Human Dignity and Legal Duty Make the Case for Enforcing the Laws of War

More than 120 armed conflicts rage across the globe today—too many to comprehend—their agony and turmoil reduced to distant statistics and forgettable trivia. Amid these wars’ many differences, they all share a common denominator: human pain. Most are protracted conflicts that drag on for years, resulting in deep-rooted and cyclical humanitarian crises that elude simple solutions. While the headlines focus on Gaza, Lebanon, and Ukraine, the trifecta of death, destruction, and displacement upend the lives of millions around the world, quietly, anonymously, perpetuated by a disregard for international humanitarian law, also known as the laws of war.

The urgency to uphold the laws of war transcends mere legality; it is a moral imperative essential for immediate humanitarian relief and long-term conflict resolution. Yet, this all too often repeated mantra resonates more in theory than it does in practice. Conflicts are inherently dirty, fueled by dehumanization and are transactional by nature, forgoing the fact that long-term interests of any state or armed group are better served if conflicts are less brutal and destructive.

At that moment my world went silent. It wasn’t a scene of bombs or missing limbs, but something far more devastating in its simplicity. It was a haunting reflection of how civilians are often abandoned in conflict, left without basic support they need to survive—or even die—with dignity.

As a humanitarian leader deeply engaged in these crises, I have directly witnessed the profound impact these conflicts have on civilians and those taking part in the fight. In Syria, in Myanmar, and most recently in Gaza. International humanitarian law exists to protect the most vulnerable, those caught in the crossfire of violence and chaos, yet its implementation all too often comes across as counterintuitive for those who must abide by it.

Understanding the Fighter Experience

Armed fighters in protracted conflicts face immense hardships. The narrative often portrays them as either heroes or villains, but the reality is far more complex. Many fighters are young recruits forced into the fray by coercion or ideological beliefs. Poorly trained or inadequately equipped, they are often thrown into frightening and deadly situations where their ethical judgments are put to the harshest of tests. The psychological toll of prolonged warfare can lead to desensitization to violence and a blurring of moral boundaries. This erosion of ethical conduct affects armed fighters and the civilian populations they interact with.

I distinctly remember the early days of my career with the International Committee of the Red Cross in Taloqan, northeastern Afghanistan, which at the time was on the frontline separating the Northern Alliance from the Taliban. The town felt emptied of its inhabitants, replaced by fighters seeking respite from the fray. As I walked through the streets and into a restaurant, I could feel the gaze of the fighters I passed by, the trauma of combat etched in their faces. These young men—some still boys—each with a thousand-yard stare. I would see the same stare again in Yemen. In Sudan. In Colombia. It’s a monumental task to stare back into those eyes and explain why they must give protection to prisoners who moments earlier had tried to kill them.

The stark gap between the ideals of international humanitarian law and the reality of war is alarming. Violations of these laws erode trust not only between communities and those armed with weapons, but also between humanitarian organizations and those they seek to assist.

Without having personally experienced combat, one cannot even begin to imagine what these young people are thrust into and the dilemmas and trauma they face. Yet this further reinforces why international humanitarian law exists: It is a legal framework that helps us better understand the realities of war and its consequences. We tend to forget that international humanitarian law is anchored in atrocities. The Geneva Conventions were developed from the collective experience of world wars, and its protocols are anchored in wars of liberation. By forgetting this, we are doomed to repeat mistakes of the past.

The responsibility of making sure history does not repeat itself is shared, both in the hands of fighters and those of political leaders. It takes courage to do the right thing and to stand tall when all else falls. The laws of war are more than a set of rules for those at war. They are a framework for leadership in the most complex of situations, where lives are at stake and your priority is survival. International humanitarian law instills reason and courage in the face of adversity.

Real operational leadership, embracing all parts of the law, is essential to show that even amid chaos, there is a commitment to humanity.

The stark gap between the ideals of international humanitarian law and the reality of war is alarming. Violations of these laws erode trust not only between communities and those armed with weapons, but also between humanitarian organizations and those they seek to assist. For example, when civilian infrastructures (such as schools and hospitals) are deliberately targeted or used for military purposes that make them targets of attack, it breeds deep-seated animosity and reinforces the belief that peace is unattainable and that those whose responsibility it is to enforce the protection of civilians fail to live up to their creed. What needs to be avoided at all costs is a race to the bottom, where retaliation stretches the interpretation of international humanitarian law, and moral justifications are subject to impulsive decision-making. Doing the right thing cannot be contingent on reciprocity.

In every conflict zone, repeated violations of international humanitarian law have led to widespread devastation, creating a sense of hopelessness among the population. Whether it is indiscriminate attacks or mistreatment of detainees or the targeting of aid workers, the laws of war are not just theoretical constructs—they are lifelines for those affected by violence. Upholding these laws is the difference between life and death for countless civilians.

