Islam and International Humanitarian Law

New Battlefields, Old Laws: From The Hague Conventions To Asymmetric Warfare (NB/OL)

The Islam-IHL initiative arises from inquiry explored in INSCT’s (NB/OL) research project, which examined whether the traditional laws and norms of armed conflict are adequate guides for present international conflicts. With the rise of asymmetric warfare by non-state groups waging prolonged campaigns of terrorism and, in some cases, more conventional military attacks, potential gaps in the international laws and policies for the conduct of war are leaving various parties to a conflict vulnerable. Without adequate guidance from the law, for instance, defending states are finding themselves without standards for shaping a measured response to such challenges—a problem that can increase civilian casualties. Apart from unclear legal and normative understandings, the tendency of terrorists or insurgent groups to operate from within civilian populations also presents challenges, not only for states, but for citizens who are victims of such attacks on either side of the conflict, and for humanitarian organizations pledged to aid the vulnerable and ameliorate conditions borne of conflict. The NB/OL interdisciplinary research team therefore considered—on the one-hundred year anniversary of the Hague Rules of 1907—whether a comprehensive modern set of international laws of armed conflict were necessary to fill the void in existing humanitarian laws which do not contemplate asymmetric warfare by non-state actors, and thus fail to regulate the dominant form of warfare in the 21st century.

Institutional Partners: International Policy Institute for Counter-Terrorism (ICT), Interdisciplinary Center (IDC) Herzliya, Israel.

Project participants came to some of the following conclusions: Scholars and practitioners from around the world participated in a series of workshops, electronic dialogues, meetings, and discussions to explore in detail how new conflicts are revealing shortcomings in the Geneva Conventions, Hague Rules, and customary laws of war and post-1949 treaties.

1. The existing IHL system is a good one and worth considerable effort and compromise to adapt it

2. At the risk of losing the advances made by IHL over the last 140 years, new laws should not replace old law altogether but apply the core principles and normative framework to a new category of transnational armed conflicts

3. While there are risks of reopening the conventions that have governed warfare for so long, the political difficulties and costs are offset by potential rewards of crafting an adaptation to the conventions that reflect real world conflicts occurring well into the future.

Please contact Corri Zoli if you are interested in this initiative.