white black legal international law journal ISSN: 2581-8503

Peer-Reviewed Journal | Indexed at Manupatra, HeinOnline, Google Scholar & ROAD





LL.B. 3 YEARS (2021 – 2024)

 ENROLMENT NO: A8156121028




S. No.         Topics                                                                             


  1. Abstract.                                                                                                           
  2. Introduction.                                                                                                     
  3. Definition and meaning.                                                                                  
  4. International humanitarian law and international human rights law.              
  5. Historical development of humanitarian law.                                                  
  6. Challenges.                                                                                                         
  7. Suggestions.                                                                                                       
  8. Conclusion.                                                                                                        
  9. Bibliography.                                                                                                     



Today, wars, armed conflicts, confrontation, and power struggles pose a threat to humanity, resulting in a variety of sociolegal, economic, political, and humanitarian issues. The magnitude of the effects that annealed conflicts have on the human race necessitates prompt action on the part of governments, international organizations, and individuals. The international community must now be made aware of the incalculable suffering of armed conflict victims.

Human displacement on a microscale and refugee issues are harrowing and pitiful when violence occurs through armed conflicts in all of their forms. Scenes of woe and fierceness the like of which no eye had seen, heart imagined nor human tongue could satisfactorily tell unfurl before countries difficulties to adapt to which the worldwide instrumentalities are endeavoring. A strong will to enforce humanitarian laws is necessary for global victory for human happiness. We are merely at the edge. We still have far to go.

When the end of war and the embrace of peace become a reality, the best days of cosmic law are here. The Geneva Conventions and the Additional Protocols, like all international treaties, are products of their time. They mirror the perspectives on their period about the idea of war, and the worries and arrangements of contemporary worldwide legislative issues. The nature of rmed conflicts has changed significantly since the laws of war were last updated in 1977.

Most as of late, there has been the U.S. crusade against worldwide psychological oppression, which has upset a significant number of the suppositions on which global philanthropic regulation has generally refreshed.

Now is the time to reexamine the principles of international humanitarian law. Because of the ever-changing nature of armed conflict, the Geneva Conventions are unable to address much of the organized violence that exists today, and even when they do, some of their own inherent flaws are particularly exposed.


Keywords: International Humanitarian Laws, Armed conflicts, The Geneva Conventions and their Protocols, Challenges faced today, Suggestions to overcome.




The rules that, during times of armed conflict, aim to protect people who are not or are no longer participating in the hostilities and limit the methods and means of warfare employed are referred to as international humanitarian law. International humanitarian law is a significant component of public international law. More definitively, what the ICRC implies by worldwide philanthropic regulation pertinent in furnished clashes is global settlement or standard guidelines which are extraordinarily planned to determine matters of philanthropic concern emerging straightforwardly from outfitted clashes, whether of a worldwide or non-international nature. These rules limit the parties to a conflict's ability to use their preferred methods of warfare and protect people and property that have been or are likely to be affected by the conflict for humanitarian reasons.[1]

International human rights law and humanitarian law go hand in hand. Although from different perspectives, both strive to safeguard individuals' lives, health, and dignity. Human rights, or at least some of them, always protect the individual, in both war and peace. Humanitarian law only applies in armed conflict. However, governments can deviate from certain rights under certain human rights treaties in times of public emergency. The International Humanitarian Law (IHL) was created for emergency situations, specifically during armed conflict, so the international community does not permit derogation. Philanthropic regulation is to secure individuals who don't or are partaking in threats. All parties to a conflict are bound by the IHL rules. Every human being is entitled to human rights, which were designed primarily for peacetime. Their head objective is to shield people from erratic ways of behaving by their own state-run administrations. Therefore, hostilities are not covered by human rights law.

The gatherings to a contention must consistently recognize the regular citizen populace and warriors to save the non-military personnel populace, what's more, non-military personnel property. Individual civilians as well as the civilian population cannot be attacked. It is possible to launch attacks only against military targets. Respect for one's life and one's mental and physical well-being is owed to those who cannot or will not participate in war.