Armed forces worldwide have been proactive in promoting international humanitarian law through military training programs, ensuring that its soldiers understand and adhere to the laws governing armed conflict. Yet for many, these established rules are perceived as a pie-in-the-sky ideal with bits and pieces of the law cherry-picked to meet their objectives. Real operational leadership, embracing all parts of the law, is essential to show that even amid chaos, there is a commitment to humanity. By doing so, they not only protect civilians but also enhance the legitimacy of their military operations.

Civilians: The (Un)seen Victims

With an estimated 195 million people living in areas under the control, or influence, of armed groups, where is the accountability and responsibility for the main victims of protracted conflicts—civilians? Humanitarians use the term civilians as a catch-all category, meaning anyone who is not participating in the fighting, but the amorphous, anonymous nature of the word hides the human pain that war brings. When I say civilians, I mean families. I mean young children and elderly grandparents. Mothers and fathers. The bombardment of communities, destruction of vital infrastructure, and disruption of basic services create a state of perpetual emergency. Lives, health, and dignity are lost. Long-term psychological trauma also runs deep. Many endure a relentless state of fear, witnessing deaths of loved ones, losing homes, and facing the constant threat of violence and displacement. This creates deep psychological scars that often persist long after the conflict subsides.

For those of us on the ground, our role extends beyond providing immediate aid. We must shed light on the consequences of warfare and advocate persistently for the protection of humanitarian principles—even when they seem distant.

Consider Syria. When Baghouz collapsed in March 2019, no one was prepared for the sheer number of people who would flood into the camps of Al Hol in northeast Syria. They expected 20,000 people, but nearly 60,000 arrived—most of them wounded, starving, and desperate. While there, I watched people dying in front of us, and there was nothing we could do to prevent it.

Among the chaos, one image stayed with me among the noise and confusion. A woman, around 40 years-old, lays on the ground, breaths away from death, surrounded by four or five children staring at her. At that moment my world went silent. It wasn’t a scene of bombs or missing limbs, but something far more devastating in its simplicity. It was a haunting reflection of how civilians are often abandoned in conflict, left without basic support they need to survive—or even die—with dignity. The ongoing war has displaced millions and left deep emotional wounds on the children who have grown up amid violence. The lack of education and opportunities stunts their futures, perpetuating a cycle of trauma that can last generations. Humanitarian law plays a crucial role by mandating protections for civilians—ensuring they have access to essential services like healthcare and education—even in times of conflict.

International Humanitarian Law Is More Than a Formality

As we look to the future, adherence to international humanitarian law must be prioritized. These rules are not mere formalities; they are vital components of a humane response to conflict. Strengthening adherence involves robust oversight and concerted efforts to educate all parties involved in conflict about their responsibilities. This is particularly crucial in an age where disinformation can blur the lines of accountability.

The laws of war mandate the protection of humanitarian aid workers and the safe delivery of aid to those most in need, but let’s be clear: Humanitarian action is no substitute for political courage and compromise.

For those of us on the ground, our role extends beyond providing immediate aid. We must shed light on the consequences of warfare and advocate persistently for the protection of humanitarian principles—even when they seem distant. Engaging with local communities to raise awareness about the protections they are entitled to under international humanitarian law can empower them to hold parties accountable. By documenting violations and pushing for accountability directly with the parties to a conflict, we are contributing to a broader effort to restore a sense of morality amidst chaos.

The laws of war mandate the protection of humanitarian aid workers and the safe delivery of aid to those most in need, but let’s be clear: Humanitarian action is no substitute for political courage and compromise. The near-exclusive focus on humanitarian action—at the expense of political solutions to armed conflicts—politicizes humanitarian efforts and values, all the while failing to address the root causes of conflict and violence.

The international community must lend its voice to this cause. We need a unified call to action, urging governments to ensure respect for humanitarian law, to recenter the debate about armed conflicts on the urgent need to set higher expectations of parties to conflict—not just on how violations of humanitarian law are addressed, but how they can be prevented. The International Committee of the Red Cross—together with France, China, Brazil, Kazakhstan, Jordan and South Africa—aims to do that with a global initiative launched in New York on September 27,  2024. The consequences of inaction are dire, measured in the lives and futures of those who bear the brunt of these conflicts.

We cannot afford to look away as humanitarian crises deepen and states compete in a race to the bottom, using their enemy’s flouting of the laws of war as an excuse for in-kind retaliation, prolonging the suffering of millions. It is our collective responsibility to rise to the challenge and work toward a world where suffering is not the norm, but a distant memory—where human pain is minimized, not maximized.

Fabrizio Carboni is the head of Regional Delegation to the United States and Canada for the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). He previously served as the Regional Director for the Near and Middle East at the ICRC headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland. Since joining the ICRC in 1998, he has led operational activities in numerous countries, including Afghanistan, Angola, Lebanon, and Myanmar, as well as holding various positions at the ICRC headquarters.

Cover photo: Families forcibly displaced from Gaza City to the southern Gaza Strip on the second day of the declared 4-day truce in Gaza City on October 25, 2023. Photo by Abed Zagout. Copyright: ICRC/Abed Zagout. Used with permission.