Definition of IHL

IHL is a set of rules that seek to limit the humanitarian consequences of armed conflicts. It is
sometimes also referred to as the law of armed conflict or the law of war (jus in bello).

The primary purpose of IHL is to restrict the means and methods of warfare that parties to a conflict
may employ and to ensure the protection and humane treatment of persons who are not, or no
longer, taking a direct part in the hostilities.

In short, IHL comprises those rules of international law which establish minimum standards of
humanity that must be respected in any situation of armed conflict.4
Illustration

1. Bombardment of an army barracks in the field;

Bombardment of a residential complex in the city center.

2. Bombardment of the army barracks with napalm instead of a missile;

Bombardment of the residential complex with nerve gas at night.

Further explanation
IHL is a branch of IL
Intro lo same ihl tho ne start chey from upar.
International law
International Humanitarian Law (IHL) is a fundamental branch of
international law that governs the conduct of armed conflicts,
ensuring the protection of individuals and imposing restrictions on
warfare. As a specialized legal framework within international law,
IHL establishes rules that balance military necessity with
humanitarian considerations. It is deeply rooted in the principles of
international law that seek to maintain global order, protect human
rights, and regulate relations between states and non-state actors
during armed conflicts. Its codification and enforcement demonstrate
its integral role within the broader legal framework governing
international relations.
Key Intersections of IHL with Other Branches of International Law
The connection between IHL and international law is evident in its
shared objective of maintaining global stability and human dignity.
While international human rights law seeks to protect individuals at
all times, IHL ensures such protection during war by regulating
hostilities. Additionally, IHL intersects with international criminal law,
as violations of its principles—such as war crimes, genocide, and
crimes against humanity—fall under the jurisdiction of courts like the
International Criminal Court (ICC). Moreover, IHL is aligned with
refugee law, as conflicts often lead to mass displacement, requiring
legal mechanisms to safeguard refugees' rights under international
law. These interconnections highlight how IHL functions as an
essential branch within the broader international legal framework.
Challenges in the Implementation of IHL
The enforcement of IHL, however, presents challenges due to the
evolving nature of warfare. The increasing involvement of non-state
armed groups, cyber warfare, and the use of advanced military
technology complicate the application of traditional IHL rules.
Additionally, state compliance with IHL remains inconsistent, often
hindered by political interests and lack of enforcement mechanisms.
Strengthening accountability through international tribunals,
enhancing monitoring mechanisms, and fostering global cooperation
are necessary steps to ensure adherence to IHL.
Conclusion: The Future of IHL within International Law
As a branch of international law, IHL continues to evolve to address
modern challenges while maintaining its core humanitarian
objectives. The future of IHL depends on its ability to adapt to
emerging security threats and reinforce accountability measures. Its
role in regulating armed conflicts, protecting vulnerable populations,
and upholding international legal norms underscores its significance
as an indispensable part of the international legal system. By
ensuring the lawful conduct of war, IHL contributes to the broader
mission of international law: promoting peace, security, and justice
on a global scale.
HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT OF INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN
LAW
“The laws of war are as old as war itself, and war is as old as life
on earth.”
Introduction
The Evolution and Development of International Humanitarian Law
(IHL): A Historical Perspective
Introduction
International Humanitarian Law (IHL), also known as the Law of
Armed Conflict (LOAC), is as ancient as warfare itself. Throughout
history, societies and civilizations have attempted to regulate the
conduct of war to minimize human suffering. The evolution of IHL is
not merely a legal or theoretical development but a deeply
humanitarian endeavor that reflects the moral and ethical
considerations of different eras. This essay traces the history of IHL
from prehistoric times to its modern codifications, emphasizing the
key milestones that have shaped its present form.
The Origins of IHL in Prehistoric and Ancient Societies
The concept of war pre-dates recorded history, and so does the idea
of limiting its destructiveness. In prehistoric times, survival was the
primary concern, and the ‘law of the jungle’ dictated that strength
prevailed over weakness. However, archaeological evidence suggests
that even in Neolithic societies, there were rudimentary
humanitarian practices. For instance, the discovery of trepanations
(ancient surgical interventions on the skull) in Neolithic skeletons
indicates an early attempt to provide medical care to the wounded.
Ancient civilizations such as those of Sumeria, Babylon, Egypt, India,
Persia, and Greece played a crucial role in shaping the foundational
principles of IHL. The Code of Hammurabi (circa 1754 BCE) in Babylon
laid down early rules regarding warfare, including the practice of
releasing hostages for ransom rather than executing them. Similarly,
the Egyptians had an ethical commandment to provide food to their
enemies, reflecting a sense of duty towards those who surrendered.
The Hittite civilization also introduced humanitarian norms by
mandating that an enemy who capitulated should not be harmed.
Persian rulers, particularly Cyrus the Great, were known for treating
wounded enemy soldiers as they would their own. Alexander the
Great demonstrated a degree of humanity by sparing Darius’s family
after his conquest and ensuring that Persian women were treated
with respect. In India, Emperor Ashoka issued edicts that instructed
his soldiers to respect wounded enemy combatants and women who
were caring for them, demonstrating an advanced understanding of
humanitarian principles. In Rome, military medical structures were
established, with one doctor assigned per cohort and a Chief Medical
Officer overseeing an entire legion. The Chinese military strategist
Sun Tzu also emphasized the importance of respecting prisoners and
the wounded as part of the art of war.
The Role of Religious and Ethical Traditions
Religious and ethical traditions have historically contributed to the
development of humanitarian laws in warfare. The Mahabharata and
Smritis of ancient India contained explicit guidelines on the humane
treatment of enemies. They prohibited the declaration of ‘no-
quarter’ (refusing to take prisoners), forbade the killing of
surrendered or disabled enemies, mandated the return of wounded
soldiers after they had healed, restricted the use of barbed,
poisonous, and flaming arrows, and outlined rules for requisition and
detention.
Similarly, the concept of chivalry in the Middle Ages played a role in
shaping the evolution of IHL. The practice of declaring war and
peace, protecting those who carried a flag of truce, and banning
certain weapons, such as the crossbow, demonstrated early efforts to
regulate warfare.
Religious doctrines across different cultures reinforced these
humanitarian values. Christianity, through the Bible, forbade the
killing of surrendered enemies and called for mercy towards children,
women, and the elderly. Islam, through the Quran, introduced the
concept of ‘just war’ (jihad), which was often misinterpreted as ‘holy
war.’ The Islamic principles of warfare forbade the killing of children,
women, the sick, and the insane, as well as the mutilation of dead
soldiers' bodies and the poisoning of water sources. Salah ad-Din,
during the Crusades, demonstrated humanitarian conduct by sparing
Jews and Christians upon conquering Jerusalem and sending his
doctors to treat a Crusader king suffering from leprosy.
The Enlightenment and the Emergence of Modern IHL
The Enlightenment era marked a crucial turning point in the
development of IHL. Philosophers like Hugo Grotius and Jean-Jacques
Rousseau contributed to the legal and ethical discourse on war.
Grotius, considered the ‘father of international law,’ argued that
during wartime, international law should protect individuals rather
than national laws. He emphasized that violence should be limited to
what was necessary for victory and that combatants should be
spared when there was no military necessity to harm them.
Rousseau, on the other hand, asserted that war was between states
rather than individuals, and as soon as a soldier surrendered, he
ceased to be an enemy and should be treated as a human being.
During this period, agreements between warring parties began to
take a structured form. Provisions included ensuring care for
wounded and sick soldiers, providing prisoners of war (POWs) with
adequate living conditions, exchanging POWs without ransom,
immunizing hospitals with special flags, exempting doctors and
chaplains from capture, and safeguarding civilian populations.
The Birth of Modern IHL: The Battle of Solferino and the Geneva
Conventions
The modern era of IHL was born out of the horrors witnessed during
the Battle of Solferino in 1859. This battle between Austria and the
Franco-Italian alliance resulted in 6,000 deaths and 38,000 wounded
soldiers. Swiss businessman Henry Dunant, who was passing through,
was deeply affected by the sight of suffering soldiers. Recognizing
that many could have survived with timely medical care, he organized
first-aid efforts and later documented his experiences in ‘A Memory
of Solferino.’
Dunant proposed two key ideas:
1. A permanent voluntary relief organization trained in peacetime
to assist army medical services in war.
2. A diplomatic conference among states to ensure the protection
of military hospitals and medical personnel.
These proposals led to the establishment of the International
Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) in 1863. The ICRC became a
neutral and independent humanitarian organization dedicated to
protecting those affected by armed conflicts. Over time, it has played
a crucial role in promoting respect for IHL and has received three
Nobel Peace Prizes for its efforts.
In 1864, the first Geneva Convention, titled ‘Convention for the
Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded in Armies in the Field,’
was adopted. Key provisions included:
 Neutrality of ambulances and military hospitals.
 Protection of medical personnel and chaplains.
 The right of medical personnel to continue their work even
after enemy occupation.
 Immunity of civilians assisting the wounded.
  Protection of houses sheltering wounded soldiers.
 Humane treatment of wounded or sick combatants.
 The adoption of the Red Cross symbol as a protective emblem.
Expanding the Scope of IHL
The Geneva Convention’s principles were soon extended to maritime
warfare through the Hague Conferences of 1899 and 1907. The First
and Second Hague Conventions expanded protections to
shipwrecked soldiers and hospital ships. In 1906, the Geneva
Convention was revised to include more precise terminology and
provisions for the burial of the dead and transmission of information.
In 1929, another Geneva Convention was introduced, eliminating the
‘si omnes’ clause, which had limited the Convention’s applicability to
conflicts where all belligerents were parties to it. It also allowed
Muslim nations to use the Red Crescent instead of the Red Cross.
Conclusion
The Geneva Conventions were relatively well-respected in World War
I and World War II, but the devastation of these wars revealed gaps in
the legal framework. This led to the 1949 revision of the Geneva
Conventions, which resulted in four comprehensive treaties
addressing the treatment of wounded soldiers, shipwrecked
personnel, prisoners of war, and civilian populations.
The history of IHL reflects humanity’s continuous struggle to mitigate
the horrors of war. While war remains a tragic reality, the
development of IHL ensures that its conduct is subject to ethical and
legal constraints aimed at preserving human dignity. As conflicts
continue to evolve, so must IHL, adapting to new challenges while
remaining rooted in the principles of humanity, neutrality, and
impartiality.
MARTENS CLAUSE
The Martens Clause is a curious artefact of IHL. Having emerged in
history as little more than a cunning ‘diplomatic ploy’,2 many scholars
are quick to dismiss its relevance within the modern context of
international law, citing the ulterior motives behind its origin as
evidence of an intended lack of positive legal value.

The Application of International Humanitarian Law: The Martens

Clause
Introduction
International Humanitarian Law (IHL) seeks to regulate the conduct
of hostilities and protect persons who are not or are no longer
participating in armed conflict. One of the fundamental and enduring
principles embedded within IHL is the Martens Clause, first
articulated in the 1899 Hague Convention II. The Martens Clause has
since been reiterated in subsequent treaties, including the 1949
Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocols, serving as a guiding
principle in interpreting humanitarian norms. The Clause operates as
a safeguard against legal gaps, ensuring that even in the absence of
explicit treaty provisions, fundamental humanitarian considerations,
principles of humanity, and dictates of public conscience remain
binding.
Historical Origins and Evolution
The Martens Clause has formed a part of the laws of armed conflict
since its first appearance in the preamble to the 1899 Hague
Convention (II) with respect to the laws and customs of war on land:
The Martens Clause was introduced by Fyodor Fyodorovich Martens,
a Russian diplomat and jurist, during the 1899 Hague Peace
Conference. It was initially intended to address the legal status of
civilians and combatants in situations where specific treaty provisions
were absent. Over time, the Clause has evolved into a cornerstone of
customary international law, reinforcing the applicability of
humanitarian principles even in the absence of codified regulations.
Notably, its inclusion in the 1949 Geneva Conventions and the
Additional Protocols of 1977 has further solidified its role in IHL.
Legal and Practical Significance
The Martens Clause serves as an interpretative tool for assessing the
legality of new means and methods of warfare, including emerging
technologies such as autonomous weapons, cyber warfare, and
artificial intelligence in armed conflict. Courts and tribunals, including
the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the International Criminal
Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), have referred to the Clause
in decisions concerning the application of humanitarian norms. The
Clause underscores that the absence of explicit treaty prohibitions
does not equate to permissibility if such actions violate principles of
humanity and public conscience.
The Martens Clause has become a central principle of contemporary
international military and humanitarian law, and continues to play a
key role in ensuring the ongoing humanization of warfare. Its
humanistic essence and purpose stem from the fact that it regulates
military situations occurring in the course of hostilities between
conflicting parties that are not covered by existing international and
national legal standards. All of this further reaffirms Martens’ special
role in the development of international humanitarian law
(IHL) – that is, international law applied to protect human rights in
time of war.

