Law of Armed Conflict

Armed conflicts are governed by a body of international humanitarian law, commonly known as the law of war or the law of armed conflict. The two primary sources of international humanitarian law are the Geneva Conventions (1949) and their Additional Protocols (1977).

While many of these rules are set out in the treaties codifying this branch of law, a great many of the rules, particularly those applicable in non-international armed conflicts, are to be found in customary international law. Despite the importance of this area, the identification or interpretation of these rules continues to be a challenge.

1. Geneva Conventions: the Geneva Conventions consist of four treaties adopted in 1949 that establish the humanitarian rules for the protection of victims of armed conflicts, including civilians and wounded or captured military personnel. The four conventions are:a. Geneva Convention I: Concerns the treatment of wounded and sick military personnel on the battlefield. b. Geneva Convention II: Provides protections for wounded, sick, and shipwrecked military personnel at sea during armed conflict. c. Geneva Convention III: Establishes the treatment of prisoners of war. d. Geneva Convention IV: Pertains to the protection of civilians in times of war.
2. Additional Protocols: the Additional Protocols were adopted in 1977 and further expand the protections of the Geneva Conventions. They address the conduct of hostilities, the protection of victims in non-international armed conflicts, and the prohibition of certain weapons. The two protocols are:a. Protocol I: Relates to the protection of victims in international armed conflicts. b. Protocol II: Deals with the protection of victims in non-international armed conflicts.

Superpowers and the laws of war

Most countries around the world have ratified the Geneva Conventions and are bound by their provisions. However, the three major military powers in the world have not ratified the Additional Protocols or have revoked them.

As of my last update, the United States, China and Russia have all ratified the four Geneva Conventions. Neither the US nor China has ratified Additional Protocol I (relating to the protection of victims in international armed conflicts) and Additional Protocol II (relating to the protection of victims in non-international armed conflicts), both of which were adopted in 1977. The Soviet Union’s Supreme Council ratified both Protocols in 1989, but President Vladimir Putin revoked the Additional Protocol I in October 2019.

Please note that treaty ratifications can change over time. For the latest and most accurate information, it’s best to refer to official sources such as the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) or the United Nations Treaty Collection.

War Crimes

War crimes are acts that violate the provisions outlined in the Hague Convention IV of 1907 and its Regulations, as well as the Additional Protocols of 1977 to the Geneva Conventions and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court adopted in 1998.

Hybrid warfare

The armed conflicts on the African continent and the Ukraine war make abundantly clear that present-day war tactics, AI and drone technology, and the re-emergence of private military organizations require new legislation.

Hybrid warfare is a term used to describe a modern form of warfare that combines conventional military tactics with unconventional and non-military means. It is a strategy employed by state and non-state actors to achieve their objectives through a blend of traditional military force, irregular warfare, information warfare, and other non-kinetic methods. The concept of hybrid warfare has gained prominence in the 21st century due to the evolving nature of conflicts and the widespread use of technology and communication.

Key characteristics of hybrid warfare include:

1. Blending of methods: Hybrid warfare seeks to blur the lines between conventional military tactics and non-military actions, such as cyber-attacks, economic pressure, propaganda, and political manipulation. By using a combination of military and non-military tools, actors aim to gain a strategic advantage over their adversaries.
2. The widespread use of private military and security companies, such as Blackwater (since morphed into Academi) and the Wagner group. Such PMSCs often undermine the effectiveness of peace efforts.
3. Information warfare: A crucial aspect of hybrid warfare is the use of information and disinformation to manipulate public opinion, sow discord, and undermine the target’s societal cohesion. This can be done through social media, propaganda, and misinformation campaigns.
4. Cyber warfare: Hybrid warfare involves the use of cyber-attacks to disrupt critical infrastructure, communication networks, and military systems, as well as for espionage and information gathering.
5. Proxy forces: Actors engaged in hybrid warfare often employ proxy forces or support insurgent groups to achieve their objectives indirectly. This can create a degree of separation and make attribution of responsibility more difficult.
6. Ambiguity and deniability: Hybrid warfare often employs actions that are difficult to attribute directly to the aggressor. This allows the aggressor to maintain plausible deniability, making it challenging for the international community to respond effectively.
7. Asymmetry: Hybrid warfare often involves a state or non-state actor with less military power trying to challenge a stronger opponent. By utilizing unconventional tactics and exploiting vulnerabilities, the weaker side can potentially level the playing field or gain an advantage.

As new laws would probably build on the existing treaties, it’s good to have a closer look at those, but it also requires technical knowledge in various fields.