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 .
Principle of IHL: Core Principles of International Humanitarian Law (IHL)
Distinction: Parties must distinguish between combatants and civilians.
Attacks should only target military objectives.
Proportionality: Even if a military target is legitimate, attacks should not
cause excessive harm to civilians relative to the anticipated military
advantage.
Necessity: The use of force must be necessary to achieve a legitimate
military objective.
Precaution: All feasible precautions must be taken to minimize harm to
civilians.
IHL in Gaza & Israel Conflict: The crisis in Gaza has raised serious questions
about the relevance of international law—even of its very survival. States and
armed actors involved in the conflict have duties, both positive and negative, to
protect the right to health in the face of so much violence.
The humanitarian catastrophe continues months after Hamas brutally killed more
than 1,200 Israeli civilians on October 7 and took more than 200 hostages. Israel
has responded with relentless, destructive reprisals, killing more than 33,000
people, most of them women and children. The staggering death and injury toll is
likely an undercount given the difficulties of monitoring those buried under rubble or
outside hospitals in Gaza. A recent analysis by public health experts starkly lays out
the risks of excess deaths from the lack of water, starvation, eviscerated health
services, and epidemic diseases.
One indication of the vitality and necessity of international law is that even amid
this highly polarized conflict, both sides insist they are complying with international
law and have submitted substantial questions about the conflict to international
adjudicatory mechanisms. Some hope rests here because international law provides
necessary and essential guidance on shared principles of respect for humankind.
A necessary corollary of this respect is that widespread or systematic violations of
basic rights need to be treated as crimes against humanity and that the
perpetrators must be subject to accountability. The problem is not that international
law is irrelevant, but that it is not implemented.
The founding principle of both international humanitarian law (IHL) and international
human rights law is that even in war some common humanity should prevail, and
that even during dire emergencies basic human rights cannot be cast aside. The
lethality of modern weapons demands that stakeholders rein in the desire of states
and nonstate actors to win at any cost.
International Humanitarian Law During Conflict
It is crucial to point out—particularly in the context of the Gaza conflict—that, even
though the conduct of hostilities is governed by IHL, international human rights laws
also apply: all people within the conflict area are entitled to respect for their human
rights, including the right to life, the right to basic necessities, and the right to
health.
Discussions of IHL often describe the actions that parties to the conflict should not
do. Do not target civilians or cause them disproportionate harm. Do not attack
hospitals, humanitarians, or other civilian objects. Do not take hostages or abuse
prisoners. If followed, these so-called negative duties would mitigate some of the
mass atrocities across the globe today, not only in Gaza but also in Ethiopia,
Myanmar, Sudan, and Ukraine.
The IHL principle of precaution demands making active choices to minimize harm,
considering not just the immediate damage to a health-care facility or civilian
center but also the broader damage that could result from an attack. Proportionality
demands that military aims are always balanced with the risk to civilians. For health
care, the protections and obligations are even more specific and provide distinct
protections. IHL demands that states and armed groups should not weaken IHL
protections of health by militarizing hospitals, including, for example, using such
facilities to store or fire weapons, host militants, or park tanks outside.
The provisions for the well-being of the sick and wounded in the laws of war are
among the very first elements of IHL: the original 10 articles of the 1864 Geneva
Convention focused on protections for health workers and civilians caring for the
wounded combatants. In modern times, IHL states that "wounded or sick
combatants, to whatever nation they may belong, shall be collected and cared for."
These rules to collect and care for the sick and wounded are also present in the
national law and military manuals of almost all countries; they are considered
customary international law—binding regardless of what treaties are signed.