Application of the Martens Clause in IHL

The Martens Clause serves as a dynamic and adaptable principle
within IHL, ensuring that humanitarian considerations persist even in
the face of evolving warfare tactics and technologies. Its application
can be observed in multiple areas of IHL, particularly in determining
the legality of new weapons, addressing humanitarian concerns in
non-international armed conflicts, and providing a moral compass in
the absence of explicit legal frameworks.
1. Application to New Weapons and Warfare Technologies
One of the most critical applications of the Martens Clause is in
assessing the legality of new and emerging weaponry. Autonomous
weapons, artificial intelligence, and cyber warfare represent new
frontiers in modern combat that may not be explicitly covered by
existing treaties. The Clause has been invoked in international
discussions to argue that any weapon or method of warfare that
violates fundamental principles of humanity or public conscience
should be considered unlawful.
The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) has emphasized
the importance of the Clause in evaluating weapons such as lethal
autonomous weapon systems (LAWS). The ethical and legal concerns
surrounding such technology demonstrate how the Martens Clause
can serve as a preventive mechanism, ensuring that innovations in
warfare remain consistent with humanitarian values.
2. Application in Non-International Armed Conflicts (NIACs)
The Martens Clause is especially relevant in non-international armed
conflicts, where treaty provisions are often less comprehensive
compared to international armed conflicts. In the absence of explicit
rules governing internal conflicts, the Clause provides a basis for
applying humanitarian principles universally. It supports the
argument that non-state armed groups and government forces are
bound by fundamental principles of humanity, even if they are not
parties to specific treaties.
A prominent example is the jurisprudence of the ICTY, where the
Martens Clause was cited in cases addressing war crimes committed
by non-state actors. It has been used to reinforce obligations under
customary IHL, ensuring that human dignity remains protected
regardless of a conflict’s classification.
3. Application in the Prohibition of Inhumane Weapons
The Martens Clause has played a decisive role in the prohibition of
certain weapons that cause unnecessary suffering. Historical
examples include the bans on chemical and biological weapons, anti-
personnel landmines, and cluster munitions. These prohibitions were
driven not only by treaty law but also by widespread recognition that
such weapons violate fundamental principles of humanity.
The use of nuclear weapons has also been scrutinized under the
Clause. In the 1996 ICJ Advisory Opinion on the Legality of the Threat
or Use of Nuclear Weapons, the Court referred to the Clause to
highlight that the principles of humanity and dictates of public
conscience must guide assessments of nuclear weapon legality. The
ICJ noted that while no comprehensive treaty explicitly bans nuclear
weapons, their catastrophic humanitarian impact raises serious
concerns under the Clause’s framework. This opinion reinforced the
view that even in the absence of a specific prohibition, international
law must be interpreted in light of fundamental humanitarian
principles.
4. Application in Cases of Civilian Protection
The Martens Clause reinforces the protection of civilians, particularly
in situations where legal ambiguities exist. In modern conflicts,
civilians are often the primary victims, suffering from indiscriminate
attacks, forced displacement, and other humanitarian crises. The
Clause provides a moral and legal foundation for advocating against
attacks that violate humanitarian principles, even when treaty law
may not explicitly cover the situation.
The evolving jurisprudence on human shields and the use of civilians
in hostilities reflects the Clause’s relevance in ensuring that all
military operations prioritize human dignity. International bodies,
including the United Nations, have invoked the Clause to condemn
actions that result in disproportionate harm to civilian populations.
5. Application in Legal Interpretations and Judicial Decisions
Courts and international tribunals have increasingly relied on the
Martens Clause as an interpretative tool. The European Court of
Human Rights (ECtHR) has referenced the Clause in cases concerning
human rights violations during armed conflicts, linking it to broader
principles of international law. The Clause’s influence extends beyond
IHL, shaping the interpretation of human rights protections in
wartime scenarios.
6. Application in Cyber Warfare
With the advent of cyber warfare, the Martens Clause has gained
renewed importance. The use of cyber operations in armed conflict
poses new legal and ethical challenges, including the targeting of
civilian infrastructure and potential large-scale humanitarian
consequences. In the absence of a comprehensive treaty governing
cyber warfare, the Clause provides a foundational principle for
assessing the lawfulness of cyber attacks. Scholars and legal experts
argue that any cyber operation violating fundamental humanitarian
principles should be deemed unlawful under the Clause’s framework.
Challenges in the Application of the Martens Clause
While the Martens Clause plays a vital role in IHL, its application is
not without challenges. The subjective nature of terms such as
"dictates of public conscience" creates interpretative difficulties,
leading to varying perspectives among states and legal practitioners.
Additionally, the Clause’s enforcement depends on political will and
judicial interpretation, which can sometimes limit its practical impact.
State practice and differing cultural perceptions of humanitarian
norms further complicate the Clause’s application. What may be
deemed unacceptable by one society might be perceived differently
by another, leading to inconsistencies in legal reasoning.
Nevertheless, the Clause remains a crucial mechanism for advancing
humanitarian protections in modern conflicts.

Conclusion
Martens has gone down in history not just as an outstanding
academic, advocate of the universal theory of international law,
world-renowned diplomat and international arbitrator, but also as a
prominent theoretician and practitioner, whose work helped lay the
scholarly groundwork for and secure the formal embodiment of the
general principles of IHL.
ARMED CONFLICT
Armed Conflict and International Armed Conflict (IAC)
Introduction
International Humanitarian Law (IHL) governs the conduct of
hostilities and the protection of individuals in times of war. While it is
generally accepted that IHL applies only during situations of armed
conflict, this is not entirely true. Even during peacetime, States have
obligations such as caring for prisoners of war (POWs) and interned
civilians, clearing explosive remnants, and prosecuting war crimes.
Furthermore, Common Article 1 of the Geneva Conventions (GCs)
mandates that States must respect and ensure respect for these
Conventions at all times.
Application of IHL
IHL is primarily applicable during armed conflicts. In the absence of
an International Armed Conflict (IAC), inter-State disputes are
settled by peacetime laws, usually Human Rights Law (HRL). Similarly,
when there is no Non-International Armed Conflict (NIAC), the use
of force within a State’s territory is governed by domestic criminal
law and HRL.
However, defining terms such as ‘war,’ ‘armed conflict,’ and
‘occupation’ precisely could allow belligerents to evade their
obligations under IHL. Thus, instead of fixed definitions, the existence
of an armed conflict is determined by analyzing the factual situation
on the ground rather than applying rigid legal criteria.
International Armed Conflict (IAC)
Definition and Scope
Common Article 2 of the Geneva Conventions identifies three
situations that constitute an IAC:
1. A declared war between two or more States.
 2. Armed conflict between two or more States, even if no formal
declaration of war exists.
3. Partial or total occupation of a State’s territory by another,
regardless of local resistance.
Additionally, Article 1(4) of Additional Protocol I (AP1) expands IAC
to include armed struggles against colonial domination, alien
occupation, or racist regimes as exercises of the right to self-
determination. However, this applies only to States that are parties to
AP1. Examples include:
 The Algerian National Liberation Front (1954–1962) against
French colonial rule.
 The Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) against Israeli
occupation.
 The African National Congress (ANC) against South Africa’s
apartheid regime.
Due to the implications of Article 1(4), States such as India (Kashmir),
Turkey (Kurdistan), and Israel (Palestine) have not signed AP1, while
the USA and Pakistan have signed but not ratified it.
Legal Status of Belligerents
For a conflict to be classified as an IAC, the belligerent parties must
be either:
1. States, or
2. National liberation movements fighting against colonialism,
occupation, or racial oppression.
Even if one State does not recognize the government of another, the
conflict will still be considered an IAC under IHL.
Belligerent Intent and Armed Force
Traditionally, war was declared through formal statements. However,
modern IHL recognizes an IAC based on the actual use of force
combined with belligerent intent, even without an official
declaration of war.
Key points:
 Accidental acts (e.g., a misfired missile) do not trigger an IAC.
 Rogue acts by individuals (e.g., a lone soldier attacking another
State) do not amount to an IAC unless authorized by the State.
 Even minor hostile acts can initiate an IAC if belligerent intent
exists.
 A unilateral attack can trigger an IAC, even if the victim State
does not retaliate.
For instance, in ICTY Prosecutor v. Dusko Tadic (1999), the
International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY)
defined IAC as the use of armed force between States. Additionally,
the ICRC Commentary on the Geneva Conventions (1952) states that
the duration, scale, or number of participants is irrelevant—only
belligerent intent matters.
Examples:
 Not an IAC: An Indian fighter jet accidentally fires a missile into
Pakistan.
 Not an IAC: A rogue Indian soldier attacks Pakistan without
State authorization.
 IAC: A Pakistani regiment, following orders, fires a mortar into
India, killing one soldier.
 IAC: India’s 2019 Balakot airstrike targeting Jaish-e-Mohammed
(JeM) camps in Pakistan.
An IAC does not arise when one State consents to another’s military
actions within its territory, as seen in the US bombing Daesh in Iraq
or Russia assisting Syria against rebels. However, if force is used
without consent, an IAC is triggered.
Temporal Scope of IAC
An IAC begins with:
1. A formal declaration of war.
2. The actual use of force with belligerent intent.
3. An invasion or occupation of another State’s territory.
It ends with:
1. A peace treaty, armistice, or ceasefire.
2. An unequivocal surrender or declaration of termination of
hostilities.
3. The complete and permanent withdrawal of forces.
Even after an IAC ends, certain IHL obligations persist, such as caring
for POWs and identifying the dead.
Territorial Scope of IAC
IHL is not limited to the territories of the warring States but extends
to areas connected to the conflict. Examples include:
 World War II: US forces fighting German troops in France or on
the High Seas.
 South African Apartheid: uMkhonto weSizwe rebels engaging
the South African army in Zimbabwe.
Belligerent Occupation
Definition
Under Article 42 of the 1907 Hague Regulations, a territory is
considered occupied when:
1. A hostile army exercises authority over it, and
2. The occupying force maintains effective control.
Effective Control Test
Occupation exists when:
1. A State’s armed forces are physically present in foreign territory
without consent.
2. The local government is largely unable to exercise authority.
3. The occupying force exercises control directly or through local
proxies.
For example, Nazi Germany’s control over Vichy France during WWII
was an occupation even though local governance continued under
German influence.
Nature and Termination of Occupation
Occupation is always temporary, regardless of duration. It ends when:
1. The occupying force withdraws (e.g., Germany withdrawing
from France in WWII).
2. The local government regains control (e.g., Iraq withdrawing
from Kuwait in 1991).
3. Genuine consent is granted (e.g., US occupations of Japan and
West Germany ending through formal agreements).
4. A political settlement occurs, such as:
o Annexation: Russia’s annexation of Kaliningrad post-
WWII.
o Independence: Kosovo’s secession from Serbia with
international backing.
Unilateral annexation does not alter legal status under international
law. For instance, Russia’s annexation of Crimea and Israel’s claim
over the West Bank and Golan Heights remain disputed.
Conclusion
IHL governs armed conflicts, ensuring the protection of those
affected and restricting the methods of warfare. An IAC arises when
armed force is used between States with belligerent intent, even in
minor incidents. Occupation remains a unique aspect of IHL, where
effective control over territory triggers specific legal obligations.
While political considerations often shape the recognition of
conflicts, IHL remains the guiding framework for wartime conduct
and post-conflict responsibilities.

