Abstract This article examines how the principle of solidarity was expressed in the international response to the 2023 Türkiye–Syria earthquake. Differing political circumstances in Türkiye and Syria directly shaped the forms of co-operation and assistance that could be mobilised after the disaster. Solidarity can be life-saving where consent does not obstruct access and channels of assistance remain open; however, it becomes largely ineffective when armed conflict and sanctions restrict humanitarian space. For solidarity, increasingly presented as a structural principle of international law, to fulfil its purpose, it must be clearly defined in law, endowed with binding force, and given practical effect through disaster law instruments. The article therefore calls for stronger international disaster law grounded in solidarity, including a convention based on the ILC’s Draft Articles, and for embedding solidarity in concrete duties to seek, accept and facilitate aid so as to narrow the gap between ideals, commitments and realities.
Horrific images of war generate pressure on belligerent parties to avoid or reduce civilian casualties. The demands from this pressure often exceed the standard of care which belligerent parties apply to uphold their obligations under international humanitarian law (IHL). By tracing the role that wartime images have played in shaping the public discourse of IHL implementation, this article examines the dynamics through which these images might skew the standard of care applicable to targeting operations under IHL. It does so by dissecting the pitfalls of wartime imagery with reference to: (a) command intent; (b) factual knowledge; and (c) adversarial manipulation. Having identified these pitfalls, the article then discusses how imagery-driven legal assessment could shift the standard of care that military decision-makers are reasonably expected to take when applying the principles of distinction, proportionality, and the duty to exercise feasible precautions during targeting operations. This article concludes that differentiated standards of care only serve the interests of a belligerent that shows little respect for IHL and therefore, in the long run, undermines the normative foundation upon which this body of law has been built to safeguard humanity in warfighting.
Evacuations are often framed as a measure of last resort given the risks they can pose to people’s rights and well-being as a form of displacement. However, this framing can obscure the protective potential of well-planned, anticipatory evacuations. This article argues for a reframing of evacuations as a proactive disaster risk management strategy that can enable timely, safe and dignified movement away from foreseeable hazards. It contends that the principle of ‘last resort’ should be understood not as a chronological endpoint, but rather as a safeguard against exposing people unnecessarily to both the immediate and secondary risks of displacement. Where evacuations are carefully planned and supported by rights-based safeguards, these risks can be mitigated. Accordingly, the article calls for a shift in focus: from whether alternatives to evacuation exist, to how evacuations can be designed and implemented in the least intrusive way, integrated into broader anticipatory frameworks for managing disaster risk.
Armed conflicts have a profoundly detrimental effect on mental health. Despite this, a comprehensive study on how International Humanitarian Law (‘ihl’) protects mental health is missing. This paper fills this research gap, identifying six main ways ihl tries to safeguard the mental health of those experiencing war. First, ihl protects the mental health of persons under the power of the adverse Party. Second, ihl protects persons who, because of psychological trauma, need medical assistance and care. Third, ihl prohibits psychological torture and ill-treatment. Fourth, ihl limits the type of mental harm that Parties to the conflict can inflict on civilians. Fifth, ihl forbids means and methods of warfare that cause unnecessary mental suffering. Sixth, ihl protects medical and humanitarian workers who provide mental health and psychosocial support. The analysis reveals that the drafters of ihl treaties were already aware, at least to some extent, of the importance of mental health; that various ihl norms aim to preserve mental health; and that the increasing acceptance of mental health as an integral part of health is influencing the interpretation of ihl.
A prohibition on the arbitrary denial of humanitarian relief would render the law governing international humanitarian relief in non-international armed conflicts (niac s) more effective. It would secure humanitarian access for civilian populations in need and enhance the accountability of fighting parties. However, crystallizing such a prohibition under customary or treaty law would depend on a symmetrical legal right of all fighting parties to consent to humanitarian relief during both the initial offer and delivery phases. Yet, under Article 18(2) of Additional Protocol ii to the Geneva Conventions, non-state armed groups, unlike government forces, lack the legal right to strategic consent. This asymmetry prevents the symmetrical legal foundation upon which a prohibition on arbitrary denial could rest. States should engage in efforts to lift this exception and work toward amending Additional Protocol ii. While such reforms may remain politically unlikely in the near future, advancing a dialogue on this issue is imperative to address the legal vacuum and strengthen humanitarian relief protection in niac s.
