This article is written by Ira Nagori of ICFAI Law School, The ICFAI University, Dehradun, an intern under Legal Vidhiya
ABSTRACT
Armed conflicts devastate lives, often unleashing widespread human rights violations that challenge the very foundations of international law. This article examines the interplay between international human rights law (IHRL) and international humanitarian law (IHL) in conflict zones, highlighting key violations such as targeted killings, sexual violence, child recruitment, and denial of aid. Drawing on recent cases from Gaza, Sudan, Kashmir, and Yemen, it analyses legal frameworks like the Geneva Conventions and ICCPR, accountability mechanisms, and enforcement gaps. The study argues for reinforced concurrent application of IHRL and IHL to protect civilians, urging states to prioritize compliance amid escalating global conflicts. Ultimately, it calls for stronger judicial oversight and victim remedies to deter impunity.
KEYWORDS
armed conflict, human rights violations, international humanitarian law, Geneva Conventions, civilian protection, sexual violence, child soldiers, lex specialis, accountability, Kashmir, Gaza, Sudan.
INTRODUCTION
War zones turn ordinary people into targets, stripping away protections that peacetime laws promise. In places like Gaza, Sudan, and India’s Kashmir region, civilians face not just stray bullets but systematic abuses, arbitrary killings, rape as a weapon, forced child recruitment, and blocked humanitarian aid. These aren’t isolated incidents; they’re patterns rooted in the chaos of armed conflict, where both state forces and non-state groups flout rules meant to safeguard humanity.
Legal scholars and courts have long wrestled with how international human rights law, designed for everyday governance, meshes with international humanitarian law, crafted specifically for war’s brutality. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has affirmed that human rights don’t vanish in conflict; they complement IHL, filling gaps where war rules fall short. This article dives into that tension, unpacking violations through real-world lenses and proposing paths to accountability. As conflicts rage into 2025 from Ukraine’s trenches to Yemen’s famine, it matters more than ever to hold power accountable, ensuring law isn’t just words on paper but a shield for the vulnerable.
For law students like those navigating India’s moot courts or global internships, understanding this overlap sharpens advocacy skills. It reveals why a Naxalite clash in Chhattisgarh or a Gaza airstrike demands the same scrutiny: violations erode dignity everywhere. This analysis proceeds in sections, from legal foundations to case studies and remedies, aiming for a roadmap that feels urgent, not academic abstraction.
LEGAL FRAMEWORK: IHRL AND IHL INTERPLAY
Core Sources and Principles
International humanitarian law springs from treaties like the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their 1977 Additional Protocols, universally ratified and binding as custom. Common Article 3 bans torture, summary executions, and cruel treatment in non-international conflicts, demanding humane conduct from all parties. The Hague Regulations limit warfare methods, protecting civilians from indiscriminate attacks.
Human rights law, via the Universal Declaration and covenants like the ICCPR and ICESCR, applies universally, even in war. The ICCPR’s Article 6 safeguards life; Article 7 prohibits torture, non-derogable rights that persist amid hostilities. No treaty suspends these in conflict; the ICJ’s nuclear weapons advisory opinion confirms IHRL’s endurance, reinforced by UN bodies.
Both regimes share dignity as bedrock. IHL balances military necessity with humanity, distinguishing civilians from combatants; IHRL imposes duties to respect (refrain from harm), protect (prevent abuses), and fulfil (aid access). In overlap, they reinforce: IHL as lex specialis refines IHRL specifics, like proportionality in strikes, but IHRL demands investigations post-attack.
Concurrent Application Challenges
Armed conflict triggers IHL, but doesn’t eclipse IHRL. The UN High Commissioner’s 2011 study notes that both bind states extraterritorially in occupied zones or where control exists, like Israeli forces in Gaza or Indian troops in Kashmir. Limitations arise: derogations under ICCPR Article 4 allow temporary rights curbs in emergencies, but core prohibitions (torture, genocide) stand firm as jus cogens.
Duty-bearers extend beyond states to armed groups under IHL’s Common Article 3. States must “ensure respect” globally, per Geneva Article 1. Violations trigger state responsibility via ILC Articles on State Responsibility. Yet, enforcement falters; non-state actors dodge IHRL directly but face IHL via command responsibility.
This framework isn’t abstract; it’s tested daily. In Sudan’s civil war, RSF rapes violate both regimes; Gaza’s aid blockades breach IHL’s starvation ban and IHRL’s food rights.