Non-International Armed Conflict (NIAC)

1. Introduction
Non-International Armed Conflicts (NIACs) are armed conflicts that
occur within the territory of a single state, involving either
governmental forces and non-state armed groups (NSAGs) or
conflicts exclusively between such groups. Unlike international armed
conflicts (IACs), which occur between states, NIACs are subject to a
more limited application of international humanitarian law (IHL).
Despite their prevalence, states have been historically reluctant to
apply international law to such conflicts due to concerns over
sovereignty and non-interference in domestic affairs.
2. Legal Framework Governing NIACs
2.1 Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions
Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions (GCs) serves as the
foundational legal provision applicable to NIACs. During the drafting
of the Geneva Conventions, states were hesitant to extend the
entirety of IHL to NIACs, fearing that doing so would infringe upon
national sovereignty. Consequently, rather than broadening the
definition of NIAC, they opted to limit the provisions applicable to
such conflicts.
Common Article 3 functions as a "mini-Convention" applicable to
NIACs and establishes fundamental humanitarian protections for
non-combatants. These protections include:
 Prohibition of violence against life and person, including
murder, mutilation, and cruel treatment;
 Prohibition of taking hostages;
 Prohibition of outrages upon personal dignity, particularly
humiliating and degrading treatment;
 Prohibition of passing sentences and carrying out executions
without a fair trial.
2.2 Additional Protocol II (AP2)
Additional Protocol II (AP2) to the Geneva Conventions supplements
Common Article 3 by providing more specific protections. However, it
has a narrower scope of application and only applies if the following
conditions are met:
 The NIAC involves a state party to AP2;
 The conflict takes place within the territory of a state party;
 The non-state armed group is under responsible command;
 The non-state armed group exercises sufficient territorial
control to enable sustained and concerted military operations
and implement AP2 provisions.
3. Judicial Interpretation of NIACs
3.1 The Tadić Case (ICTY, 1999)
The landmark case of Prosecutor v. Dusko Tadić before the
International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY)
established a broad definition of NIAC. The tribunal held that NIAC
occurs whenever there is:
 Protracted armed violence between governmental authorities
and organized armed groups, or between such groups within a
state.
This definition has since been widely accepted in international
jurisprudence.
4. Essential Thresholds for NIAC Classification
4.1 Threshold of Organization (Organized Armed Groups)
A key criterion for a NIAC is the level of organization of non-state
armed groups. Without sufficient organization, an armed group
cannot effectively conduct military operations or ensure compliance
with IHL.
The ICTY in Tadić identified several indicators of organization:
 Existence of a command structure and disciplinary rules;
 Control over a defined territory;
 Access to weapons, recruits, and military training;
 Ability to develop a unified military strategy and tactics;
 Capacity to plan, coordinate, and execute military operations;
 Ability to negotiate and conclude agreements such as ceasefires
or peace accords.
4.2 Threshold of Intensity (Protracted Armed Violence)
Another essential criterion for NIAC classification is the level of
intensity of the armed conflict. AP2 explicitly excludes internal
disturbances, riots, and isolated or sporadic acts of violence, which
are governed by domestic criminal law and human rights law.
Factors used to assess intensity include:
 Number, duration, and intensity of confrontations;
 Types of weapons and ammunition used;
 Number and types of forces involved;
 Extent of material destruction and number of casualties;
 Number of civilians displaced or fleeing the combat zone;
 Involvement of the UN Security Council in addressing the
situation.
5. Temporal Scope of NIAC
A NIAC begins as soon as armed violence reaches the required
intensity between sufficiently organized parties. The application of
IHL continues until:
1. One of the parties ceases to exist; or
2. There is a lasting cessation of hostilities without a real risk of
resumption.
Indicators of lasting cessation include:
 Implementation of a peace agreement or ceasefire;
 Disbanding of special government units created for the conflict;
 Implementation of disarmament, demobilization, or
reintegration programs;
 Lifting of a state of emergency.
For example, the Syrian Civil War officially ended on 8 December
2024, following the capture of Damascus by the Free Syrian Army and
the subsequent exile of Bashar al-Assad to Russia.
6. Territorial Scope of NIAC
Both Common Article 3 and AP2 apply exclusively to conflicts
occurring within the territory of a state party. Additionally, AP2
further restricts its application to NIACs where a state party is
directly involved in the conflict. This means that purely inter-group
conflicts (without state involvement) may fall outside its purview.
7. Conclusion
NIACs constitute a significant category of armed conflicts, governed
primarily by Common Article 3 and AP2. While international law
provides minimum humanitarian protections, states have been
reluctant to fully apply IHL to such conflicts. Judicial interpretations,
particularly from the ICTY, have played a crucial role in defining the
legal parameters of NIACs, focusing on the thresholds of organization
and intensity. Despite these legal frameworks, the reality of
enforcement remains complex, especially given the political
sensitivities surrounding state sovereignty and internal armed
conflicts.

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN IAC AND NIAC

Distinction between IAC and NIAC

1. IHL distinguishes between these two types of conflict due to
political reasons rather than
military or humanitarian necessity.
States have always been reluctant to make international law
applicable to their efforts to
maintain law and order within their borders.
2. Main difference between IAC and NIAC is that the amount of
violence required for an
armed confrontation between a State and a non-State armed group
(NSAG), or between

Meer Shais Ali Assistant Professor ILS Law College

Meer Shais Ali Assistant Professor ILS Law College

two NSAGs, to qualify as a NIAC is much higher that the amount of
violence required for
an armed confrontation between two States to qualify as an IAC.
3. Reason for this difference is the belief of States that if the
Threshold of violence was the
same for IAC and NIAC, then it would undermine their sovereignty by
giving NSAGs
international status and encouraging rebellion.

EXCLUDE THE REPETITIVE POINTS

International Armed Non-International Armed
Aspect
Conflict (IAC) Conflict (NIAC)
Armed conflict between a
State and a Non-State
Armed conflict between
Definition Armed Group (NSAG) or
two or more States.
between two or more
NSAGs within a State.
Governed by all four Governed by Common
Legal Geneva Conventions Article 3 of the GCs and
Framework (GCs) and Additional Additional Protocol II
Protocol I (AP1). (AP2) (if applicable).
Threshold of Any use of force between Requires protracted
 International Armed Non-International Armed
Aspect
Conflict (IAC) Conflict (NIAC)
armed violence and
two States qualifies as an sufficient organization of
Violence
IAC. parties to qualify as a
NIAC.
Combatants have the
NSAG members do not
right to participate in
have a legal right to
Status of hostilities and are
participate in hostilities
Combatants entitled to Prisoner of
and are not entitled to
War (POW) status if
POW status.
captured.
States are reluctant to
No issue of sovereignty,
Sovereignty recognize NIACs due to
as it involves conflicts
Concerns concerns about
between States.
legitimizing NSAGs.
Only limited IHL
Entire body of IHL
provisions apply, mainly
Applicability of applies, including
focused on fundamental
IHL protections for civilians
protections for non-
and combatants.
combatants.
Violations may be
NIAC-related crimes may
prosecuted under the
Jurisdiction of also be prosecuted under
International Criminal
International the ICC, but jurisdiction is
Court (ICC) or ad hoc
Courts often challenged by
tribunals (e.g., ICTY,
States.
ICTR).
Intervention by Other States may Third-party States cannot
Other States intervene in support of legally intervene unless
one of the warring invited by the State
 International Armed Non-International Armed
Aspect
Conflict (IAC) Conflict (NIAC)
parties. involved in the conflict.
INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW AND HUMAN RIGHTS LAW
Human rights law
Protections of Wounded, Sick, and Shipwrecked (WSS) in Armed
Conflicts
Introduction
The protection of the wounded, sick, and shipwrecked (WSS) in
armed conflicts is a fundamental tenet of international humanitarian
law (IHL). The Geneva Conventions (GC) and their Additional
Protocols (AP) establish robust legal frameworks to ensure that
individuals who are no longer actively participating in hostilities due
to injury, illness, or peril at sea are treated humanely and provided
with medical care. These protections extend to both combatants and
civilians, reinforcing the principle of humanity in warfare.
Legal Protections for WSS Under the Geneva Conventions
The First Geneva Convention (GC1) and the Second Geneva
Convention (GC2) primarily safeguard the WSS who qualify for
Prisoner of War (POW) status under the Third Geneva Convention
(GC3). The Fourth Geneva Convention (GC4) extends protections to
WSS civilians who are under the control of a foreign state in
situations of international armed conflict (IAC) or occupation.
Additionally, the First Additional Protocol (AP1) and the Second
Additional Protocol (AP2) further reinforce the protections afforded
to both combatants and civilians who are WSS.
Categories of WSS Entitled to Protection
Combatants and Civilians Who Qualify for Protection
Under IHL, WSS can be either combatants or civilians. GC1 and GC2
provide protections for WSS who qualify for POW status under GC3.
The following categories of persons are entitled to protection:
1. Members of the Armed Forces and Affiliated Groups
o This includes members of the regular armed forces, as
well as militias and volunteer corps that are officially part
of the army.
2. Members of Independent Militias, Volunteer Corps, and
Resistance Movements
o These groups must meet specific conditions to receive
protection:
1. They must be under a responsible command.
2. They must have a fixed and distinctive insignia
recognizable from a distance.
3. They must carry arms openly.
4. They must conduct their operations in accordance
with the laws of armed conflict (LOAC).
3. Armed Forces of an Unrecognized Government
o Even if a government is not recognized by an adversarial
state, its armed forces are still entitled to protection
under GC3.
4. Persons Accompanying the Armed Forces Without Being
Members
o This category includes:
 Civilian crew members of military aircraft.
 War correspondents.
 Supply contractors.
 5. Crew Members of Merchant Ships and Civil Aircraft
o Civilian sailors and pilots captured in armed conflicts are
also entitled to protection.
6. Levee en Masse
o Civilians who spontaneously take up arms to resist an
invading force are entitled to protections, provided they
carry their arms openly and adhere to LOAC.
7. Wounded, sick or shipwrecked
8. 1378 In order to benefit from the protections provided for in Article
12, a person has to qualify as wounded, sick or shipwrecked. For legal
purposes there is no difference between the concepts of ‘wounded’ and
‘sick’. Throughout the First and Second Conventions the two terms are
used together. The same legal consequences attach to both conditions.
The consistent reference in Article 12 to both concepts reinforces the
notion that a wide variety of medical conditions can trigger the
protected status granted by this provision.
9. 1379 Qualifying as wounded, sick or shipwrecked in the context of
international humanitarian law requires the fulfilment of two
cumulative criteria: first, in order to qualify as wounded or sick a
person must require medical care, and to qualify as shipwrecked the
person must be in a situation of peril at sea; second, in all cases the
person must refrain from any act of hostility. In other words, the legal
status of being wounded, sick or shipwrecked is based on a person’s
medical condition or particular situation and conduct. The humanitarian
law definition of ‘wounded and sick’ or shipwrecked is therefore both
narrower and wider than the ordinary meaning of these words. On the
one hand, the definition is wider for the medical conditions covered
than the colloquial sense of these terms might suggest, and broader
than the colloquial meaning of the term ‘shipwrecked’. On the other
hand, it is narrower because the abstention from any act of hostility is
a legal requirement for protection as a wounded, sick or shipwrecked
person.[

Protection of Civilians Under GC4

The Fourth Geneva Convention (GC4) ensures that WSS civilians who
are in the hands of a foreign state during an IAC or occupation are
entitled to protection. This is crucial in situations where non-
combatants are wounded, sick, or shipwrecked and require medical
assistance and humane treatment.
Definitions of Wounded, Sick, and Shipwrecked Persons
Definition of Wounded and Sick (AP1, Article 8(a))
A wounded or sick person is defined as:
 Any military or civilian individual who is in need of medical
care and who refrains from hostilities.
 This definition ensures that both combatants and civilians who
are injured or ill during an armed conflict receive protection,
provided they do not engage in further combat.
 This definition explicitly includes pregnant women and
newborn babies, emphasizing the need for specialized medical
attention for vulnerable individuals.