These people must always be protected and treated with humanity, without any unfair distinctions. It is prohibited to kill or wound an enemy who gives up or who can never again participate in battling. The parties to the conflict as well as members of their armed forces do not have an unlimited right to choose how to fight. It is against the law to use weapons or tactics of war that are likely to result in excessive suffering or unnecessary losses. The party to the conflict that holds power must gather the sick and wounded and provide for them.

There must be no damage to medical facilities, personnel, or equipment. The distinctive sign that these people and things must be respected is the red cross or red crescent on a white background. Civilians and captured combatants who are under the authority of the opposing side are entitled to respect for their lives, dignity, personal rights, and political, religious, and other beliefs. They must be shielded from any violence or retaliation.

They are entitled to receive aid and communication with their families. They must have access to basic legal protections. In the name of "military necessity," states frequently break these rules, but the civilized international community is unlikely to ever accept such violations.

The wounded and ill combatants, the medical personnel who treat them, the shelters they use, and the equipment they use are all protected by the First Geneva Convention. regulates the use of the emblems of the Red Cross and Red Crescent. The Second Geneva Convention regulates the conditions under which shipwrecks can be assisted and provides protection for them. Prisoners of the armed forces are safeguarded by the Third Geneva Convention. lays out the rules for how they will be treated and the detaining authority's rights and responsibilities. The Fourth Geneva Convention lays out the guidelines administering the security of the non- military personnel populace, specifically the treatment of regular citizens in involved region, those determined of their freedom, and occupation overall. Protocol I restrict the means and methods of warfare and expands the protection provided to civilians. The fundamental safeguards for individuals who do not participate in hostilities during a non-international armed conflict are outlined in Protocol II, as are guidelines for protecting civilians and vital infrastructure. India has ratified the Geneva Conventions and adopted the Geneva Convention Act of 1960 to incorporate them into its domestic law.




A subfield of international law known as "law of nations" is known as "international humanitarian law." States, as members of the international community, are subject to this law. All states must abide by the fundamental rules of international law, which is supranational. International humanitarian law is also referred to as the law of armed conflict and was previously referred to as the law of war. Their objectives are to maintain peace, to safeguard human life in a fair manner, and to advance social progress in freedom. International humanitarian law aims to lessen the effects of war by requiring the aggressor to spare those who do not or no longer participate in hostile actions and by restricting the options available for military operations.

International Humanitarian Law (IHL), more commonly referred to as the laws of war, the laws and customs of war, or the law of armed conflict, is the legal corpus "comprised of the Geneva Conventions and the Hague Conventions, as well as subsequent treaties, case law, and customary international law."[2] The methods and means of warfare or their choice or protected persons and property that are, or may be, It specifies the responsibilities and conduct of belligerent nations, neutral nations, and individuals engaged in war in relation to one another and to protected persons, which typically refers to civilians.

The term "the human rights component of the law of war"[3] can be used to describe International Humanitarian Law, which is the part of human rights law that applies to international armed conflict and, in some cases, even to non-international armed conflict. Compared to international human rights law, international humanitarian law is much older.[4]

Philanthropic regulation is that impressive part of worldwide regulation which is propelled by the inclination for humankind and is focused on the assurance of the person in season of war.


The concepts of law and morality, as well as humanitarian concern, are combined in the concept            of "humanitarian law."[5]




Although from different perspectives, the goals of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) and International Human Rights Law (IHRL) are to safeguard individuals' lives, health, and dignity. Therefore, it should not come as a surprise that, despite their very different formations, some of the rules are similar in essence if they are different. The two bodies of law, for instance, aim to protect human life, prohibit cruel or torturous treatment, establish fundamental rights for people who go through the criminal justice system, forbid discrimination, protect women and children, and regulate aspects of the right to food and health.[6] The conduct of hostilities, the status of combatants and prisoners of war, and the safeguarding of the emblems of the Red Cross and Red Crescent are just a few of the issues that fall under the purview of the IHL rules. Essentially, IHRL manages viewpoints of life in peacetime that are not controlled by IHL, for example, opportunity of the press, the right to gathering, to cast a ballot and to strike.[7] Philanthropic regulation applies in circumstance of furnished struggle, while basic liberties, or possibly some of them, safeguard the person consistently, in war and harmony the same. However, governments can deviate from certain rights under certain human rights treaties in times of public emergency. Because it was designed for emergency situations, specifically armed conflict, the IHR does not allow for any exceptions.

