The ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine, which escalated dramatically in February 2022 when Russia launched a large-scale invasion of Ukraine, has become one of the most significant international crises in recent years. This conflict has not only had immense geopolitical consequences but also raised critical questions regarding the application and enforcement of International Humanitarian Law (IHL), also known as the laws of armed conflict or the laws of war. At its core, International Humanitarian Law is designed to limit the effects of armed conflict, protect individuals who are not or are no longer participating in hostilities, and restrict the means and methods of warfare. The Russia-Ukraine conflict, however, has witnessed multiple alleged violations of these fundamental principles, drawing condemnation from the international community and testing the effectiveness of existing legal frameworks.
International Humanitarian Law is primarily codified in the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their Additional Protocols, which establish rules for the protection of civilians, prisoners of war, the wounded and sick, and the conduct of hostilities. These treaties are universally accepted, and both Russia and Ukraine are parties to the Geneva Conventions, thereby binding them under customary international law to adhere to its provisions. The central tenets of IHL include the principles of distinction, proportionality, necessity, and humanity. The principle of distinction requires parties to distinguish between combatants and civilians and between military objectives and civilian objects. Proportionality prohibits attacks that may cause excessive civilian harm in relation to the anticipated military advantage. The principle of necessity limits the use of force to what is necessary to achieve legitimate military objectives, while humanity forbids unnecessary suffering and inhumane treatment.
Despite these clear legal obligations, the conflict has been marked by widespread reports of IHL violations, many of which have been extensively documented by international organizations, journalists, and human rights groups. One of the most egregious concerns has been the extensive targeting of civilian infrastructure, including residential buildings, hospitals, schools, and critical utilities. Satellite imagery, witness accounts, and independent investigations have shown that Russian forces have repeatedly conducted airstrikes and artillery bombardments in densely populated urban areas, resulting in significant civilian casualties and massive displacement. These actions have raised serious questions under the principle of distinction, as many of these attacks appear to have lacked precise targeting and adequate consideration for civilian life.
Moreover, reports of indiscriminate shelling and use of explosive weapons in populated areas suggest potential violations of the proportionality principle. Attacks that fail to distinguish adequately between military and civilian targets, or that cause disproportionate civilian harm relative to the military gain, constitute war crimes under international law. Numerous human rights organizations have also documented alleged extrajudicial killings, torture, and ill-treatment of prisoners of war, raising further concerns about compliance with the Geneva Conventions. The situation in places such as Bucha, Mariupol, and other contested regions became emblematic of the human cost of the conflict, as scenes of mass civilian deaths and alleged atrocities gained international attention.
Another contentious issue relates to the forced deportation and transfer of civilians, especially children, from occupied territories in Ukraine to Russia. Under Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, the forcible transfer of civilians by an occupying power is strictly prohibited, regardless of motive. Reports indicate that thousands of Ukrainian civilians, including minors, have been transported to Russian territory, often against their will. This practice has been widely condemned as a grave breach of IHL and as potentially constituting a crime against humanity. The international community, including the United Nations and the International Criminal Court (ICC), has expressed serious concern over these acts, calling for thorough investigations and accountability.
International humanitarian law also emphasizes the protection of medical personnel and facilities during armed conflicts. Despite this, the Russia-Ukraine conflict has seen repeated attacks on hospitals, medical convoys, and ambulances, in violation of Article 18 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which protects medical establishments from attack, provided they are not used to commit acts harmful to the enemy. The systematic targeting of healthcare infrastructure has had devastating consequences for the civilian population, exacerbating humanitarian suffering amid shortages of medical supplies, personnel, and access to essential care.
The conflict has further strained the mechanisms of international accountability. While the International Criminal Court has opened investigations into alleged war crimes in Ukraine, enforcing compliance remains a significant challenge. Russia’s non-cooperation with the ICC and its veto power in the United Nations Security Council hinder the international community’s ability to take decisive action. Sanctions, diplomatic pressure, and condemnation have been tools employed by Western nations and international bodies to hold Russia accountable, but the effectiveness of such measures in compelling adherence to IHL remains uncertain.
At the same time, Ukraine, as the victim of aggression, has also faced legal scrutiny regarding its adherence to IHL. Accusations have arisen concerning the use of certain weapons or tactics that might endanger civilians, such as the placement of military equipment in civilian areas or potential use of banned munitions. These claims underscore the principle that all parties to a conflict are bound by the same legal and moral responsibilities, regardless of their status as aggressor or defender.
The Russia-Ukraine conflict has underscored the limitations of International Humanitarian Law in the face of modern warfare and geopolitical power dynamics. While IHL provides a robust legal framework for the protection of civilians and the regulation of hostilities, its enforcement depends heavily on political will, international cooperation, and effective judicial mechanisms. The challenge lies not only in documenting violations but in ensuring accountability and preventing impunity for perpetrators of war crimes.
Furthermore, the conflict highlights the evolving nature of warfare, including hybrid tactics, cyber operations, and the use of disinformation campaigns, which complicate the application of traditional IHL norms. The targeting of civilian infrastructure for strategic advantage, the manipulation of humanitarian aid for political purposes, and the forced movement of populations present novel challenges that call for an urgent reevaluation of how IHL is applied and enforced in contemporary conflicts.
Ultimately, the Russia-Ukraine conflict stands as a tragic reminder of the urgent need to uphold the rule of law in times of war. The protection of innocent lives, the prevention of unnecessary suffering, and the pursuit of justice for victims are foundational goals of International Humanitarian Law. The international community must strive to reinforce these principles through robust investigations, support for victims, stronger accountability mechanisms, and continued advocacy for the adherence to IHL. Only by reaffirming our collective commitment to humanitarian norms can we hope to mitigate the horrors of war and prevent similar tragedies in the future.
Contributed By : SIMMI RANA(INTERN)