Definition of Shipwrecked (AP1, Article 8(b))

A shipwrecked person is defined as:
 Any military or civilian individual who is in peril at sea due to a
misfortune affecting them, their ship, or their aircraft.
 Like wounded and sick individuals, shipwrecked persons must
refrain from hostilities to be entitled to protection.
Fundamental Protections for WSS
Respect, Protection, and Medical Care
Under various provisions of IHL (GC1, Article 12; GC2, Article 12; GC4,
Article 16; AP1, Article 10; AP2, Article 7), WSS must be:
 Respected and protected at all times.
 Treated humanely and given necessary medical care as soon as
possible.
This obligation includes three distinct responsibilities:
1. Respect – A negative obligation requiring parties to refrain from
attacking, mistreating, or abusing WSS.
2. Protection – A positive obligation to actively shield WSS from
harm.
3. Medical Care – An additional obligation to ensure that WSS
receive treatment based on their specific medical needs.
Non-Discrimination in Treatment
IHL strictly prohibits adverse distinction in the treatment of WSS
(GC1, Article 12; GC2, Article 12; AP1, Article 9(1); AP2, Article 7(2)).
This means that:
  WSS must be treated without discrimination based on race,
sex, language, religion, political belief, or nationality.
 Medical triage is permitted, meaning that treatment priority
may be based on medical urgency.
Prohibition of Violence Against WSS
WSS are protected from any form of violence or mistreatment:
 They cannot be murdered, tortured, subjected to medical
experiments, or abandoned without medical aid (GC1, Article
12; GC2, Article 12).
 The physical and mental health of WSS in the power of an
adversarial state must not be endangered by any unjustified act
or omission (AP1, Article 11).
 Physical mutilation and organ removal for transplantation are
strictly prohibited unless it is a voluntary act (AP1, Article 11).
Practical Implementation of Protections for WSS
Search, Recording, and Assistance for WSS
Obligation to Search for WSS
Parties to an armed conflict must search for WSS, particularly after
combat engagements (GC1, Article 15; GC2, Article 18; GC4, Article
16; AP2, Article 8).
 Ceasefires should be arranged whenever feasible to allow for
search and rescue operations, exchange of WSS, and the
delivery of medical supplies.
Recording and Transmitting Information on WSS
 Parties must record details of captured or injured WSS and
send this information to an Information Bureau, which then
forwards it to the WSS’s home country (GC1, Article 16; GC2,
Article 19).
Role of Civilians and Humanitarian Organizations
Civilian Population and National Aid Societies
Civilians and humanitarian organizations have an important role in
providing care to WSS (GC1, Article 18; AP1, Article 17).
 Military authorities must permit civilians and aid societies to
assist voluntarily.
 No person shall be punished for aiding a WSS individual.
 Civilians must respect WSS, even if they belong to an enemy
party, and must not commit acts of violence against them.
Special Zones for Protection and Shelter
Neutralized and Protected Zones for WSS
To ensure the safety of WSS, special zones may be created:
 Neutralized zones can be established in areas of active combat
to provide shelter for WSS (GC4, Article 15).
 Hospital zones and safety zones may be created in occupied
territories or a party’s own territory to protect:
o WSS (GC1, Article 23; GC4, Article 14).
o Vulnerable civilians, such as:
 Aged persons.
 Children under 15.
 Pregnant women.
 Mothers of children under seven years old.
These zones must be located at a safe distance from active hostilities
to ensure their protection.
Conclusion
The protection of WSS is a fundamental principle of IHL, ensuring
that individuals who are no longer engaged in hostilities due to
injury, illness, or shipwreck are treated with dignity and receive
necessary medical care. The Geneva Conventions and Additional
Protocols impose strict obligations on all parties to a conflict to
respect, protect, and care for WSS without discrimination. Violations
of these protections constitute serious breaches of international law
and may amount to war crimes. Upholding these principles is crucial
for maintaining humanitarian standards in times of armed conflict.

Protection of Prisoners of War (POW) under International

Humanitarian Law (IHL)
Introduction
The concept of protecting prisoners of war (POW) is one of the
foundational principles of International Humanitarian Law (IHL). The
primary aim of POW protection is to ensure that individuals who are
captured during an international armed conflict (IAC) are treated
humanely, with dignity, and in accordance with legal safeguards that
prohibit mistreatment, torture, or summary execution. These
protections are enshrined primarily in the Third Geneva Convention
(GC3) of 1949 and Additional Protocol I (AP I) of 1977, which lay
down comprehensive rules regarding the treatment, rights, and
repatriation of POWs.
Prisoners of war are not ordinary detainees; they are captured
combatants who have participated in hostilities and, upon capture,
must be afforded legal protections. It is crucial to distinguish POWs
from unlawful combatants, spies, and mercenaries, who do not enjoy
the same rights. Furthermore, these protections apply only in the
context of an international armed conflict (IAC) and not in a non-
international armed conflict (NIAC), where different rules of
detention apply.
This discussion explores the definition, status, rights, and treatment
of POWs under GC3 and AP I, focusing on key legal provisions and
notable case studies, such as the capture and repatriation of Wing
Commander Abhinandan Varthaman.

Definition and Status of Prisoners of War

The concept of POWs exists strictly within an international armed
conflict (IAC). There can be no POWs in a non-international armed
conflict (NIAC), as recognized by customary international law and
treaty provisions. This distinction is crucial:
1. If an army soldier is captured by a rebel group in an NIAC, they
are not classified as a POW.
2. If a rebel fighter is captured by a government in an NIAC, they
are also not considered a POW.
Under Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention (GC3), the following
categories of individuals are granted POW status once they fall into
the power of an enemy state:
 Members of the armed forces, including militias and volunteer
corps forming part of the armed forces.
 Members of independent militias, volunteer corps, and
organized resistance movements that are not part of the
armed forces, provided they meet the following four
conditions:
o They operate under a responsible command.
o They wear a distinctive insignia recognizable at a distance.
 o They carry arms openly.
o They conduct operations in accordance with the laws and
customs of war.
 Members of the armed forces belonging to a government that
is not recognized by the detaining power.
 Persons accompanying the armed forces without being directly
a part of them, such as war correspondents, supply contractors,
and civilian crew of military aircraft.
 Crew members of merchant ships and civilian aircraft.
 Levee en masse, or civilians who spontaneously take up arms to
resist an invading force, provided they carry arms openly and
respect the laws of war.
 Persons belonging to one of the categories mentioned above
who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent powers
and whom such powers are required to intern.
These individuals are granted full POW protections upon capture,
regardless of any allegations of misconduct.

POW Protections under Additional Protocol I (AP I)

Article 44 of AP I reinforces that any combatant who falls into the
power of an adverse party shall be considered a POW. This includes:
 Members of the armed forces, except medical and religious
personnel (AP I, Article 43).
 Combatants who distinguish themselves from the civilian
population while engaged in an attack. If this is not possible due
to the nature of hostilities, they must at least carry their
weapons openly while fighting.
Importantly, a combatant who fails to comply with these rules may
lose their combatant privilege but still retains the same protections
as a POW under GC3.
Article 45 of AP I ensures that in case of doubt regarding a person’s
POW status, they shall be treated as a POW until a competent
tribunal determines otherwise. This provision prevents arbitrary
denial of POW protections.

Case Study: Wing Commander Abhinandan Varthaman

The treatment of Wing Commander Abhinandan Varthaman by
Pakistan in 2019 serves as a contemporary example of POW
protection under GC3.
 On February 27, 2019, Wing Commander Abhinandan was
engaged in aerial combat when his MiG-21 Bison was shot
down over Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK).
 He ejected and landed in a hostile village, where he was
captured by the local population before being taken into
custody by the Pakistan Army.
 Despite initial mistreatment by civilians, Pakistan adhered to its
obligations under Article 118 of GC3, which mandates the
prompt repatriation of POWs after hostilities cease.
 However, Pakistan was criticized for violating Article 13 of GC3,
which prohibits exposing POWs to public curiosity, when they
released videos of his interrogation and capture.
 On March 1, 2019, Abhinandan was repatriated via the Wagah
Border.
This case demonstrates both compliance and violation of GC3 by
Pakistan. While they ultimately released Abhinandan in accordance
with GC3, their dissemination of footage showcasing his capture and
interrogation violated the Convention’s provisions.

Humane Treatment and Rights of POWs

Beginning and End of POW Protections
Under Article 5 of GC3, POW protections begin the moment they fall
into the hands of the enemy state and continue until their final
release and repatriation.
Prohibition of Mistreatment (GC3, Articles 12-17)
 POWs are in the hands of the enemy state, not the capturing
military unit, making the detaining state responsible for their
treatment.
 They must be treated humanely at all times, with protection
from violence, intimidation, and insults.
 Physical mutilation, torture, and medical experimentation are
strictly prohibited.
 POWs must not be paraded for propaganda or exposed to
public curiosity.
Conditions of Internment (GC3, Articles 21-23)
 POWs may be interned in camps but cannot be held in close
confinement.
 Camps must be hygienic, safe, and away from combat zones.
 POWs from the same armed forces should be kept together as
much as possible.
Quarters, Food, and Medical Care (GC3, Articles 25-32)
 POWs must receive accommodation, food, and clothing
equivalent to that of the detaining state’s armed forces.
  Female POWs must be treated with special consideration.
 Medical check-ups must be conducted at least once a month.
Communication with Families (GC3, Articles 69-77)
 POWs must be allowed to communicate with their families via
letters and capture cards.
 Correspondence cannot be arbitrarily delayed or restricted.

Denial of POW Status: Spies and Mercenaries

Spies (AP I, Article 46)
 Spies do not qualify as POWs because they operate under false
identities or in secret.
 If a combatant engages in espionage and is captured, they can
be tried under the domestic laws of the detaining state.
Mercenaries (AP I, Article 47)
 Mercenaries, who fight for financial gain and are not part of a
recognized armed force, are denied POW protections.
 The legal distinction ensures that combatants who are
motivated purely by profit do not receive the same rights as
lawful combatants.

Termination of Captivity and Repatriation (GC3, Articles 109-119)

 Sick and wounded POWs must be repatriated without delay.
 Upon cessation of hostilities, all POWs must be released and
returned home.
 POWs must not be forcibly recruited into the detaining
power’s military forces.
Conclusion
The protection of POWs under GC3 and AP I represents a
cornerstone of International Humanitarian Law, ensuring that
captured combatants are treated with dignity and respect. The legal
framework aims to balance military necessity with humanitarian
considerations, prohibiting mistreatment while allowing detention
under humane conditions. Despite the well-established laws,
violations still occur, highlighting the need for strict enforcement
mechanisms.
The case of Wing Commander Abhinandan Varthaman illustrates
both compliance and breaches of GC3, reinforcing the importance of
upholding POW protections even in politically sensitive conflicts. In
an era where warfare is evolving, adherence to GC3 and AP I remains
essential to preserving fundamental human rights during armed
conflicts.

Expanding the content to 3000 words will require a comprehensive

discussion of various aspects of the protection of prisoners of war
(POWs) under International Humanitarian Law (IHL). Below is a fully
developed answer that includes an introduction, historical
background, legal framework, rights and protections of POWs, case
studies, challenges in enforcement, and a conclusion.