People whose participation in hostilities has stopped or is no longer taking place are the target of humanitarian law. All parties involved in a dispute are subject to the IHL's rules. Everyone is entitled to human rights, which were designed primarily for peacetime. Protecting individuals from the arbitrary actions of their own governments is their primary objective.


The conduct of hostilities is not covered by human rights legislation.









The accomplishments of nineteenth century Europe should be seen against this rich verifiable foundation. International humanitarian law as it exists today can be directly traced back to two individuals, Henry Dunant and Francis Lieber, who shared a traumatic wartime experience. Dunant and Lieber both built on a concept that Jean-Jacques Rousseau presented in the social contract in 1762: According to Rousseau's logic, "war is in no way a relationship of man but a relationship between states, in which individuals are enemies by accident, not as men, but as soldiers...", soldiers might not be fought if they are fighting each other. When they set out their weapons “they again become simple men"[8]. They must not lose their lives.

Thus, Rousseau summarized the fundamental principle of international humanitarian law, namely that a bellicose attack may never have the objective of physically eliminating the adversary. He does this by laying the groundwork for the distinction that will be made between combatants, or members of the fighting force, and the remaining citizens of an enemy state, or civilians who are not participating in the conflict, on the other hand.[9] The utilization of power is allowed just against the previous, since the motivation behind war is to conquered foe military, not to obliterate a foe country. But individual soldiers can be hit with force.

As a result, the intellectual groundwork for the 19th-century revival of international humanitarian law was laid. Henry Dunant could expand on it. In his book, A Memory of Solferino[10], he didn't stay to such an extent on the way that injured officers were abused or exposed individuals killed. He was profoundly stunned by the shortfall of any type of help for the injured and kicking the bucket. As a result, he suggested two concrete actions that required immediate action: a peaceful accord on the balance of medical staff in the field, and the production of a super durable association for useful help to the conflict injured. The first led to the initial adoption of the Geneva Convention in 1864, which ushered in several significant advancements in humanitarian law.

  • 1906 - The Geneva Convention for the Improvement of the Health of Wounded and Sick Soldiers in Field Armies
  • 1907 - The tenth Hague Convention to adapt the Geneva Convention's principles to maritime warfare.
  • 1929 - The two Geneva Conventions in 1929; one covering something very similar ground as the Show of 1864 and 1906; the other comparative with the treatment of prisoner of war.
  • 1949 - Four Geneva Conventions on the protection of war victims. The first and third are rewritten versions of the conventions from 1929; the second is a rewrite of the tenth Hague Convention from 1907; and the fourth is a new one that addresses the protection of civilians during war.
  • 1977 - Two Protocols to the Geneva Convention, one for international armed conflict victims' protection and the other for non-international armed conflict victims' protection.

The majority of the provisions of the Convention that enshrine the law of war have been ratified by almost all nations. However, this clause was taken for granted prior to the start of the First World War, and as a result, it came to be regarded as outdated. It was invoked in vain by the attorneys of several defendants who were accused of major war crimes at Nuremberg. In its decision, the international military tribunal said that the rules in the Geneva and Hague conventions had become so ingrained in people's minds that they should be considered fundamental international law that applies to all nations, regardless of whether they are formally parties to them. It is important to note that the UN General Assembly unanimously recognized the Nuremberg Law as a subfield of general international law during its first session. Since almost every nation in the world is now bound by the 1949 conventions, the Nuremberg tribunal's opinion regarding how to apply the conventions before World War II may also apply to them.

