When Humanitarian Rules Collapse: Why Respect for International Humanitarian Law Has Become a Globa

09:02 PM September, 19 2026

Sudanese Online
محمود ابكر دقدق-الدوحه
My Library
Short URL

When Humanitarian Rules Collapse: Why Respect for International Humanitarian Law Has Become a Global Imperative
By: Mahmoud Dugdug
Legal Consultant and Researcher
tabareek@yahoo.com
In a World of Expanding Wars, Human Dignity Must Not Become Another Casualty of Conflict
Contemporary wars are no longer measured solely by the number of battles fought, the territories seized by armies, or the victories proclaimed by the parties involved. The true measure of any conflict must also include the scale of human suffering it produces and the extent to which the rules established to protect people when peace fails are respected.
While governments speak of national security, strategic interests, and military victory, millions of civilians face a very different reality: destroyed homes, separated families, children deprived of education, hospitals unable to provide adequate care, and communities forced to flee in search of safety.
In the face of these tragedies, one question can no longer be postponed: Can the international community accept the continued violation of international humanitarian law as an inevitable consequence of warØŸ
The answer must be clear: war cannot serve as a license to deny people's humanity, and international humanitarian law must not become a set of principles respected only when circumstances are favorable and disregarded when fighting intensifies.
International Humanitarian Law Is Not a Luxury in Wartime
International humanitarian law was established to limit the effects of armed conflicts and protect people who do not participate in hostilities or who are no longer taking part in them.
The four Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their Additional Protocols form a fundamental part of this legal framework, imposing obligations on parties to armed conflicts regardless of their political positions or the stated objectives they pursue.
Yet the problem does not always lie in the absence of rules. It often lies in weak compliance, insufficient political will to ensure implementation, and the uneven international response to violations.
What value do legal rules have if civilians are killed, detainees are tortured, medical facilities are attacked, and humanitarian workers face danger without effective accountabilityØŸ
Law that fails to reach practical implementation loses part of its ability to protect victims, even when it remains legally binding.
Civilians Are Not Instruments of Military Strategy
In every armed conflict, civilians often pay a price they had no role in determining. They do not necessarily choose the parties to a war, nor do they control its course. Yet they find themselves confronting its most devastating consequences.
The principle of distinction between civilians and combatants, the prohibition of indiscriminate attacks, the obligation of proportionality, and the requirement to take feasible precautions are not merely theoretical concepts taught in law classrooms. They are rules directly connected to human life and safety.
When residential areas are attacked without regard for legal requirements, when starvation and deprivation of humanitarian assistance are used as means of exerting pressure on populations, or when healthcare facilities relied upon by millions are destroyed, the damage extends far beyond material losses. It reaches into the destruction of communities and undermines the prospects of recovery for years to come.
A stable future cannot be built upon the ruins of communities treated as nothing more than collateral damage.
Sudan: Humanitarian Suffering and a Test of International Responsibility
The war in Sudan offers a painful example of the urgent need to respect international humanitarian law, amid widespread displacement, the collapse of essential services, and serious risks facing civilians.
In this context, alleged violations—regardless of who committed them—must be subject to independent and effective investigations, while victims must have access to justice in accordance with recognized legal standards.
The protection of civilians in Sudan should not become a matter determined by shifting political positions or inconsistent international responses. The life of a civilian in Darfur or Khartoum is no less valuable than the life of a person anywhere else in the world.
The international community cannot demand respect for human rights in one region while treating violations in another as a secondary concern governed by geopolitical interests.
Justice should not be a privilege granted by the balance of power. It should be a right grounded in law, evidence, and fair procedures.
Accountability Is Not Revenge; It Is Protection for the Future
Some argue that accountability may obstruct peace efforts, or that discussions of crimes and violations should be postponed until the war has ended.
Yet ignoring violations does not guarantee peace. Impunity may instead send a dangerous message: that crimes can be committed without consequences.
Genuine accountability requires professional investigations, credible evidence, protection for witnesses and victims, and respect for the rights of the accused, including the presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial.