Protection of Prisoners of War (POW) under International

Humanitarian Law (IHL)
Introduction
The protection of prisoners of war (POWs) is a cornerstone of
International Humanitarian Law (IHL), ensuring the humane
treatment and rights of combatants captured during armed conflicts.
The legal framework for POW protection is primarily enshrined in the
Third Geneva Convention (GC3) of 1949, which establishes strict
obligations on detaining powers regarding the treatment,
internment, and eventual release of POWs. Additional Protocol I (AP
I) of 1977 further reinforces these protections. These legal
instruments collectively emphasize that POWs are not mere
detainees but captured combatants entitled to specific rights and
safeguards.
International law categorically prohibits the mistreatment, torture, or
execution of POWs. It also makes a clear distinction between lawful
and unlawful combatants—the former being entitled to full POW
protections, while the latter (such as mercenaries and spies) may not
be accorded the same rights. Another key distinction under IHL is
that POW status applies only in International Armed Conflicts
(IACs), not in Non-International Armed Conflicts (NIACs). If an army
soldier is captured by a rebel group in a NIAC, they are not
considered a POW under GC3. Similarly, a rebel fighter captured by a
government force in a NIAC does not receive POW status.
A notable modern example of POW treatment is the capture and
repatriation of Wing Commander Abhinandan Varthaman during the
2019 India-Pakistan conflict. His return highlighted the role of IHL in
ensuring the safety and dignified treatment of captured combatants.
The legal protections under GC3 ensure that POWs are not treated as
criminals but as individuals who were engaged in hostilities under the
laws of war.
This essay explores the historical evolution of POW protections, the
legal framework governing their rights, the challenges in
enforcement, and case studies that illustrate the real-world
application of these laws.

Historical Evolution of POW Protection in International Law

The treatment of POWs has evolved significantly over time.
Historically, captured soldiers were often enslaved, tortured, or
summarily executed. Ancient civilizations such as the Greeks and
Romans considered prisoners of war as property, often selling them
into slavery or using them as forced labor. During the Middle Ages,
ransom systems emerged, wherein noble or wealthy captives could
secure their release by paying a sum of money.
The first formal international attempt to regulate the treatment of
POWs came with the Lieber Code (1863) during the American Civil
War. This military code introduced the principle that POWs should be
treated humanely and should not be executed or mistreated. The
Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 built upon these ideas, laying
down guidelines on the treatment of prisoners, their conditions of
internment, and the obligation of captors to provide for their well-
being.
However, the real breakthrough in POW protection came with the
Geneva Conventions:
 The 1929 Geneva Convention on the Treatment of Prisoners of
War provided a detailed framework for humane treatment.
 The Third Geneva Convention of 1949 (GC3) expanded these
protections significantly after the atrocities of World War II.
 Additional Protocol I (1977) further reinforced these provisions
by extending protections to certain non-traditional combatants.
Through these developments, modern international law has
established a robust framework ensuring that POWs are treated with
dignity and are not subjected to arbitrary punishment or
mistreatment.

Legal Framework Governing POW Protection

The Third Geneva Convention (1949)
The Third Geneva Convention (GC3) remains the primary legal
instrument governing the protection of POWs. It applies exclusively
to International Armed Conflicts (IACs) and contains 143 articles
that establish comprehensive protections.
Definition of Prisoners of War
Under Article 4 of GC3, the following categories of individuals qualify
as POWs:
1. Members of the armed forces of a party to the conflict,
including militias and volunteer corps.
2. Members of organized resistance movements if they fulfill the
following four conditions:
o Operate under a responsible command.
o Have a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance.
o Carry arms openly.
o Conduct operations in accordance with the laws of war.
3. Civilians accompanying the armed forces, such as war
correspondents, supply contractors, and civilian crew of military
aircraft.
4. Members of armed forces of a government not recognized by
the detaining power.
These provisions ensure that all combatants who fulfill the necessary
conditions are afforded POW status and the corresponding legal
protections.
Rights and Protections of POWs
1. Humane Treatment and Prohibition of Torture
Article 13 of GC3 mandates that POWs must always be treated
humanely and prohibits acts of violence, intimidation, or humiliation.
Torture, medical experimentation, and execution without a fair trial
are strictly forbidden.
2. Interrogation and Self-Incrimination Protections
Under Article 17, POWs are required only to provide their name,
rank, date of birth, and serial number. They cannot be forced to give
further information through coercion or torture.
3. Conditions of Internment
 Adequate food, clothing, and shelter must be provided
(Articles 25–28).
 Medical care must be ensured (Article 30).
 POWs must be protected from public curiosity (Article 13),
meaning they cannot be paraded or humiliated in media.
4. Labor Rights and Wages
Under Article 50, POWs may be required to perform labor but cannot
be assigned work directly related to the war effort. They must be
compensated fairly for their work.
5. Judicial Protections and Fair Trial Rights
POWs cannot be prosecuted for lawful participation in hostilities
(Article 99). If charged with a crime, they must receive a fair trial
under the same conditions as members of the detaining power’s
military forces (Articles 102–108).
6. Communication with the Outside World
POWs have the right to send and receive letters and must be allowed
to inform their families of their capture through the International
Committee of the Red Cross (Articles 69–74).
7. Release and Repatriation
At the end of active hostilities, POWs must be released and
repatriated without delay (Article 118). The unlawful detention of
POWs after a conflict has ended constitutes a violation of IHL.

Case Studies on POW Treatment

1. The Abhinandan Varthaman Case (India-Pakistan, 2019)
In February 2019, Wing Commander Abhinandan Varthaman of the
Indian Air Force was captured by Pakistan after his aircraft was shot
down. Despite initial mistreatment, Pakistan later followed IHL
obligations and repatriated him swiftly. His case demonstrated how
modern states are bound by the Geneva Conventions and the
diplomatic importance of adhering to IHL norms.
2. The Treatment of German and Allied POWs During WWII
During World War II, Germany’s treatment of Soviet POWs was
among the worst violations of IHL, with millions dying due to
starvation, forced labor, and executions. In contrast, German POWs in
Allied hands were treated relatively better, in accordance with the
Geneva Conventions.
3. The Iraq War and Abu Ghraib Violations (2003–2004)
The Abu Ghraib scandal exposed severe mistreatment and torture of
Iraqi detainees by U.S. personnel, violating GC3 principles. The case
led to worldwide condemnation and reinforced the importance of
legal accountability for POW mistreatment.

Challenges in Enforcement and Compliance

Despite the legal framework, violations of POW protections remain
prevalent. Some challenges include:
 Non-state armed groups refusing to follow GC3.
  Ambiguous combatant status in modern warfare.
 Political reluctance to repatriate POWs after conflicts.
 Limited enforcement mechanisms against powerful states.

Conclusion
The protection of POWs under IHL is a vital safeguard that ensures
combatants who fall into enemy hands are treated humanely, with
dignity and respect. The Third Geneva Convention establishes a
comprehensive framework, outlining the rights, obligations, and
protections of POWs. However, despite legal provisions, violations
continue to occur, highlighting the need for stronger enforcement
mechanisms. Upholding the rights of POWs is not just a legal
obligation but a moral and humanitarian imperative, ensuring that
war remains governed by principles of humanity even in its most
brutal forms.
Mix and learn.
Individuals Not Entitled to the Prisoner of War Status
Deserters and Traitors, Mercenaries,
Protection of Medical and Religious Personnel under International
Humanitarian Law
Introduction
In times of armed conflict, medical and religious personnel play an
indispensable role in ensuring both the physical well-being and
spiritual needs of war-affected individuals. Medical personnel
provide crucial healthcare services such as treating the wounded,
preventing the spread of disease, and ensuring the continued
functioning of medical facilities. Religious personnel, on the other
hand, offer essential spiritual support, conduct religious rites, and
provide last rites for the dying. Given their humanitarian roles,
International Humanitarian Law (IHL) mandates their protection,
ensuring that they can perform their duties without interference,
harm, or coercion.
The legal framework governing the protection of medical and
religious personnel is derived primarily from the Geneva
Conventions (GCs) of 1949 and their Additional Protocols (APs) of
1977. These instruments establish strict protections, granting such
personnel immunity from attack and ensuring their ability to operate
in conflict zones. The First (GC1) and Second Geneva Conventions
(GC2) contain extensive provisions regarding their respect,
protection, and assistance. The Third Geneva Convention (GC3)
guarantees protections if they are captured, while the Fourth Geneva
Convention (GC4) extends safeguards to civilian medical and religious
personnel.
The objective of these protections is twofold: first, to ensure that
wounded, sick, and shipwrecked soldiers (WSS) receive timely
medical care without discrimination, and second, to preserve the
humanitarian and religious rights of those affected by war. This
essay examines the definition of medical and religious personnel
under IHL, their protections, their status upon capture, the role of
civilians and aid societies, and the circumstances under which they
may lose their protection.

Definition of Medical Personnel Under International Humanitarian

Law
The Additional Protocol I (AP I), Article 8(c) and (e), defines medical
personnel as individuals, either military or civilian, who are
permanently or temporarily assigned by a party to the conflict to
exclusively perform medical functions. These functions include:
1. Search, collection, transportation, and treatment of the
wounded, sick, and shipwrecked (WSS).
2. Prevention of disease to ensure the overall health of
combatants and civilians.
3. Administration of medical units such as hospitals, field clinics,
and mobile medical units.
4. Operation of medical transports such as ambulances and
hospital ships.
Under IHL, the following categories qualify as protected medical
personnel:
 Military medical personnel who serve within the armed forces
of a party to the conflict.
 Civilian medical personnel who work in hospitals, clinics, or
humanitarian organizations.
 Medical personnel affiliated with Civil Defence Organizations,
as long as they exclusively perform medical functions.
  Medical personnel of recognized National Red Cross and Red
Crescent Societies, or other authorized voluntary aid
associations.
 Medical personnel attached to medical units or transports,
who provide emergency or battlefield medical assistance.
These individuals are granted special protections under IHL, ensuring
that they can perform their duties without interference, attack, or
forced participation in the conflict.

Definition of Religious Personnel Under International Humanitarian

Law
Additional Protocol I, Article 8(d) defines religious personnel as
individuals, either military or civilian, who are exclusively engaged in
the work of their ministry. Their functions include:
1. Providing spiritual support to combatants, civilians, and
detainees.
2. Performing religious services and last rites for the dying.
3. Offering moral and psychological support to individuals
affected by war.
Religious personnel may be temporarily or permanently attached to:
 Armed forces, where they serve as chaplains or religious
advisors.
 Medical units or transports, offering spiritual assistance to the
wounded and sick.
 Civil Defence Organizations, providing religious and moral
support during humanitarian crises.
Under IHL, religious personnel are entitled to the same protections
as medical personnel. They must not be attacked, taken hostage, or
forced to act against their religious principles. Their role is essential
in maintaining the morale and dignity of individuals in conflict zones.

Respect, Protection, and Assistance for Medical and Religious

Personnel
International Humanitarian Law mandates that medical and religious
personnel must be respected, protected, and assisted at all times.
This obligation is enshrined in the Geneva Conventions (GC1, GC2,
GC4) and the Additional Protocols (AP I, AP II):
1. Medical and Religious Personnel Must Be Respected and
Protected
o Articles 24, 25, and 26 of the First Geneva Convention
(GC1) state that medical and religious personnel shall be
respected and protected at all times, regardless of their
affiliation.
o Article 36 of the Second Geneva Convention (GC2)
extends these protections to medical personnel on
hospital ships.
o Article 20 of the Fourth Geneva Convention (GC4)
ensures that civilian medical personnel are also protected.
2. Rights and Privileges of Medical and Religious Personnel
o They must be granted all available assistance to perform
their duties effectively.
o They must have access to areas where their services are
essential (e.g., battlefield hospitals, detention facilities,
civilian war zones).
o They must not be required to give priority in treatment,
except on medical grounds (e.g., treating the most
critically wounded first).
 o They must not be punished for performing their
humanitarian duties, even if their assistance benefits
members of the adversary.
o They must not be forced to act against their medical
ethics or religious principles (e.g., forced to withhold
treatment or provide false medical reports).
o They must not be compelled to disclose confidential
information about the wounded and sick in their care if
such disclosure could endanger patients or their families.
These provisions ensure that medical and religious personnel can
operate without fear of coercion or retaliation.

