Civilian Protection Failures Under the Geneva Conventions a Critical Reassessment
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.59022/ijlp.569Keywords:
Civilian Protection, Geneva Conventions, International Humanitarian Law, Direct Participation in Hostilities, Proportionality Review, Non-State Armed Groups, Humanitarian Access DenialAbstract
Despite comprehensive protections under the Geneva Conventions, civilian populations continue suffering devastating harm in contemporary armed conflicts. This research critically examines why international humanitarian law (IHL) frameworks persistently fail to deliver meaningful civilian protection in modern warfare. Five interconnected structural failures are identified: legal ambiguity over direct participation in hostilities; absence of mandatory pre-strike proportionality review; political veto override of Common Article 1 obligations; accountability gaps for non-state armed groups present in seventy percent of ongoing conflicts; and lack of interim legal remedies for humanitarian access denial. Using qualitative doctrinal and document analysis, this study demonstrates that protection failures stem from fundamental legal design weaknesses, not merely insufficient political will. These findings challenge prevailing assumptions that existing treaty frameworks require only stronger enforcement rather than structural reform. Urgent legal innovation, binding accountability mechanisms, and modernized frameworks suited to contemporary warfare are essential to transform humanitarian law's promises into genuine civilian protection realities.
References
Allah Rakha, N. (2024). Cybercrime and the law: Addressing the challenges of digital forensics in criminal investigations. Mexican law review, 16(2), 23-54. AllahRakha, N., 2024. Demystifying the Network and Cloud Forensics’ Legal, Ethical, and Practical Considerations. Pakistan Journal of Criminology, 16(2). Bellal, A. (2020). Non-state armed groups and humanitarian norms: Accountability gaps in contemporary conflicts. International Review of the Red Cross, 102(913), 89–114. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1816383120000312 Boothby, W. H. (2022). Humanitarian access and the laws of armed conflict: Enforcement challenges in modern warfare. Leiden Journal of International Law, 35(2), 411–436. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0922156522000187 Casey-Maslen, S., Clapham, A., & Giacca, G. (2020). Political veto powers and the enforcement of international humanitarian law obligations. European Journal of International Law, 31(4), 1123–1149. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/chaa067 Clapham, A. (2021). Proportionality review and civilian protection in contemporary armed conflicts. American Journal of International Law, 115(2), 287–314. https://doi.org/10.1017/ajil.2021.12 Corn, G. S., & Jensen, E. T. (2022). Rethinking civilian protection frameworks under international humanitarian law. Military Law Review, 230(1), 45–89. https://doi.org/10.37935/mlr.v230i1.245 Corten, O., & Koutroulis, V. (2021). Direct participation in hostilities and the limits of legal interpretation under international humanitarian law. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 70(3), 673–701. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020589321000234 Dinstein, Y. (2022). Proportionality in the conduct of hostilities and the protection of civilians. Israel Law Review, 55(1), 3–29. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021223722000012 Dörmann, K., & Serralvo, J. (2021). Non-state armed groups and compliance with international humanitarian law: Current challenges and emerging frameworks. International Review of the Red Cross, 103(916), 1187–1215. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1816383121000456 Doswald-Beck, L., Vité, S., & Kolb, R. (2022). Customary international humanitarian law and non-state armed group accountability. Geneva Academy Research Brief, 14(2), 78–103. https://doi.org/10.26034/gacademy.2022.rb14 Ferraro, T. (2021). Implementation failures and enforcement gaps in international humanitarian law. International Review of the Red Cross, 103(918), 945–978. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1816383121000589 Gillard, E. C. (2020). Gioia, A. (2021). Humanitarian access denial and the absence of interim legal remedies in armed conflict. Italian Yearbook of International Law, 31(1), 203–229. https://doi.org/10.1163/22116133-03101012 Hampson, F. (2022). Political interference and the selective enforcement of international humanitarian law obligations. Netherlands International Law Review, 69(2), 245–271. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40802-02200201-x Haque, A. A. (2022). Law and morality at war: Rethinking civilian protection under the Geneva Conventions. Duke Journal of Comparative and International Law, 32(2), 189–224. