Even wars have limits. As simple as it sounds, every day we witness these limits being pushed and stretched. Time after time and conflict after conflict, we are shocked to see human rights violations and atrocities unfold, in spite of the living memory of World War II with its “never again”. The cruelty of war is shocking at first, but over time it becomes all too familiar: people’s suffering is routinized, from Ukraine and Gaza to numerous forgotten conflicts in Africa and the Middle East. But even if wars remain a part of our lives, we are not excused from turning a blind eye on rules and laws. International Humanitarian Law was created as an instrument of checks and balances to limit war’s worst excesses, and together with Human Rights Law, they are meant to save lives and preserve humanity. In wartime, both legal regimes must be applied and respected.
International Humanitarian Law (IHL), also called the “law of war,” applies only during armed conflicts, is rooted in the Geneva Conventions, and binds both states and non-state actors. Its main objective is to protect civilians during hostilities, restrict means of warfare, and limit violence. Although IHL is considered a special set of rules that applies specifically during armed conflicts (lex specialis), it does not cancel or override a state’s obligation to respect and uphold human rights.
On the other hand, International Human Rights Law (IHRL) is always applicable (also during wars), binds primarily states, is based on various international treaties, conventions, and protocols, and is designed to protect the dignity and rights of individuals. A core difference relates to the right to life: while killing is allowed under IHL when justified by the rules of war, it is prohibited under IHRL, and the right to life is absolute and cannot be infringed.
After the Balkan wars, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (1993) was established to convict the perpetrators of crimes against humanity, grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, and genocide. Throughout the war, the actors involved repeatedly violated the rules of warfare, which codify the do’s and don’ts of armed conflicts. Among the convicted were Radovan Karadžić, former President of Republika Srpska, and General Ratko Mladić. The trials carried a clear message: even top leaders, when judged as war criminals, cannot escape the law. The message that laws apply even during wars was also underscored by the dealings of the European Court of Human Rights over property restitution, violation of the right to life, discrimination, and compensation, which helped victims seek remedies based on the European Convention of Human Rights.
Law was also mobilized in the aftermath of the 1994 Rwanda Genocide with the establishment of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR). The Tribunal prosecuted individuals – top politicians and military leaders – for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide, which were clear breaches of IHL, but it also referred to gender-based violence, fair trial rights, and victims’ protection and participation in the trial, which are IHRL norms guiding justice and accountability.
Unfortunately, the war in Ukraine demonstrates that military conflicts continue to breach and stretch the boundaries of international laws that should govern them. Both IHL and IHRL are still being violated, although both Russia and Ukraine are parties to the Geneva Conventions and other human rights treaties, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Almost every day, we hear of bombed hospitals, schools turned into ashes, and apartment buildings torn open by shelling – in clear violation of the principle of distinction under IHL, which forbids targeting civilians or civilian infrastructure. Meanwhile, arbitrary detention and torture – affecting not just soldiers but also civilians – undermine both IHL and IHRL. According to testimonies from prisoners who have been released or exchanged, detainees are routinely denied access to independent humanitarian organizations such as the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), whose role is to monitor conditions of detention and ensure humane treatment. This exclusion deprives detainees of one of the few safeguards left in war and deepens the culture of impunity around enforced disappearances, ill-treatment, and abuse. ICRC has proven over the years to be successful in exchanging messages between detainees and their families. The lack of information about the loved ones who went missing during fights is also an IHRL abuse.
There is, however, a spark of hope. In late 2024, Ukraine ratified the International Criminal Court’s Statute, which allowed the Court to begin investigations already during the war and prosecute crimes committed on Ukrainian soil. The ICC has taken its task seriously and issued an arrest warrant for Russian President Vladimir Putin and children’s ombudsman Maria Lvova-Belova (they were charged with war crimes for the forcible transfer of Ukrainian children to Russia). It is the first time when an ICC warrant targeted a great-power leader. However, it was not the last time. In 2024, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was accused of, among others, deliberately depriving Gaza’s civilian population of essential supplies and of using starvation as a method of warfare. Also, the former Philippine President faced accusations and a formal investigation over crimes against humanity during his “war on drugs” in 2017-2018. It only emphasizes that IHL and IHRL apply universally, and that the ICC is willing to hold powerful state actors accountable.
In the current uncertain times, with new wars and civilian displacements they trigger, knowledge of International Humanitarian Law, especially among the military, is essential. IHL and IHRL are fragile. Their effectiveness depends on other countries’ willingness to enforce them and hold those guilty of their violations accountable. If these laws are allowed to fail in Ukraine (and in other ongoing conflicts), it will set a dangerous precedent, paving the way for other warring nations to dismiss their applicability and treat them as optional. The law is not optional; it is the foundation of order and human dignity. Unfortunately, the international order is as strong as countries’ commitment to protect the rules. While institutions like the ICC exist to prosecute the most serious crimes – genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity – their effectiveness depends heavily on political will, cooperation, and enforcement by member states. Without full international backing and consistent pressure from powerful states, actions taken by the international institutions designed to uphold legal regimes risk remaining symbolic.
In the face of ongoing atrocities committed during Russia’s war against Ukraine, civil society plays a crucial role in defending human dignity and the rule of law. One example is the work of KOOS (Coalition for Victims, Survivors and Witnesses), an organization that supports survivors and victims of international crimes. KOOS helps to restore a sense of safety and justice to those affected by war through legal advocacy, medical, and psychological rehabilitation. The organization raises public awareness about the human impact of war crimes and collaborates with legal institutions to hold perpetrators accountable. KOOS emphasizes that upholding humanity begins with caring citizens, and not only institutions. It makes sure that victims’ rights are respected under Poland’s international obligations. It adopts a trauma-informed and survivor-centered approach.
If war becomes lawless, then humanity loses. The law must survive war, not only in textbooks or academic debates but in the lives of real people facing those terrible events daily. In many conflicts, including Ukraine, international law is often the last remaining shield for civilians trapped in violence and for prisoners hoping for humane treatment. When the rules of war are ignored, it’s not just legal norms that erode – it’s human dignity, hope, and the belief that accountability is possible.
