. Remember also that the Third Convention is about prisoners of war and the Fourth about civilians.

Worked example

During an international armed conflict, State B captures uniformed soldiers of State A's regular army. B puts them on trial for murder simply because they fought and killed B's soldiers in battle. Is this lawful?

Members of a state's regular armed forces are lawful combatants, and on capture they are prisoners of war under the Third Geneva Convention of 1949.
A lawful combatant may not be punished merely for taking part in hostilities; killing enemy soldiers in battle is a lawful act of war.
A prisoner of war may be tried only for real offences such as war crimes, with fair-trial guarantees.

Answer: No. They are prisoners of war and cannot be punished for lawful acts of fighting.

Ask about this

Type what you are stuck on. The helper finds the explanation, worked examples and the notes to read, free and instant.

Read the full notes

Keep going

← Use of force and peaceful settlement of disputes International courts and organisations →Take a International Law test