It was understood that furnished contentions whatever their temperament of category, occurred inspite of all endeavors to ban them, and that, further-more, the UN Contract conceded plan of action to drive in specific circumstances for instance, acting to support or reestablish harmony by temperance of a security gathering choice, with good reason, or based on the guideline of self-assurance of justifying response to drive. People always suffer in such situations, and the ICRC is particularly concerned about the plight of those people. In fact, international humanitarian law, which applies regardless of the cause of the conflict, is of the utmost importance for them.

The famous "Martens clause" provides that in international law, combatants and civilians are bound by the principles of international law, including the protection of their rights under the law of natural justice and the principles of humanity[11]. This principle is put forward in accordance with Article 53 of the Treaty of Vienna.[12]




From the investigation of all relevant guidelines the accompanying difficulties had been closed-


Challenge-I - Is worldwide compassionate regulation sufficient to battle psychological warfare?

The general inquiry is whether the Geneva Convention and Conventions are fit to manage the deviated danger of worldwide psychological oppression in the 21st century. When we use military means to fight terrorism, we do follow IHL, particularly the Geneva Conventions. However, this is not because we think the rales are appropriate. It's because we only have IHL.

Having said that, it is also true that the Geneva Conventions' fundamental principles and provisions must be upheld. Additionally, many of the provisions are straightforward to implement. Additionally, it is important to keep in mind that the two World Wars served as the basis for the creation of the Geneva Conventions.

Old style equipped struggles between States finishing with one party raising the white banner and giving up. The asymmetric conflicts of today were not intended for the Geneva Conventions. The battle against global terrorist organizations differs fundamentally. It is for example perfectly clear, that these associations never will stick to IHL. As a result, the fighting will unavoidably be asymmetric in legal terms. With these harsh realities in mind, it must be concluded that the Geneva Conventions do not address all terrorism combat challenges. As a result, the Geneva Conventions' design is not the most pressing issue. The inquiry is which rules do have any significant bearing.

The Geneva Conventions and other relevant human rights instruments are the only options available right now. In the fight against terrorism, our values must be upheld by the states themselves. Even if the terrorists do not, they must adhere to their international obligations. We are consequently in a circumstance where we should apply the Geneva Convention in the battle against psychological warfare. It is conceivable to apply both the standards and a significant number of the arrangements of the Convention. However, we frequently have to struggle with how to adapt the specific provisions to the current circumstance.





Challenge II - Difficulties in Asia

The following are some of the factors that contribute to the ineffectiveness of international humanitarian law on the Asia-Pacific continent:

  1. Asian culture will in general underscore the gathering as opposed to the person, while exemplary Western compassionate activity adopts the converse strategy. This is one reason why Asian and Western perspectives on human rights, which are frequently equated with international humanitarian law, diverge.
  2. Numerous nations were or are undergoing democratic transition, confronting opposition and external interference along the way. There is no escaping the possibility that the ICRC played a role in bringing about this external interference. The ICRC is also in a weaker legal position than it would be in an international conflict when requested to work in the conflict zone because the vast majority of conflicts in Asia were and remain internal.
  3. Religion is one more element. While all religions have viable to essential helpful ideas, philanthropic activity as far as we might be concerned doesn't fit in normally with Buddhism (viz. the Buddhist clergy in Sri Lanka's aloofness from Western humanitarian efforts) or with some forms of Islam or Hinduism.
  4. The shakiness of the organization's internal structures is one characteristic of the Red Cross and Red Crescent in Asia. Despite the fact that membership in the Red Cross or Red Crescent is frequently regarded as prestigious in Asia and that Asia has some of the oldest National Societies in the world, there are no regional structures capable of strengthening the impact of the Movement in general or the ICRC in particular, with the exception of a regional group formed by the National Societies of the ASEAN States. The gap between some populations, their leaders, and the reality of the suffering caused by conflicts has also grown even wider as a result of rapid economic progress. As a result, there is less of the solidarity needed to effectively support humanitarian efforts. The low level of funding provided by Asian countries in general for multilateral humanitarian organizations is unquestionably a corollary of the preceding point. This phenomenon predates the current economic crisis and is not restricted to the poorer countries.