International humanitarian law has traditionally ignored the status of the natural environment as ‘cultural heritage’. States’ reluctance to integrate and protect the natural environment as ‘cultural heritage’ foregoes stronger protections and, more importantly, monopolizes the definition of ‘culture’. In particular, Indigenous cultural heritage is dispositively constituted through its relationship with the natural environment. The distinctiveness of indigeneity, manifesting in ways of life, language, cosmovisions, etc., are products of deep, ancient, and continuous interactions with the natural environment. Alas, when formulating the specialized regime for cultural heritage protection in international humanitarian law, a fundamental divide was drawn between ‘nature’ and ‘culture’, the former constituting pristine wilderness and the latter requiring some form of human intervention. Destruction of the natural environment was then seen as merely damage to a renewable, regenerative resource, rather than as a threat to the collective physical and cultural survival of peoples. In this paper, I make two arguments. First, of the specialized cultural heritage regime, the 1972 World Heritage Convention presents the closest integration of ‘nature’ and ‘culture’, and protections therein can and must protect the natural environment in times of armed conflict. I argue that obligations under the 1972 World Heritage Convention, where applicable, complement the more permissive obligations contained in international humanitarian law. Second, I argue that the basis for this divide between ‘nature and ‘culture’ in international humanitarian law was ill-founded and based on primitive scientific and non-pluralistic conceptions. Thus, even for cases where the 1972 World Heritage Convention is inapplicable, international humanitarian law must be interpreted to include the natural environment as cultural heritage.
This article examines the EU’s policy dilemma between pursuing its own economic interests and upholding its commitments to human rights and international law. Specifically, it seeks to shed light on the EU’s international obligations concerning trade with occupied territories, focusing on the case study of Western Sahara litigation before the Court of Justice of the European Union (‘cjeu’). After a brief review of the historical context as well as relevant case law, this article examines the implications of the recent cjeu rulings of 4 October 2024 through the lens of international humanitarian law (‘ihl’). It is argued that the cjeu’s reluctance to engage with occupation law hinders its evaluation of Morocco’s obligations as an Occupying Power, and, by extension, the EU’s duties of non-aid, non-assistance, non-recognition, and obligation to ensure respect for ihl.
This paper discusses the use of biometrics on the dead of conflict from a human security perspective. Human security interprets conflict and the effects of conflict from a human point of view. Data extracted from the bodies of the dead aids in providing valuable information to assess the human security situation and are therefore vitally important. This data collection process also involves legal considerations. Which obligations does international law set on the use of metrics from the dead in conflict? The project Iraq Body Count demonstrates in clear terms the importance of taking the human measure into account.
During armed conflict, militaries increasingly leverage biometrics across a range of recognition applications. The fallibility of such technology is acknowledged, including among military experts. However, little attention has been devoted to the possible legal and humanitarian consequences that the military use of biometric systems may have on vulnerable populations, such as persons with disabilities. This article examines such risks, and posits that there are significant concerns regarding the assumptions underlying biometric systems, viewed from a disability-inclusive approach to civilian protection under international humanitarian law. Only with a thorough understanding of such risks can mitigation strategies be crafted and guidance prepared so that the use of biometric systems effectively enhances the protection of all civilians. Drawing on a disability-rights perspective, as articulated in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, this article aims to underscore the legal and humanitarian implications resulting from the military's use of biometric systems on persons with disabilities. Most crucially, it endeavours to understand how this technology can be developed and used to enhance the protection of individuals with disabilities amidst armed conflicts rather than compromising it.
The Indo-Naxalite conflict, situated in India's resource-rich Red Corridor, presents a complex interplay of socio-political strife, environmental degradation, and natural resource mismanagement. This paper examines the conflict as a non-international armed conflict (NIAc) under international law, emphasizing the legal obligations of both the Indian State and Naxalite forces regarding environmental harm and resource exploitation. Drawing from International Humanitarian Law (IHL), International Human Rights Law (IHRL), and International Environmental Law (IEL), it critiques the inadequacy of existing frameworks to address the dual crises of armed violence and ecological degradation. The paper highlights the role of mismanaged resources in fueling hostilities and undermining tribal livelihoods while proposing a peacebuilding approach prioritizing sustainable resource management and human rights protection. Through the lens of this conflict, the analysis offers broader insights into the intersection of resource exploitation, environmental harm, and transitional justice in armed conflicts globally.