TYPES OF VIOLATIONS IN CONFLICT ZONES
Civilian Targeting and Killings
Explosive weapons in populated areas maim thousands yearly, per UN reports. In 2024, Gaza, over 8,500 child violations, including killings, mostly by Israeli forces, and the destruction of infrastructure. Sudan’s Gezira saw 124 civilians slain in days, homes looted clear IHL breaches under Geneva IV Article 33.
India’s Kashmir exemplifies “collective punishment”: 2020 house demolitions for militants’ actions flout CIHL Rule 156, mirroring IHRL’s dignity erosion (ICCPR Article 10). Naxal zones in Chhattisgarh risk similar spirals, with CRPF deployments sparking abuses.
Sexual Violence and Gender-Based Abuses
Rape terrorizes communities, from RSF gang-rapes in Darfur to Congo’s conflict-related assaults. IHL’s Additional Protocol II bans it outright; IHRL’s CEDAW demands prevention. Yemen’s wars spread epidemics via destroyed hospitals, compounding women’s plight.
Child Exploitation and Aid Denial
2024 marked record child graves: recruitment in Somalia, abductions in Haiti. UN verifies killings in Burkina Faso, Myanmar, violating the Optional Protocol on Child Soldiers. Aid blocks in Gaza and Sudan starve civilians, breaching IHL Article 54 and ICESCR Article 11.
CASE STUDIES: GLOBAL AND INDIAN CONTEXTS
Wars don’t just shatter buildings; they rip apart families, leaving scars that laws struggle to heal. These real-world examples from Gaza, Sudan, Yemen, Kashmir, and India’s Naxal belts show how violations repeat like a grim playbook, despite treaties screaming otherwise. Governments cry “security,” but civilians pay the price, demanding we sift through the rubble for accountability.
Gaza and the Occupied Palestinian Territories (2023–2025)
Picture Gaza in late 2023: airstrikes hammer hospitals like Al-Shifa, schools turned shelters collapse, and over 40,000 civilians, many women and children, lie buried under what used to be homes. UN reports peg Israel-Palestine at the top of grave violations, with explosive weapons in dense urban zones wiping out entire blocks, breaching the Geneva Conventions Additional Protocol I, Article 51 on civilian protection.
By mid-2025, nearly every piece of infrastructure, water plants, bakeries, and UNRWA compounds lay in ruins, and 190 aid workers, mostly locals, were gunned down while delivering flour. That’s not collateral; Rome Statute Article 8 labels its war crimes, from indiscriminate attacks to targeting humanitarians.
The ICJ’s 2004 Wall advisory opinion drives the nail home: occupation triggers full IHRL application alongside IHL, so Israel’s aid blockade choking food, fuel, and medicine flirts with extermination under Genocide Convention Article II, as South Africa’s 2024 case argues. Proportionality? A single Hamas rocket versus thousands of dead? The law says no. Families queue for bread one minute, vaporized the next. IHRL’s right to life (ICCPR Art. 6) doesn’t pause for “self-defence.”
Sudan and Yemen: Forgotten Carnages
Sudan’s civil war exploded in 2023, pitting the army against Rapid Support Forces (RSF). In Gezira alone, RSF militias swept through in 2024, slaughtering 124 civilians in days, gang-raping women in front of kids, and displacing 119,400, fuelling the world’s biggest child refugee crisis at 6 million. Common Article 3 bans this savagery in non-international conflicts; RSF’s loot-and-burn tactics echo Darfur’s genocide playbook, violating IHRL’s torture ban (ICCPR Art. 7).
Yemen’s decade-long mess fares no better. Houthi rebels and Saudi-led coalitions trade blows, but civilians from Taiz street vendors vanishing into black sites to Hodeidah families starving amid blockades foot the bill. Prohibited cluster bombs litter playgrounds, maiming limbs long-term; famine grips 18 million, breaching IHL’s starvation prohibition (AP I Art. 54) and ICESCR’s food rights. Disappearances hit thousands, with no bodies, no trials just endless grief.
India’s Kashmir Valley and Naxal Heartlands
Closer home, post-Article 370 Kashmir (2019 onward) saw internet shutdowns lasting 200+ days, the world’s longest strangling of free speech (ICCPR Art. 19) and movement (Art. 12), while arbitrary detentions swelled jails under PSA laws. House demolitions of “militant kin” homes? Pure collective punishment, flouting Customary IHL Rule 156 and dignity under ICCPR Art. 10. Discriminatory too, why bulldoze in Srinagar but not Chhattisgarh Naxal zones equally? NHRC probes stall under AFSPA’s shadow.