Challenge III- Non-recognition   of humanitarian regulation and commitment

One issue that this area of international law faces is the nonobservance of international humanitarian law and obligations. In my conclusion, I made an effort to concentrate on the primary causes of the severe and widespread violations of international humanitarian law.

The majority of armed conflicts today are internal conflicts, which is one of the main reasons why international humanitarian law is not being followed. Most of the Geneva Conventions' provisions only apply to international annealed conflicts. Just Article 3, normal to the four Convention, also, Convention II arrangement with non-worldwide contentions. As a result, the Conventions are not sufficiently adapted to the current pattern of annealed conflicts.

The assumption that armed forces are under a responsible command, trained in the conduct of hostilities, and act in accordance with international law is also the foundation of the Geneva Conventions. However, private groups fight the majority of internal armed conflicts without a clear command structure, are not trained to conduct hostilities, or are familiar with international humanitarian law's principles and regulations.

In addition, the level of cruelty and hatred in internal armed conflicts has always been higher than in international conflicts. Helpful standards have consistently had a lesser possibility being seen in struggles under the surface than in worldwide contentions. No basic change can be anticipated in this regard.

The inability of the international community and the unwillingness of states to take the necessary steps to prevent humanitarian disasters are also the causes of the widespread disregard for international humanitarian law. States have so far mostly been reluctant to consent to the measures required to defuse impending internal conflicts, despite the fact that the Security Council considers gross violations of human rights and humanitarian law to be a threat to international peace and security, allowing measures to be taken under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. Instead, they "wait until a crisis flares up out of control," as they say. Once threats and contempt have spread all through a nation and wrongdoings are being committed without discipline, it is substantially more troublesome, or even unimaginable, to figure out the circumstance. As a result, timely measures to prevent humanitarian catastrophes are of the utmost importance in internal conflicts—apparently even more so than the adoption of new legal guidelines on internal armed conflict.


Challenge IV - Non-international armed conflicts.

The vast majority of current armed conflicts do not involve nations. The regular routines of numerous regular citizens made up for lost time in these clashes are administered by dread and outrageous anguish. Maoist activities in India's eastern and southern regions provide the best illustration. The purposeful focusing of regular citizens, the plundering and obliteration of non military personnel property, the constrained relocation of the populace, the utilization of regular people as human safeguards, the annihilation of foundation indispensable to regular folks, assault and different types of sexual brutality, torment, aimless assaults, these and different demonstrations of savagery are sadly quite normal in non-intemational equipped struggles all through the world. The difficulties introduced by these contentions are, somewhat, connected with an absence of pertinent mles, yet more significantly, to an absence of regard for IHL.

Article 3 normal to the four Geneva Convention set out the first rules to be seen by gatherings to non-global outfitted clashes. By prohibiting murder, mutilation, torture, cruel treatment, the taking of hostages, and outrages against personal dignity, particularly treatment that is humiliating or degrading, these rules protect individuals who are not or no longer participating in hostilities. The passing ofsentences without the recognition of "all the legal ensures which are perceived as irreplaceable by socialized people groups" is moreover disallowed.

The article states that the parties are required to adhere to the listed obligations as a "minimum" safety net. As time went on, the safeguards outlined in common Article 3 came to be seen as so essential to maintaining some humanity during war that they are now referred to as "elementary considerations of humanity" that must be adhered to in all forms of armed conflict under customary international law. As a result, Common Article 3 has become the standard from which no deviation is permitted. It is applicable to the treatment of anyone who is in enemy hands, regardless of their political or legal classification or custody. The law overseeing non-worldwide anned struggle has gone through steady advancement since it was first classified, specifically with the reception, in 1977, of Convention II extra to the Geneva Convention, which "creates and supplements Article 3 normal to the Geneva Convention."[13]

However, in non-international armed conflicts, treaty law may still fail to meet some essential protection requirements.


Challenges V - The challenges faced by businesses operating in war-prone regions are another

challenge faced by IHL.

Any country's economic structure and state determine its prosperity; foreign investment and its economic condition will suffer as a result of any political or military upheaval.