This paper discusses the use of biometrics on the dead of conflict from a human security perspective. Human security interprets conflict and the effects of conflict from a human point of view. Data extracted from the bodies of the dead aids in providing valuable information to assess the human security situation and are therefore vitally important. This data collection process also involves legal considerations. Which obligations does international law set on the use of metrics from the dead in conflict? The project Iraq Body Count demonstrates in clear terms the importance of taking the human measure into account.
On 7 October 2023, the long-lasting Israel-Hamas conflict escalated significantly in scale and violence. Reports reveal that the Israeli military have employed Artificial Intelligence Decision Support Systems (‘ ai - dss ’) to identify individuals in targeting situations. Another report has indicated that the Israeli military used facial recognition technology (‘ frt ’) to identify Palestinians in Gaza. Scholars are debating the legality of ai - dss under International Humanitarian Law (‘ ihl ’), and the extent to which military commanders can rely on ai for targeting decisions. This article describes the challenges in human-machine interaction with a focus on algorithmically generated recommendations and the responsibility of military commanders in this regard. The article concludes that, while the use of frt can enhance accuracy in identifying individuals and support adherence to ihl obligations, its effectiveness depends on the operational environment. It also emphasises the importance of improving military commanders’ technical literacy of ai - dss and ensuring that sufficient time is taken to verify the accuracy of algorithmically generated targets.
This article examines the international response to the humanitarian crisis in Syria from a socio-legal perspective. Some UN agencies were accused of contravening their humanitarian principles by being overly deferential to the Syrian government. Yet, they operated in a very difficult environment. The Assad regime exploited the sovereignty principle under international law to dominate the humanitarian response so as to reinforce its resilience. Power realities rendered the ideal of maintaining humanitarian operations separate from politics impossible to achieve. However, even accounting for legal and operational challenges, there were significant shortcomings. Donors, UN agencies and international ngo s failed to maximise their leverage by negotiating collectively on access. Some remote management mechanisms exposed Syrian partners to disproportionate risks. This article argues that a comprehensive knowledge of the local and geopolitical context, and a more unified approach, would have helped humanitarian organisations to more effectively identify and mitigate relevant risks from the outset. It finds that donors may have been reluctant to fully and publicly grapple with the problematic aspects of the humanitarian response because aid served as a substitute for the international community’s failure to progress a political solution. It identifies challenges, risks and opportunities for humanitarian operations in the post-Assad context.
The challenge in deploying Autonomous Weapons Systems (‘ aws ’) is not that it can kill people and destroy objects, but ensuring that it only kills the right people and destroys the right objects. In this paper, we use a hypothetical recently discussed at a military ai conference as a springboard to introduce important dimensions of the ‘Alignment Problem’ into the discourse concerning aws . This paper will consider important dimensions of what is known as the Alignment Problem, why it is difficult to specify smart goals for autonomous systems, why intelligent systems can pursue dumb goals, and the legal implications for assurance of aws . We begin with some preliminary definitions and conceptual analyses. We then outline the Alignment Problem including introducing the concept of objective functions and rewards. We then turn to an exploration of what the Alignment Problem implies for aws testing, and why apparently simple solutions may not be effective. From here we discuss the implications that the Alignment Problem has for international law applicable to aws , addressing legal obligations relating to the responsibility of states to respect and ensure respect for with international humanitarian law ( ihl ) and international human rights law ( ihrl ).
The aim of this article is straightforward: to analyse if the events that started in the second trimester of 2023 in Manipur (Northeast India) satisfy the legal requirements to constitute a crime of genocide. To achieve this goal, it evaluates the available evidence, including primary and secondary sources, which provides enough information despite the circumstances. The article aims to elucidate the possible criminal liability of identified or unidentified individuals. The guiding norm is the Genocide Convention, which India signed and ratified, along with the principles, jurisprudence, and theory interpreting the treaty. This article contends that, prima facie , the elements of the crime of genocide are present in Manipur, including killings, infliction of bodily or mental harm, and the deliberate destruction of the Kuki/Kuki-Zo tribe’s conditions of life. Furthermore, this article contends that India breached its international obligations. In asserting this, it goes further than organisations such as Genocide Watch, which warned about the imminent occurrence of genocide in Manipur.