Chhattisgarh’s “Red Corridor” tells a parallel tale: CRPF “encounters” kill alleged Maoists, often tribals misidentified, with villages torched in “anti-Naxal ops.” Extrajudicial rapes by Salwa Judum remnants echo of 2006 HRW reports breach IHL distinction principles. Security trumps rights, but law whispers otherwise.
These hotspots reveal the pattern: states cloak abuses in counter-terrorism, ignoring distinction and proportionality. UNHRC resolutions, like 2024’s on Gaza, push dual IHL-IHRL compliance with no exceptions.
ACCOUNTABILITY MECHANISMS
Justice in war zones feels like chasing shadows, but mechanisms exist: judicial hammers, victim lifelines, UN spotlights. The trick? Making them bite amid power plays.
State and Individual Criminal Liability
States can’t hide behind “fog of war.” ILC Articles on State Responsibility nail them for omissions, like ignoring Geneva Art. 1’s “ensure respect” duty think Uganda’s 2005 ICJ loss to Congo, coughing up $10 billion for troops’ rapes and loot in Ituri. Occupation or effective control triggers full liability.
Individuals? ICC’s Rome Statute prosecutes war crimes (Art. 8), crimes against humanity (Art. 7), Hamas leaders for Oct. 7 hostages, and Netanyahu potentially for Gaza starvation. Command responsibility (Art. 28) roasts superiors who knew and didn’t stop it; Sudan’s RSF generals could swing if Hague indicts. Domestically, India’s AFSPA demands Delhi’s nod for Kashmir probes, stalling NHRC universal jurisdiction lets Germany or Belgium step in, as with Syrian torturers.
Remedies for Victims and Alternative Avenues
UN Basic Principles on Reparations (2005) promise restitution (rebuild homes), compensation (for lost livelihoods), and even satisfaction (public apologies). Colombia’s JEP truth commission pairs amnesty with confessions, healing Sierra Madre survivors, a model for Yemen or Kashmir? Treaty bodies like HRC’s special rapporteurs fire urgent appeals: Gaza’s 2024 kid killings prompted 50+ states’ joint call.
Non-judicial paths shine too: ICRC confidential dialogues coax army reforms; OHCHR commissions document for future trials. Yet impunity festers 2024’s violation spike (kids killed up 30%) screams for SC sanctions, like Somalia arms embargoes protecting children.
Domestic tweaks matter: India could mandate AFSPA timelines for inquiries, empowering NHRC like post-1984 Bhopal. Globally, hybrid tribunals (Sierra Leone style) blend local legitimacy with ICC muscle.
CHALLENGES AND REFORM PROPOSALS
Persistent Hurdles on the Ground
Enforcing rules amid gunfire is brutal. Non-state groups like Naxalites or Houthis laugh off IHRL, unbound by state treaties, while Common Article 3’s vague “humane treatment” leaves grey zones for village raids. Lex specialis bogs courts: IHL’s war tweaks to IHRL get twisted.
Extraterritoriality fights rage: ECtHR’s Al-Skeini (Iraq) says “control over persons” binds UK troops abroad; HRC echoes for drones. But India balks at Kashmir “occupation” labels, Israel at Gaza sovereignty shields abuses. Add tech woes: AI targeting in Ukraine blurs accountability, cluster bombs (banned by the 2008 Treaty, India out) scar generations. AFSPA’s impunity clause? NHRC calls it “excessive,” as the Reddy Report urged repeal in 2005, yet the Manipur 2023 rapes gather dust.
UN peacekeeping? Mandates fuse rights monitors, but India-China troop vetoes neuter action.
CONCLUSION: TOWARD EFFECTIVE PROTECTION
Conflicts won’t end soon, but the law can curb horrors. Concurrent IHRL-IHL demands that states investigate every civilian death, prosecute rapists, and aid the starving. Victims in Gaza, Kashmir, and Sudan deserve justice, not excuses. Strengthening ICC referrals, national laws, and civil society oversight builds deterrence. Law students, advocates: wield these tools in moots, internships – turn analysis to action. Dignity endures when enforced.
REFERENCES
- United Nations, International Legal Protection of Human Rights in Armed Conflict (OHCHR 2011).
- Françoise Hampson, ‘The Relationship Between the Law of Armed Conflict and International Human Rights Law’ (Lieber Institute, 5 Sep 2024) https://lieber.westpoint.edu
- PCRF, ‘Human Rights Violations in Conflict Zones’ (31 Oct 2024).
- UN, ‘Grave Violations against Children in Armed Conflict’ (26 Jun 2024).
Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is personal.
0 Comments