Similarly, if there is a conflict between armies during a war, no problem. Be that as it may, presently aday's idea of absolute conflict hosts come and inverse gathering generally attempts to annihilate country financial foundation. In such condition victim is consistently honest individual.

In today's scenario, the idea of direct war has become less important. By encouraging terrorism and declaring a proxy war, these days' states are establishing their own economy against the United States. Terrorists have the ability to blow up pipelines; Partners who are dishonest may violate contracts. Delicate economies can breakdown. Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have also criticized businesses doing business in nations with unfavorable governments in recent years, putting at risk one of their most valuable assets—their good name.


Challenge VI - Handling detainees.

Today, bilateral agreements and ad hoc solutions to many of these issues prevail. However, by nature, they are not bilateral. They are difficulties that all nations who participate in military operations abroad and the fight against terrorism face. As a result, the United Nations should serve as the natural focal point of the international solution.

One way ahead is to lay out a bunch of least norms on taking care of prisoners in all tactical activity paying little heed to how the contention might be arranged/These base guidelines ought to obviously be expanded on for the most part. acknowledged legitimate standards, which are generally relevant to the taking, taking care of, delivery or move of the prisoners in any case of the conditions of the confinement. The fundamental guarantees outlined in Common Art

would serve as the foundation for the standards.[14] However, we contend that the minimum protection level should be even higher than the current level.[15]

Challenge- VII-- Establishment of National Implementation Commission

Existing commissions are referred to by a variety of names, including national international commission for the implementation of international humanitarian law and national commission on humanitarian law, and there are no specific guidelines for establishing a national implementation commission.

The most important thing is for the commission to be able to offer the government advice and practical assistance with implementation, particularly by assessing requirements and making recommendations. Humanitarian law can also be heavily promoted by the commission. Additionally, the national commission needs to have permanent status in order to continue its work over the long term.



Suggestion I-Becoming party to the deals of international compassionate regulation

States agree to be legally obligated in the long run and demonstrate their determination toward the international community by signing treaties of international humanitarian law. In this area, universal treaties ought to be concluded.

Suggestion II-Assurance of Red Cross and

Red Crescent emblems.

The Geneva Convention and their extra conventions safeguard the tokens of the Red Cross and the Red Bow by characterizing the people and administrations qualified for use them and the conditions in which they are qualified for do as such.

However, in practice, it is the state's responsibility to develop in-depth regulations regarding the use of the emblem. As a result, each state must adopt a number of measures for the identification of the emblem and compile a list of the organizations that are permitted to use it.

In addition, the state must enact national legislation that criminalizes and prohibits illegal use of the emblem, particularly perfidious use, a war crime.

Suggestion III-Spreading information of international humanitarian law.

The fundamental test is need ofinformation connecting with IHL not to general public yet in addition among academicians. In such manner each express party's courses on global philanthropic regulation should make it required for their separate

Military foundation and attempt to place in course educational plan of colleges. The Military Commanders and Legal Advisors of the Armed Forces, NGOs, the academic community, and the print and electronic media should also be encouraged to participate in the dissemination activities, in addition to the ICRC and the National Red Cross Society.

In this regard, there is a great deal of work to be done to advance international humanitarian law at the university level worldwide.At the main faculties of law, journalism, and international relations, special courses must be started, and humanitarian law must be included in general international law courses and other faculties' relevant courses.It is required of lecturers and professors to be familiar with international humanitarian law.

The time has come to encourage the establishment of a single principal center for international humanitarian law in each nation. They should ideally be established in a faculty of law to provide interested students, government employees, and armed forces personnel with research resources and literature. Additionally, these centers could instruct and advise other educational establishments on how to introduce this topic to their standard programmers.


Suggestion IV- Compensation for Victims of Illegal Activities

Compensation for victims of illegal activities is also recommended.


Suggestion V-Foundation of National Information Bureau.

The establishment of a National Information Bureau, which would be in line with the principle of transparency and be in charge of disseminating information about victims of international and non-international armed conflicts, should be considered by the government.