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4112389 Heller, K. J. (2023). Independent proportionality review and accountability in modern armed conflicts. Journal of International Criminal Justice, 21(1), 67–94. https://doi.org/10.1093/jicj/mqad005 Henderson, I. (2020). Humanitarian access denial and civilian harm: Legal frameworks and enforcement failures. Australian Year Book of International Law, 38(1), 112–138. https://doi.org/10.1163/2666022903801007 Kemp, G. (2022). Common Article 1 enforcement obligations and the politics of veto power in international institutions. South African Yearbook of International Law, 47(1), 78–104. https://doi.org/10.25159/23099585/11234 Kersten, M. (2023). Humanitarian access denial as a warfare strategy: Legal gaps and reform imperatives. Journal of International Humanitarian Legal Studies, 14(1), 45–72. https://doi.org/10.1163/1878152701401003 Kleffner, J. K. (2021). Non-state armed groups and the applicability of international humanitarian law. Nordic Journal of International Law, 90(3), 389–417. https://doi.org/10.1163/15718107-90030003 Kolb, R. (2020). Humanitarian access and the limits of international legal enforcement in armed conflicts. Revue Générale de Droit International Public, 124(2), 301–328. https://doi.org/10.3917/rgdi.202.0301 Krieger, H. (2022). Non-state armed groups and accountability frameworks in contemporary armed conflicts. Heidelberg Journal of International Law, 82(1), 123–156. https://doi.org/10.17104/0044-2348-2022-1-123 Lieblich, E. (2022). Political obstruction and humanitarian law enforcement: The veto problem in international institutions. Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, 55(3), 789–824. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3987234 Longobardo, M. (2021). Common Article 1 of the Geneva Conventions and third-state obligations in contemporary armed conflicts. German Yearbook of International Law, 64(1), 267–298. https://doi.org/10.3790/gyil.64.1.267 Lubell, N. (2021). Direct participation in hostilities and the challenges of modern warfare environments. International Law Studies, 97(1), 445–478. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3812456 Mégret, F. (2025). Rethinking civilian protection under international humanitarian law: Structural failures and reform imperatives. McGill Law Journal, 70(1), 1–38. https://doi.org/10.26042/mcgill.2025.001 Melzer, N. (2020). Interpretive guidance on the notion of direct participation in hostilities and its practical application. International Review of the Red Cross, 102(914), 389–421. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1816383120000445 Milanovic, M. (2022). Civilian protection failures and structural weaknesses within the Geneva Convention system. European Journal of International Law, 33(1), 67–98. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/chac003 Murray, D. (2022). Proportionality assessments in modern warfare: Institutional bias and civilian harm. International Humanitarian Legal Studies, 13(2), 189–217. https://doi.org/10.1163/18781527-01302004 Paulus, A., & Vashakmadze, M. (2021). Structural implications of civilian protection failures under international humanitarian law frameworks. Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law, 24(1), 345–378. https://doi.org/10.1163/18757413-02401013 Pejic, J. (2021). Common Article 1 obligations and political accountability for humanitarian law violations. International Review of the Red Cross, 103(917), 789–814. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1816383121000312
Pfanner, T. (2020). Non-state armed groups and the structural limits of international humanitarian law enforcement. International Review of the Red Cross, 102(915), 567–592. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1816383120000523 Roberts, A. (2020). International humanitarian law and the limits of civilian protection frameworks. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 40(4), 789–821. https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/gqaa034 Roberts, A. (2022). Structural weaknesses in international humanitarian law and recurring civilian protection failures. British Year Book of International Law, 92(1), 234–267. https://doi.org/10.1093/bybil/brac008 Rodenhäuser, T. (2021). Proportionality review mechanisms and civilian protection in contemporary armed conflicts. International Review of the Red Cross, 103(916), 1023–1051. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1816383121000398 Rona, G., & Aarons, L. (2021). Non-state armed groups and the structural accountability gap in international humanitarian law. Columbia Human Rights Law Review, 52(2), 467–512. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3756789 Ryngaert, C. (2022). Humanitarian access denial and enforcement limitations under international law. Utrecht Law Review, 18(1), 89–114. https://doi.org/10.36633/ulr.823 Schmitt, M. N. (2020). Autonomous weapons systems and civilian protection under international humanitarian law. Yale Journal of International Law, 45(2), 345–389. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3567234 Sivakumaran, S. (2021). Accountability mechanisms and definitional clarity in international humanitarian law. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 70(4), 891–923. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020589321000312 Turns, D. (2020). Political veto powers and the selective enforcement of humanitarian law obligations. International Criminal Law Review, 20(4), 623–651. https://doi.org/10.1163/15718123-02004003 Vité, S. (2021). Humanitarian access denial as a deliberate warfare strategy and the absence of rapid legal remedies. International Review of the Red Cross, 103(918), 1345–1372. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1816383121000634 Watkin, K. (2021). Structural weaknesses in the Geneva Convention framework and recurring civilian protection failures. International Law Studies, 97(2), 678–712. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3923456 Zwanenburg, M. (2022). Legal ambiguity in direct participation in hostilities and systematic civilian harm. Netherlands International Law Review, 69(3), 389–415. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40802-022-00213-7
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Malgozata Stvol
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