Status of Medical and Religious Personnel Upon Capture

If medical or religious personnel are captured by an adverse party,
their legal status is governed by:
1. Article 28 of GC1 and Article 37 of GC2 – They may only be
retained if their services are required for the health and
spiritual needs of prisoners of war (POWs).
2. Hospital ships and personnel aboard them cannot be captured
under Article 36 of GC2.
3. Medical and religious personnel must continue performing
their duties while in captivity and must not be forced to
undertake any other work.
4. They are not considered POWs but must receive the same
standard of treatment as POWs under GC3.
5. If their retention is no longer necessary, they must be released
and repatriated, along with their medical equipment and
instruments.
These rules prevent the unnecessary detention of humanitarian
personnel while ensuring that POWs continue to receive medical and
religious support.

Role of Civilians and National Aid Societies

Civilians and national aid societies also have a duty to assist in
providing care to WSS. Article 18 of GC1 and Article 17 of AP I
stipulate that:
 Parties to the conflict may call upon civilians and aid
organizations to help in the collection and treatment of WSS.
 Military authorities must permit such humanitarian activities
and must not obstruct civilian aid efforts.
 No one may be punished or harassed for voluntarily assisting
WSS, regardless of the combatant’s affiliation.
 Civilians must respect WSS and commit no acts of violence
against them.
This framework ensures that humanitarian aid efforts can function
effectively in conflict zones.

Loss of Protection for Medical and Religious Personnel

Medical and religious personnel lose their special protection under
IHL if they engage in acts harmful to the enemy. However, mere
possession of weapons for self-defense does not remove their
protected status. If they take direct part in hostilities, such as
assisting in combat operations, they lose their immunity and may be
targeted as combatants.

Conclusion
The protection of medical and religious personnel under
International Humanitarian Law is an essential safeguard ensuring
that wounded, sick, and shipwrecked combatants and civilians
receive necessary care while maintaining their spiritual and moral
well-being. The Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocols impose
strict obligations on parties to a conflict to respect and assist such
personnel. However, real-world conflicts often witness violations,
necessitating stronger enforcement mechanisms. Upholding these
protections is not just a legal obligation but a humanitarian
imperative in the pursuit of ethical warfare and human dignity.
Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict
Introduction
The protection of civilians in armed conflicts is one of the
fundamental principles of international humanitarian law (IHL). The
devastation of World War II led the international community to adopt
a series of legal instruments, the most significant of which are the
Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their Additional Protocols. These
legal frameworks seek to regulate armed conflicts by establishing
rules that minimize human suffering and provide specific protections
to individuals not directly participating in hostilities. However,
despite these legal safeguards, civilians remain the primary victims of
modern warfare. The ongoing Israeli-Palestinian and Russian-
Ukrainian conflicts have resulted in tens of thousands of civilian
casualties, highlighting the urgent need for stringent enforcement of
IHL. The principles of distinction, proportionality, and precaution—
enshrined in international law—form the cornerstone of civilian
protection. Yet, violations continue to occur, raising critical questions
about the effectiveness of international mechanisms in preventing
civilian harm.
Definition of a Civilian
The term "civilian" is clearly defined under international law.
According to Article 50(1) of Additional Protocol I (AP I) to the
Geneva Conventions, a civilian is any individual who does not belong
to the armed forces of a party to the conflict. In situations where
there is doubt as to whether a person qualifies as a civilian, the
presumption under IHL is in favor of civilian status. The Third Geneva
Convention and Article 43 of AP I specifically enumerate the
categories of individuals who do not qualify as civilians, such as
members of the armed forces, organized militias, and other
combatants. Importantly, civilians lose their protection if they take
direct part in hostilities, but only for the duration of their
participation.
In non-international armed conflicts (NIACs), the definition of a
civilian is less explicitly provided. Additional Protocol II (AP II) does
not distinguish between combatants and civilians as clearly as AP I.
However, the fundamental principle remains that individuals who do
not engage in hostilities are entitled to protection. The Geneva
Conventions and their protocols ensure that civilians who do not
participate in armed confrontations are shielded from the effects of
war.
Principles of Distinction, Proportionality, and Precaution
One of the cardinal principles of IHL is the obligation to distinguish
between civilians and combatants. Article 48 of AP I mandates that
parties to a conflict must always differentiate between civilian and
military targets, ensuring that military operations are directed solely
against combatants and military objectives.
The principle of proportionality, enshrined in Article 51(5) of AP I,
prohibits attacks that cause excessive civilian harm in relation to the
anticipated military advantage. This rule seeks to prevent
disproportionate suffering by balancing military necessity with
humanitarian considerations. Indiscriminate attacks, such as carpet
bombing and large-scale bombardments of civilian-populated areas,
are explicitly prohibited.
The principle of precaution obliges warring parties to take constant
care to minimize civilian harm. Articles 57 and 58 of AP I require
armed forces to avoid locating military objectives near civilian areas
and to take all feasible measures to protect civilian populations and
objects from attack. Even in the presence of military objectives,
efforts must be made to remove civilians from harm’s way.
Protection of Civilian Populations and Objects
International humanitarian law extends its protection not only to
individuals but also to civilian objects. Article 52 of AP I prohibits
direct attacks on civilian structures, including homes, schools,
hospitals, and places of worship. The destruction of objects
indispensable to the survival of civilian populations, such as food
supplies, agricultural areas, and water sources, is also prohibited
under Articles 54 of AP I and 14 of AP II.
Special protection is granted to infrastructure containing dangerous
forces, such as dams and nuclear power plants. Even if these
structures are being used for military purposes, attacks on them are
forbidden if they pose a risk of severe civilian harm. Additionally, acts
of hostility against cultural heritage sites, historic monuments, and
places of religious significance are strictly prohibited.
Treatment of Civilians in Armed Conflicts
The humanitarian principles enshrined in the Fourth Geneva
Convention (GC IV) were largely shaped by the atrocities committed
during World War II. Civilians under the control of an adverse party
are protected from murder, torture, mutilation, and degrading
treatment. Common Article 3, which applies to both international
and non-international armed conflicts, prohibits cruel treatment,
summary executions, hostage-taking, and acts of violence against
persons who are not actively participating in hostilities.
Gender-specific protections are also recognized. Women must be
safeguarded from sexual violence, including rape, enforced
prostitution, and any form of indecent assault. Children, especially
those separated from their families, are afforded special protection
and care under international humanitarian law.
Relief and Assistance for Civilians
One of the critical aspects of civilian protection is ensuring access to
humanitarian aid. Under Article 23 of GC IV and Article 70 of AP I,
states are obligated to allow the free passage of relief supplies
intended for civilians. In cases where civilian populations in occupied
territories or conflict zones suffer from food shortages, medical
deficiencies, or other humanitarian crises, impartial relief
organizations such as the International Committee of the Red Cross
(ICRC) must be allowed to carry out their operations without
obstruction. The protection of humanitarian personnel is also a key
obligation under IHL.
Prohibition of Forced Transfers and Occupation Protections
Forced displacement of civilian populations is one of the gravest
violations of IHL. Article 49 of GC IV prohibits the forcible transfer or
deportation of civilians from occupied territories. The transfer of the
occupying power’s own population into occupied lands, as seen in
the case of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, is also explicitly
forbidden. The only exception to forced evacuations is when there is
an imperative military necessity, and even then, the displaced
civilians must be allowed to return as soon as hostilities cease.
In occupied territories, the occupying power has specific legal
responsibilities toward the civilian population. It must ensure the
provision of essential services such as food, medical care, and
hygiene. The destruction of private property, except for absolute
military necessity, is prohibited under Article 53 of GC IV.
Additionally, occupied civilians cannot be compelled to serve in the
military forces of the occupying power.
Judicial Guarantees and Special Protections
Legal protections for civilians also extend to ensuring fair treatment
under the law. Article 72 of AP I mandates that civilians accused of
crimes in conflict situations must be granted all fundamental judicial
guarantees before being sentenced. Arbitrary detention, extrajudicial
executions, and unfair trials are strictly prohibited.
The reunification of families separated by war is another key aspect
of civilian protection. Article 74 of AP I obligates states to facilitate
the reunion of dispersed families and to support humanitarian
organizations engaged in this task. Special protections are also
provided to vulnerable groups, such as women and children, under
Articles 76 to 78 of AP I.
Conclusion
The protection of civilians in armed conflicts remains one of the most
pressing challenges in modern warfare. Despite the existence of
comprehensive legal frameworks under the Geneva Conventions and
Additional Protocols, violations of international humanitarian law
continue to occur at an alarming rate. The deliberate targeting of
civilians, indiscriminate attacks, forced displacements, and blockades
of humanitarian aid demonstrate the persistent gaps in the
enforcement of these legal protections.
Ensuring compliance with international rules on civilian protection
requires greater accountability and the strengthening of enforcement
mechanisms. The role of international organizations, including the
United Nations, the International Criminal Court (ICC), and
humanitarian agencies, is crucial in holding perpetrators accountable
for war crimes. Furthermore, states must reaffirm their commitment
to upholding IHL by integrating these principles into their military
doctrines and engaging in robust diplomatic efforts to prevent civilian
harm.
As armed conflicts evolve in complexity, with non-state actors and
hybrid warfare becoming more prevalent, the international
community must adapt its strategies to reinforce civilian protections.
The growing awareness of civilian harm in conflicts is a positive
development, but it must be accompanied by concrete actions to
ensure that the principles of international humanitarian law are not
merely theoretical ideals but actively enforced norms that safeguard
human dignity in times of war.
PROTECTION OF CIVILIANS IN ARMED CONFLICT
INTRODUCTION
War and peace have long been central themes in international
relations and law. Despite efforts to promote global peace, armed
conflicts continue to persist, affecting millions of civilians worldwide.
The protection of civilians during war is a fundamental principle of
international humanitarian law (IHL), which aims to minimize human
suffering in times of conflict.
Following the devastation of World War II, the international
community adopted several conventions to protect civilians, the
most notable being the Geneva Conventions and their Additional
Protocols. These legal frameworks establish the rights of civilians and
impose obligations on warring parties to minimize civilian casualties.
However, despite these legal safeguards, civilians remain the primary
victims of armed conflicts, as seen in contemporary wars such as the
Israeli-Palestinian and Russia-Ukraine conflicts, which have resulted
in more than 50,000 civilian deaths in recent years.
As warfare evolves with advanced technology and unconventional
combat strategies, ensuring the protection of civilians has become
more challenging. This article explores the definition of civilians, core
principles of IHL, specific protections provided under international
law, and the obligations of states and combatants in safeguarding
civilian lives and property during armed conflicts.

WHO IS A CIVILIAN? – LEGAL DEFINITIONS & INTERPRETATIONS

A crucial aspect of IHL is defining who qualifies as a civilian. The
Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocol I (AP I) offer clear
guidelines.
Definition Under Additional Protocol I (AP I)
Article 50 of AP I defines a civilian as any person who does not
belong to the armed forces or take part in hostilities. If there is any
doubt about a person’s status, they are presumed to be a civilian. The
Third Geneva Convention (GC III), Article 4 further distinguishes
combatants from civilians, listing categories of individuals who do not
fall under the civilian population.
Civilians in Non-International Armed Conflicts (NIACs)
Unlike international armed conflicts (IACs), where combatants and
civilians are explicitly defined, Additional Protocol II (AP II) does not
provide a direct definition of civilians in non-international armed
conflicts (NIACs). However, under customary IHL, civilians are
understood as persons who are not directly participating in
hostilities.
Special Protections Under the Fourth Geneva Convention (GC IV)
GC IV offers additional protections to civilians, particularly those in
occupied territories. It ensures that civilians are treated humanely
and safeguarded from acts of violence, coercion, and discrimination
based on race, religion, or nationality.

