Efficiency of the rules of warfare and norms of international humanitarian law: analysis of modern doctrine

: 51-56

Zharovska I. "Efficiency of the rules of warfare and norms of international humanitarian law: analysis of modern doctrine."

Educational-Scientific Institute of Law and Psychology Lviv Polytechnic National University, D.Sc. (Law), Associate Professor

The article analyzes the current scientific positions of experts in the field of international law regarding the effectiveness of the norms of international humanitarian law during an armed conflict.

It was established that the norms of international humanitarian law are aimed at protecting a person during war, determining the legality or illegality of the use of means and methods of conducting military operations, protecting human rights, protecting victims of armed conflicts, the natural environment, cultural values ​​and other assets of humanity. It has been proven that the international coordination of norms and rules of war is in itself a valuable asset of human civilization.

All views of scientists are grouped into two groups and arguments regarding the effectiveness of IHL norms are singled out.

The first group of scholars proves that norms are effective regulators of coexistence in the context of military operations, moreover, they motivate that IHL is one of the most effective tools that the international community has at its disposal to ensure people's safety and respect and dignity during war (Zhuravska N., Stefanovych P., Stefanovych I.).

Representatives of the position on the effectiveness of norms point to their universality as an important feature of effectiveness and demand at the current stage and in future legal realities. They define general principles that can be applied in almost all circumstances related to the subject of regulation of international law, in particular, in cyber relations and other new types of weapons (Y. Moslem, H. Sharifi Tarazkoohi, S. Zamani, D. Van Zyl ).

Another group of scientists notes significant problems with the effectiveness of IHL norms due to the lack of effective, agreed-upon mechanisms for implementing the rules of conduct and a significant institution of responsibility for violating the rules. Another argument for inefficiency is the fact of conflicting norms of national and international law, especially regarding the prevention of terrorist threats (B. Uddin Khan, N. Nasrullah, Hajjar, L.).

  1. Zhuravska N., Stefanovych P., Stefanovych I. (2022) Mizhnarodne pravo z problem zakhystu liudei [International law on human protection issues] The V International Scientific and Practical Conference «Trends of modern science and practice», February 8 – 11, 2022, Ankara, Turkey. Р. 571-580 [in Ukraine];
  2. ICRC, Views of the ICRC on autonomous weapon systems, paper submitted to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons Meeting of Experts on Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems (LAWS), 11 April 2016, https://www.icrc.org/en/document/views-icrc-autonomous-weapon-system [in English];
  3. Moslem, Y., Sharifi Tarazkoohi, H., & Zamani, S. (2022). Principles of International Humanitarian Law in the Face of New Military Weapons: Challenges and Solutions. Journal of Legal Research, doi: 10.48300/jlr.2022.326618.1939 [in English];
  4. Van Zyl, Divan (2022). The regulation of cyber warfare under contemporary international humanitarian law. North-West University (South Africa). URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10394/39536 [in English];
  5. Simmons, C. (2021). The Scope of Military Jurisdiction for Violations of International Humanitarian Law. Israel Law Review, 54(1), 3-23. doi:10.1017/S0021223720000217 [in English];
  6. Borhan Uddin Khan and Nakib M. Nasrullah Implementation of International Humanitarian Law and the Current Challenges In: Revisiting the Geneva Conventions: 1949-2019. Brill: Nijhoff. 2019. Р. 262–299 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004375543_012 [in English];
  7. Hajjar, L. (2019). The Counterterrorism War Paradigm versus International Humanitarian Law: The Legal Contradictions and Global Consequences of the US “War on Terror”. Law & Social Inquiry, 44(4), 922-956. doi:10.1017/lsi.2018.26 [in English]