The definitive written sources of international humanitarian law are the 1949 Geneva Conventions and the two 1977 Additional Protocols. They represent an assertion that there are limits to what is acceptable behavior even during wartime and codify the standards that nations around the world have established for humane wartime behavior. The Conventions are a symbol of the world's outrage at the worst atrocities of the 20th century, but some people think they are getting old.

The Geneva Conventions and the Additional Protocols, like all international treaties, came from their time. They reflect the perspectives of their time regarding the nature of war as well as the issues and alignments of current international politics. The nature of armed conflict has changed significantly since the laws of war were last updated in 1977. Most recently, the United States' campaign against global terrorism has thrown off a lot of the assumptions that international humanitarian law has always been built on.

A new initiative to examine how international humanitarian law applies to armed conflict in today's world has been launched by the Swiss government. An informal meeting of experts from several countries' governments, the International Committee of the Red Cross, and a number of academics was held[16], with the intention of establishing a schedule for further discussion and research. The Crimes of War Project has asked two leading law enforcement experts to discuss whether the Geneva Conventions should be updated as this process begins.

Although they established important minimum standards for internal armed conflicts in Common Article 3, legislators who drafted the four Geneva Conventions in 1949 were primarily concerned with wars between states in the aftermath of the Second World War. Most of the Conventions deal with how to treat wounded or imprisoned enemy forces and civilians who fall into the hands of the enemy or live in occupied territory.

Additionally, Schmitt argues that the fundamental principle of "proportionality" requires clarification. This is the idea vital to the main Extra Convention that expects aggressors to adjust the substantial and direct military benefit of an assault against the gamble of damage to regular people: a particularly difficult decision to make given the increasing fuzziness of the military-civilian divide.

Schmitt goes on to say that the idea of a military objective needs to be more specific. Choices about what is a real military objective are especially troublesome in numerous contemporary struggles, where the objective is in many cases not the total military loss of a foe state, yet rather the endeavor to drive a specific system to follow certain predetermined necessities. Schmitt alludes to the case of NATO's besieging effort against Serbia in 1999. During this campaign, the NATO strike on the Radio-Television of Serbia studio caused a lot of controversy; should this have been viewed as a tactical goal?






  • Das, P.K. International Law Document, Universal, 2002.
  • Dr, Agarwal H.O. International Law and Human Rights, 23rd Edition, 2020.
  • Dr. Kapoor S.K. International Law, 22nd Edition, 2021.
  • Justice Iyer, V.R. Krishna Human Rights and the Law, 1st Edition, Vedpal, 1984.
  • Tandon, M.P. International Law 17th Edition, 2020.



[1] Hans Peter Gasser, Introduction to International Humanitarian Law,pp.l.

[2] Hans Peter Gasser, Introduction to International Humanitarian Law,pp.l.

[3] Buergenthal & H. Maier, Public International Law, (1985), p.140.

[4] Commentary on the Additional Protocol of 8 June 1977 to the Geneva Convention of 12 August, 1949, p.27.

[5] P.K. Goel, Bulletin on IHL & Refugee Law, vol. l, no.2, July- Dec 1996. p.194.

[6] Article 2(4), 2 (7), 39,41, 51 of U.N. Charter.

[7] N.L. Mitra, Bulletin on IHR & Refugee Law, vol. l, no. l, January-June 1996.

[8] Jean-Jacques Rousseau, A Treaties of Social Contract, Book I, Chap. IV.

[9] Hans- Peter Gasser, International Humanitarian Law, 1993, Pp.6.

[10] Hans- Peter Gasser, International Humanitarian Law, 1993, Pp.6.

[11] Art. 1, para. 2, Protocol additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977.

[12] Article 53 of the Treaty of Vienna - that a treaty will be void if, at the time of its conclusion, it conflicts with a peremptory norm of general international law.

[13] Article 3 of Geneva Convention - Conflicts not of an international character.

[14] Article 3 of Additional Protocol – I.

[15] Article 15 of Additional Protocol – II.

[16] Harvard University from January 27 to 29, 2003.


Let's Start With Publication