CORE PRINCIPLES OF IHL IN CIVILIAN PROTECTION

1. The Principle of Distinction – AP I, Article 48
One of the fundamental rules of IHL is the distinction between
civilians and combatants and between civilian objects and military
objectives. Parties to a conflict must only direct their attacks against
combatants and military targets.
2. The Principle of Proportionality – AP I, Article 51(5)(b)
Even if an attack is directed at a legitimate military target, it must not
cause excessive incidental harm to civilians in relation to the
expected military advantage. Indiscriminate attacks, such as carpet
bombing, are prohibited under this principle.
3. The Principle of Precaution – AP I, Articles 57 & 58
Combatants must take all feasible precautions to minimize harm to
civilians. This includes:
 Avoiding military operations near densely populated areas.
 Removing civilians from the vicinity of military targets.
 Providing effective warnings before launching attacks.
4. Loss of Protection Due to Direct Participation in Hostilities – AP I,
Article 51(3)
Civilians who directly participate in hostilities lose their protections
under IHL, but only for the duration of their involvement. However,
indirect support (such as supplying food or medical aid to an armed
group) does not constitute direct participation.

PROTECTION OF CIVILIANS DURING WAR

1. Prohibition of Attacks on Civilian Populations
Under AP I, Article 51(2) and AP II, Article 13(2), civilians cannot be
targeted in military operations. Acts or threats intended to terrorize
the civilian population are explicitly prohibited.
2. Banning of Indiscriminate Attacks
Indiscriminate attacks violate the principle of distinction and include:
 Mass bombardment of populated areas.
 Attacks expected to cause disproportionate harm to civilians
compared to the military advantage gained.
3. Prohibition of Human Shields
Under AP I, Article 51(7), using civilians as human shields to deter
attacks on military targets is strictly prohibited.
4. Prohibition of Reprisals Against Civilians
Even if one party violates IHL, reprisals against civilians are forbidden
under AP I, Article 51(6).

PROTECTION OF CIVILIAN OBJECTS

1. Civilian Infrastructure & Essential Supplies
AP I, Article 52, prohibits attacks on civilian objects such as homes,
schools, hospitals, and places of worship.
 Under AP I, Article 54, and AP II, Article 14, destroying or
removing food, water, and medical supplies to starve civilians
as a method of warfare is prohibited.
 Dams and nuclear power plants (AP I, Article 56) cannot be
attacked if doing so would unleash dangerous forces on
civilians.
2. Cultural Property & Historic Monuments
AP I, Article 53, and AP II, Article 16, prohibit attacks against
historical monuments, works of art, and places of worship that form
part of a people’s cultural or spiritual heritage.

TREATMENT OF CIVILIANS IN OCCUPIED TERRITORIES

1. Protection Against Forced Transfers & Deportations
GC IV, Article 49, prohibits the forcible transfer or deportation of
civilians by an occupying power. Examples include:
 The forced relocation of Ukrainian children to Russia.
 The establishment of Israeli settlements in the West Bank.
2. Protection Against Exploitation
Occupying powers must ensure civilians are not:
  Forced to serve in their military (GC IV, Article 51).
 Deprived of food and medical care (GC IV, Article 54).
3. Maintenance of Public Health & Hygiene
Under GC IV, Article 56, occupying powers must ensure the provision
of healthcare, sanitation, and medical supplies to occupied
populations.

RELIEF AND HUMANITARIAN AID FOR CIVILIANS

1. Free Passage of Relief Supplies
States must allow humanitarian aid to reach civilians in need, even if
the affected state is an adversary (GC IV, Article 23).
2. Role of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC)
Organizations like the ICRC and Red Cross Societies are authorized to
provide relief and medical care to civilians (GC IV, Article 63).
3. Protection of Civil Defense Organizations
Under AP I, Articles 61-67, civil defense teams involved in rescue and
relief work must be respected and protected.

CONCLUSION
The protection of civilians remains one of the most pressing
challenges in modern warfare. Despite the existence of international
humanitarian law, violations continue to occur, often leaving civilians
vulnerable to death, injury, displacement, and destruction of their
homes. The international community must reinforce compliance
with these laws through stronger enforcement mechanisms,
accountability measures, and diplomatic efforts.
The shift from passively acknowledging civilian suffering to actively
preventing it is a positive development. However, sustained
international efforts are required to ensure that civilians—who are
the most innocent and affected by war—are shielded from its brutal
consequences. With the continued application and evolution of IHL,
we move closer to a world where war, though still present, does not
indiscriminately destroy civilian lives.
Protection of Women in Armed Conflicts: A Legal and Humanitarian
Perspective
I. Introduction
Throughout history, the role of women in warfare has largely been
overlooked. Before the outbreak of World War I, women's
participation in armed conflicts was minimal, leading to the absence
of specific legal provisions for their protection. However, this does
not mean that women were devoid of any legal safeguards.
International humanitarian law (IHL) from its inception granted
women the same general protections as men. The 1864 Geneva
Convention provided safeguards for the wounded, including women,
while the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 ensured protection
for female prisoners of war (POWs).
The shift towards recognizing the unique vulnerabilities of women in
war began in 1929 when the Geneva Convention relative to the
Treatment of Prisoners of War was adopted. This change was
prompted by the substantial involvement of women in World War I,
necessitating special legal provisions to address their specific needs
and risks.
International humanitarian law has since evolved to afford extensive
protections to women, addressing issues ranging from humane
treatment of female combatants and POWs to the safeguarding of
civilians against sexual violence and discrimination. The Geneva
Conventions and their Additional Protocols, along with other
international legal frameworks, now serve as robust mechanisms to
protect women in war, yet challenges remain in their effective
implementation.
II. Protection of Women in Armed Conflicts Under International
Humanitarian Law
1. Protection of Wounded, Sick, and Shipwrecked Women
Under international humanitarian law, all wounded, sick, and
shipwrecked (WSS) individuals, regardless of gender, must be
respected, protected, and treated humanely without discrimination.
However, female WSS are entitled to additional considerations in
recognition of their physiological and medical needs. The First and
Second Geneva Conventions (GC I & GC II, Article 12) explicitly
mandate that women be treated with all the regard due to their sex.
2. Protection of Women as Prisoners of War (POWs)
Female prisoners of war are entitled to fair and humane treatment,
with specific safeguards in place to ensure their dignity and security:
 They must receive treatment at least equal to that of male
POWs (GC III, Article 14).
 If detained in mixed-gender camps, they must have separate
dormitories, showers, and toilets (GC III, Articles 25, 29).
 Women cannot be subjected to harsher punishments than men
for committing the same offense (GC III, Article 88).
 Disciplinary or judicial imprisonment of female POWs must take
place in separate quarters supervised by women (GC III,
Articles 97, 108).
 Pregnant POWs or those with infants should be transferred to
neutral countries instead of remaining in captivity (GC III,
Article 110).
3. Protection of Women as Civilians
Women, as part of the civilian population, enjoy comprehensive legal
protections during armed conflicts. Various provisions under the
Fourth Geneva Convention (GC IV) and its Additional Protocols
specifically address the needs of female civilians:
 Safety Zones for Pregnant Women & Mothers: Parties to
conflict can establish hospital and safety zones to protect
 pregnant women and mothers of young children (GC IV,
Article 14).
 Priority Evacuations: Local agreements should be made to
remove pregnant women and other vulnerable groups from
besieged areas (GC IV, Article 17).
 Protection of Maternity Cases: Vehicles, ships, and aircraft
carrying pregnant women or new mothers must be respected
and protected as hospitals (GC IV, Article 21).
 Supplies for Expectant Mothers: Free passage of food,
medicine, and essentials for children under 15 and expectant
mothers must be allowed (GC IV, Article 23).
 Protection Against Sexual Violence: Women in enemy hands
must be protected against rape, forced prostitution, and
indecent assault (GC IV, Article 27).
 Preferential Treatment: Pregnant women and mothers of
children below seven must receive the same preferential
treatment as nationals of the detaining state (GC IV, Article
38(4)).
4. Internment of Female Civilians in Occupied Territories
Women who are interned during wartime must receive protections
ensuring their safety and dignity:
 If interned, they must be kept with their families or in separate
facilities from men (GC IV, Articles 76, 85).
 Pregnant and nursing women in internment must receive extra
food and medical care (GC IV, Articles 89, 91).
 If feasible, the occupying state must send pregnant internees
to neutral countries (GC IV, Article 132).
III. Additional Protocols: Strengthening Women’s Protection
1. Additional Protocol I (International Armed Conflicts - IAC)
 Women shall be protected from rape, forced prostitution, and
any form of indecent assault (AP I, Article 76).
 Pregnant women and mothers with infants in detention must
have their cases prioritized (AP I, Article 76).
 To the maximum extent feasible, death sentences shall not be
imposed or executed on pregnant women or mothers with
dependent infants (AP I, Article 76).
2. Additional Protocol II (Non-International Armed Conflicts - NIAC)
 Detained women must be kept with their families or in
separate quarters supervised by women (AP II, Article 5).
 Death penalty shall not be executed on pregnant women or
mothers of young children (AP II, Article 6).
IV. Wartime Sexual Violence: A Disturbing Reality
Despite the legal protections enshrined in IHL, history has witnessed
horrific wartime sexual violence against women, including:
 The Rape of Nanking & Comfort Women (WWII)
 Mass atrocities during the Bangladesh Liberation War (1971)
 Sexual violence in the Yugoslav Civil War (1990s)
 Genocide and rape in Rwanda (1994)
 Atrocities by the Lord’s Resistance Army (Uganda)
 Widespread sexual slavery by Daesh against Yazidi women
These violations highlight the persistent challenges in enforcing legal
protections for women in war zones.
V. The Role of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC)
During World War II, the ICRC sought to enforce protections for
female POWs and internees. In 1944, when the Polish army
surrendered, female auxiliary personnel were supposed to be
recognized as POWs under the Geneva Convention, but Germany
failed to honor these obligations. The ICRC made urgent
representations to German authorities but faced limited success.
Governments such as the United States and France responded
positively to the ICRC's requests and took measures to repatriate
German female POWs, prioritizing expectant mothers and the sick.
VI. Conclusion
International humanitarian law provides comprehensive and specific
protections for women in armed conflicts. The Geneva Conventions
and Additional Protocols outline extensive safeguards, covering
POWs, civilians, and detainees, while also addressing sexual
violence and discrimination.
Despite these legal provisions, women remain highly vulnerable in
conflict zones due to failures in implementation and enforcement.
Systematic rape, sexual slavery, and other gender-based violence
persist in many conflicts, demonstrating a critical gap between legal
theory and ground reality.
Moving forward, stronger enforcement mechanisms, accountability
for war crimes, and increased global advocacy are essential to
ensure that women are truly protected in armed conflicts, not just
in law, but in practice.