Accountability must not be collective or selective. It must be based on determining individual and institutional responsibility in accordance with the law, without discrimination based on political, military, or ethnic affiliation.
Holding those responsible for violations accountable is not merely a response to the suffering of the past. It may also help prevent such violations from recurring in the future.
The Responsibility of Leaders Does Not End with Issuing Orders
Military and political leaders have an important obligation to ensure respect for humanitarian rules, provide guidance to forces, prevent violations, and take appropriate measures to investigate alleged abuses.
The chain of command must not become a means of evading responsibility. At the same time, criminal responsibility cannot be presumed solely because someone holds a leadership position. Accountability must be based on the facts and the legal elements required in each individual case.
Building military and security institutions that respect international humanitarian law requires continuous training, clear instructions, oversight mechanisms, and effective procedures for addressing violations.
Power that operates beyond the law can transform itself from an instrument of protection into a source of threat to society.
The International Community Faces a Responsibility It Cannot Evade
The responsibility to protect international humanitarian law does not rest solely with the parties to a conflict. Other states, international organizations, humanitarian institutions, the media, and civil society organizations all play important roles in promoting respect for the law and protecting victims.
These responsibilities include supporting humanitarian assistance, strengthening documentation mechanisms, protecting humanitarian workers, supporting independent investigations, and working to prevent continuing violations.
States' obligations under relevant rules—including the duty to respect and ensure respect for international humanitarian law in accordance with international law—require translating principles into effective policies and practices.
Silence in the face of violations, or the application of double standards, undermines confidence in the international legal system and provides potential perpetrators with greater space to evade accountability.
Peace That Ignores Justice Remains Fragile
Ending hostilities is an essential objective, but it is not sufficient to address the consequences of war. Communities that have suffered killings, displacement, and destruction need more than an agreement to cease fire.
They need security guarantees, institutional reconstruction, appropriate reparations where possible, recognition of victims' suffering, and conditions that prevent violations from recurring.
This does not mean that justice must follow an identical model in every context, or that peacebuilding and accountability cannot complement one another. Rather, it requires careful consideration of legal and political challenges without sacrificing victims' rights or fundamental principles of justice.
Sustainable peace is not built by silencing victims. It is built by addressing the causes of suffering and strengthening trust in law and institutions.
Human Dignity Is a Shared Responsibility
Respect for international humanitarian law begins with recognition of a simple but profound truth: No human being deserves less protection because of their identity, nationality, political affiliation, or geographic location.
The civilian seeking safety, the child who has lost a home, the patient in need of medical care, and the detainee who has lost freedom are all entitled to the protection provided by law in the circumstances to which it applies.
For this reason, promoting a culture of international humanitarian law should not be limited to military institutions or legal specialists. It must extend to schools, universities, the media, and civil society organizations.
The greater the public's awareness of humanitarian rules, the greater the ability of communities to demand their protection and hold violators accountable.
Conclusion: Humanity Must Not Become the First Casualty of War
The world faces a genuine test: Will international humanitarian law remain a declared principle in international documents, or will it become a practical obligation that shapes the conduct of states and armed groupsØŸ
Respect for international humanitarian law does not require all conflicts to end before civilians are protected. It requires commitment to protection even while fighting continues.
The targeting of civilians, torture, inhuman treatment, and the obstruction of humanitarian assistance cannot be justified by military necessity when prohibited by law.
War may be a political and military reality, but respect for human beings must remain a legal obligation that is not subject to negotiation.
When people enjoy equal protection, violations are addressed in accordance with the law, and victims' voices are heard, the international community does more than protect lives. It also preserves the moral and legal foundation that makes peace possible.
The question that will shape future generations' judgment of our era is not merely: Who won the warØŸ
It is also: Who defended humanity when respecting human dignity was the most difficult choiceØŸ