Protection of Women in Armed Conflicts: A Legal and Historical

Perspective
I. Introduction: The Evolution of Women’s Protection in War
For centuries, wars were perceived as a male-dominated domain,
with women largely absent from active combat. Consequently, the
need for special legal protections for women in war remained
overlooked until World War I. However, the rise in female
participation—both as combatants and victims—highlighted their
vulnerability and necessitated specific legal safeguards.
Despite this, international humanitarian law (IHL) has long extended
general protections to women. The 1864 Geneva Convention for the
Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded in Armies in the
Field ensured that wounded women, like men, received medical care.
The Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 further guaranteed
humane treatment for prisoners of war (POWs), including women.
However, it was not until the 1929 Geneva Convention relative to
the Treatment of Prisoners of War that explicit protections for
women emerged. The increasing role of women in the First World
War (1914-1918) exposed them to unique dangers, necessitating
special provisions to account for their physiological and social
vulnerabilities.
II. Protection of Women under International Humanitarian Law
1. Wounded, Sick, and Shipwrecked Women: A Humanitarian
Obligation
International law mandates equal treatment for all wounded, sick,
and shipwrecked individuals, irrespective of sex. However, the First
and Second Geneva Conventions (GC1 and GC2) impose an
additional obligation to treat female patients with due regard to their
sex.
A notable case highlighting the vulnerability of wounded women is
the Siege of Sarajevo (1992-1996) during the Bosnian War. Women in
hospitals were often left without adequate medical supplies, and
reports indicated that some were deliberately targeted in attacks on
medical facilities. The Fourth Geneva Convention (GC4, Art. 16)
emphasizes the necessity of prioritizing care for pregnant women
and those with infants.
2. Women Prisoners of War: Gender-Specific Protections
The Third Geneva Convention (GC3) recognizes the unique
challenges faced by female POWs:
 Separate Living Quarters: If men and women are held in the
same POW camp, the law mandates separate dormitories,
showers, and toilets (GC3, Art. 25, 29).
 Non-Discriminatory Punishments: Female POWs cannot
receive harsher punishments than their male counterparts for
the same offense (GC3, Art. 88).
 Preferential Treatment for Mothers: Pregnant POWs or those
with infants should, if possible, be sent to neutral countries
(GC3, Art. 110).
A harrowing example of the mistreatment of female POWs is the case
of Soviet women soldiers captured by Nazi Germany during World
War II. Despite the Geneva Conventions, these women were
subjected to forced labor and mass executions. The Nuremberg Trials
later revealed systematic violations of humanitarian law against
them.
3. Protection of Female Civilians in Conflict Zones
Women civilians bear the brunt of wartime atrocities. The Fourth
Geneva Convention (GC4) and Additional Protocols I & II establish
safeguards, particularly for pregnant women, mothers, and those
subjected to sexual violence. Key provisions include:
 Hospital and Safety Zones: Countries must create zones for the
protection of expectant mothers and mothers of young children
(GC4, Art. 14).
  Protection from Sexual Violence: Women are explicitly
safeguarded from rape, enforced prostitution, and indecent
assault (GC4, Art. 27).
 Special Consideration for Interned Women: If a female civilian
is interned, she must be housed separately from men or with
her family (GC4, Art. 76, 85).
Case Study: The Rwandan Genocide (1994)
During the Rwandan Genocide, Jean-Paul Akayesu, the mayor of
Taba, was convicted by the International Criminal Tribunal for
Rwanda (ICTR) for crimes against humanity, including the use of rape
as a weapon of war. His case set a precedent by recognizing sexual
violence as a distinct war crime under international law.
4. Additional Protocols: Strengthening Women’s Protection
The Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions further reinforce
safeguards:
 Pregnant Women and the Death Penalty: To the maximum
extent feasible, parties to a conflict should avoid sentencing
pregnant women or mothers with dependent infants to death
(AP1, Art. 76).
 Special Detention Provisions: If women are detained during a
non-international armed conflict (NIAC), they must be held
separately from men and under female supervision (AP2, Art.
5).
Case Study: The Comfort Women of World War II
One of the most egregious violations of these principles was the
Japanese military’s enslavement of "Comfort Women"—thousands
of women from Korea, China, and Southeast Asia who were forced
into sexual slavery during World War II. Despite clear prohibitions in
the Geneva Conventions against sexual violence, justice for many of
these women was only partially achieved decades later through court
rulings and government acknowledgments.
III. Wartime Sexual Violence: A Recurring Tragedy
Despite robust legal frameworks, women in war zones continue to
face heinous sexual violence. Examples include:
 The Rape of Nanking (1937): Thousands of Chinese women
were raped and killed by Japanese soldiers.
 Bangladesh Liberation War (1971): Over 200,000 women were
subjected to mass sexual violence by West Pakistani forces.
 The Yugoslav Civil War (1990s): Systematic rape was used as a
weapon against Bosniak women by Serbian nationalists.
 Daesh Atrocities Against Yazidi Women (2014): ISIS engaged in
the mass enslavement and sexual exploitation of Yazidi women.
The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY)
and ICTR have prosecuted wartime sexual violence as a crime against
humanity, reinforcing legal protections.
IV. Role of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC)
The ICRC has historically played a crucial role in advocating for female
victims of war:
 World War II: The ICRC intervened on behalf of Polish female
POWs, urging Germany to respect their rights.
 Modern Conflicts: The ICRC continues to monitor and report
gender-based violence in conflicts like Syria and Sudan.
V. Conclusion: The Gap Between Law and Reality
While international humanitarian law provides extensive protections
for women, enforcement remains a significant challenge. The Geneva
Conventions and Additional Protocols contain over 40 specific
provisions addressing women’s vulnerabilities. However, despite
these legal safeguards, women continue to be among the primary
victims of armed conflicts, subjected to violence, displacement, and
exploitation.
The failure to uphold these laws is not due to legal deficiencies but
rather a lack of political will, enforcement mechanisms, and
accountability. Recent convictions of war criminals like Dominic
Ongwen (Uganda’s Lord’s Resistance Army) and Omar al-Bashir
(Sudan’s Darfur conflict) indicate progress, but much remains to be
done.
Moving forward, stronger implementation, increased awareness,
and global cooperation are crucial to ensuring that the promises of
international humanitarian law translate into real protection for
women in war.

PROTECTION OF CHILDREN
Got it! I'll refine the headings to align with International
Humanitarian Law (IHL) terminology while maintaining a logical flow
and incorporating legal depth, case studies, and enforcement
challenges. Here's the improved version:

Protection of Children in Armed Conflict under International

Humanitarian Law
"War is young men dying and old men talking." - Franklin D.
Roosevelt
Among the many tragedies of war, the suffering of children stands
out as one of the most profound. Innocent and vulnerable, they
often become collateral damage in conflicts they neither
understand nor participate in. International Humanitarian Law (IHL)
has, therefore, developed a comprehensive legal framework to
safeguard children from the horrors of war. This paper explores the
intricate legal protections available for children during armed
conflicts, highlighting key treaties, real-world cases, and the
challenges in enforcement.

"Children are the primary victims of war, yet they are the least
responsible for it."
Armed conflicts inflict disproportionate harm on children, violating
their fundamental rights and exposing them to violence,
displacement, and exploitation. Recognizing their vulnerability,
International Humanitarian Law (IHL) establishes a special protective
regime for children, ensuring their safety, access to humanitarian aid,
and exemption from direct participation in hostilities. Despite these
safeguards, violations persist, highlighting enforcement challenges
and the urgent need for stronger accountability mechanisms. This
paper examines the legal framework governing the protection of
children in armed conflict, its implementation, and notable case
studies that illustrate both progress and failures in safeguarding their
rights.

IHL Status of Children as Protected Persons under the Geneva

Conventions
Children in armed conflict are classified as protected persons under
IHL, entitling them to special safeguards. Article 4 of the Fourth
Geneva Convention (GC IV) provides that civilians, including children,
who find themselves in the hands of a party to the conflict of which
they are not nationals, are protected under the Convention. Article
77 of Additional Protocol I (AP I) further reinforces that children shall
be the object of special respect and protection from any form of
indecent assault.
The case of Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo (ICC, 2012)
demonstrated how violations of this protection are prosecuted.
Lubanga, a former warlord in the Democratic Republic of Congo, was
convicted for the recruitment and use of child soldiers under Article
8(2)(b)(xxvi) of the Rome Statute, reinforcing that the protection of
children is a peremptory norm under IHL.

Prohibition of Direct Participation in Hostilities and Recruitment of

Child Soldiers
The recruitment and use of children in hostilities constitute a grave
breach of IHL. Article 77(2) of AP I and Article 4(3)(c) of Additional
Protocol II (AP II) categorically prohibit states and non-state armed
groups from enlisting children under 15 years into armed forces. The
Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on
the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict (OPAC, 2000) raises
this age to 18 for non-state actors.
The Charles Taylor Case (Special Court for Sierra Leone, 2012) set a
historic precedent by convicting the former Liberian president for
aiding and abetting the recruitment of child soldiers. The case
reinforced that both state and non-state actors can be held
accountable for war crimes involving children.

Evacuation, Humanitarian Access, and Relief Operations for Child

Protection
Ensuring children’s access to humanitarian aid is a fundamental
obligation under IHL. Article 23 of GC IV mandates that warring
parties allow the free passage of relief consignments intended for
children. Article 70 of AP I and Article 18 of AP II further emphasize
the duty to ensure unimpeded humanitarian access to children in
besieged or occupied territories.
A landmark example was the ICRC-led humanitarian corridors during
the Bosnian War (1992-1995), where relief organizations successfully
evacuated children from the siege of Sarajevo, despite persistent
violations by parties to the conflict. This underscores both the
effectiveness of IHL protections and the difficulty of enforcement in
protracted wars.

Establishment of Neutralized Zones and Safe Areas for Children

Under Article 14 of GC IV, parties to a conflict may establish
Neutralized Zones to shelter vulnerable civilians, including children,
from the effects of hostilities. Similarly, Article 24 of GC IV
encourages the creation of Hospital and Safety Zones to protect
children under 15, expectant mothers, and the wounded.
The failure of these protections was tragically evident in the
Rwandan Genocide (1994), where thousands of children seeking
refuge in designated safe zones were massacred due to the collapse
of international enforcement mechanisms. The case highlighted the
critical role of peacekeeping forces and international oversight in
ensuring the effectiveness of IHL protections.

Protection of Children Against Forced Displacement and Family

Separation
Forced displacement disproportionately affects children, often
resulting in separation from their families. Article 49 of GC IV
prohibits the forcible transfer or deportation of civilians, while
Article 74 of AP I imposes an obligation on states to facilitate the
reunification of families separated by conflict.
During the Kosovo War (1998-1999), the ICRC played a crucial role in
tracing and reuniting thousands of displaced children with their
families using Red Cross Messages (RCMs) and its Central Tracing
Agency. This demonstrated the effectiveness of IHL mechanisms
when properly implemented.

Legal Safeguards for Children in Detention and Occupied Territories

Children in conflict zones are often detained under security laws,
raising concerns about their treatment. Article 76 of GC IV mandates
that detained children be treated with special consideration, and
Article 89 of GC IV requires additional food and medical care for
minors. Article 37 of the CRC further prohibits life imprisonment or
capital punishment for child detainees.
A concerning example is the detention of Palestinian minors in
Israeli military prisons, which has been widely criticized for violating
IHL protections. Reports indicate that children as young as 12 have
been subjected to prolonged administrative detention,
demonstrating the challenges of enforcing IHL in asymmetric
conflicts.

Prosecution and Accountability for War Crimes Against Children

Grave breaches of IHL affecting children—such as their recruitment,
torture, or unlawful killing—constitute war crimes under Article 8 of
the Rome Statute. The International Criminal Court (ICC), Special
Courts, and Ad Hoc Tribunals play a vital role in ensuring
accountability.
The Myanmar Case (ICJ, 2020) brought before the International
Court of Justice accused the state of failing to protect Rohingya
children from mass killings, forced displacement, and recruitment by
armed groups. The case emphasized the need for state responsibility
and international oversight in preventing crimes against children.
Challenges in Enforcement and the Role of International
Organizations
Despite a robust legal framework, enforcing IHL protections for
children remains a challenge due to:
 Non-compliance by non-state armed groups, which are not
always bound by treaties.
 Lack of political will from states to prosecute violations
domestically.
 Difficulties in monitoring conflict zones, particularly in civil
wars or insurgencies.
International organizations like the ICRC, UNICEF, and UN Special
Representative for Children and Armed Conflict play a crucial role in
documenting violations, negotiating access, and advocating for
stronger enforcement mechanisms.

Conclusion: Strengthening IHL Protections for Children in Armed

Conflict
Children are among the most vulnerable in armed conflicts, and their
protection under IHL is a legal and moral imperative. While the
Geneva Conventions, Additional Protocols, and ICC prosecutions have
strengthened safeguards, enforcement challenges persist. Future
efforts should focus on:
1. Enhancing international monitoring mechanisms to ensure
compliance.
2. Holding both state and non-state actors accountable for
violations.
3. Expanding humanitarian access and protections for displaced
children.
Ultimately, the effectiveness of IHL depends not just on legal
provisions but on the political will of the international community to
uphold and enforce these protections. The fate of children in war is
not merely a legal issue—it is a test of our collective humanity.

Cultural property
http://www.worldlii.org/int/journals/ISILYBIHRL/2001/4.html