INTRODUCTION
Contemporary military conflicts have shifted beyond conventional battlefields, integrating a spectrum of advanced capabilities. Modern engagements now span multiple domains, combining drone warfare, cyber operations, artificial intelligence, precision-guided munitions, and space-based assets. This evolution is reflected in recent confrontations, including the war in Ukraine, the 2025 standoff between India and Pakistan, and the ongoing tensions between Israel and Iran.1 Conflicts now span physical, digital, and informational fronts, with hybrid tactics blending conventional forces and non-state actors. War’s greatest cost is borne not by soldiers, but by ordinary people. In today’s conflicts, the simple act of living in your own home—in a city, a town, or a village—has become perilous. Families are trapped not just by physical danger, but by a flood of online falsehoods designed to turn communities against each other and break their spirit. The weapons themselves move with terrifying speed, giving parents no time to find their children, or families no chance to flee.
The current division between the laws of war and the laws of peace is leaving civilians dangerously exposed. In conflict zones, two separate legal frameworks operate: International Humanitarian Law, which sets rules for the conduct of hostilities, and International Human Rights Law, which guarantees fundamental freedoms, though its application during war is often contested.2 This lack of a unified approach creates dangerous gaps in protection. While humanitarian law has limited tools to bind non-state armed groups, human rights law can be suspended or weakened by states during emergencies. This fractured system has dire consequences, as seen in the suffering of civilians in conflicts from Syria to Yemen and Ukraine. To close these gaps and strengthen civilian protection, these two bodies of law must work in concert. By applying human rights principles—such as distinction and proportionality—alongside the rules of war, we can build a more resilient and comprehensive shield for those caught in the crossfire.3 Although there are core challenges in the complementary interplay between IHL and IHRL such as – Lex Specialis conflicts, jurisdictional overlaps and enforcement gaps.
During times of war, there exist two essential sets of rules designed to protect human dignity. The first is the body of law specifically for armed conflict, which obligates all warring parties—whether government forces or armed groups—to adhere to fundamental principles. These include the imperative to distinguish between fighters and civilians, to ensure any military action is proportionate, and to avoid unnecessary suffering. Alongside these rules of war, international human rights law remains in force.4 This framework requires governments to uphold the basic rights of people under their control, safeguarding the inherent right to life, freedom from torture, and a fair trial. Crucially, these two legal frameworks are not mutually exclusive.5 This paper analyses the harmonised approach between IHL and IHRL during armed conflict strengthen the civilian population. The researcher has used the doctrinal method of research and jurisprudence review to understand legal tensions and synergies between IHL and IHRL, guiding normative recommendations and improving the implementation of international law in protecting civilians during armed conflicts.
CONCEPTUAL FOUNDATIONS OF IHL AND IHRL
A. International Humanitarian Law (IHL)
International Humanitarian Law (IHL) emerged from ancient societal norms and religious doctrines that sought to temper the brutality of warfare, such as prohibitions on harming non-combatants in early codes like the Indian Laws of Manu or Islamic just war principles. However, the modern framework we recognize today was forged in the aftermath of a single, horrifying battle. In 1859, the Swiss humanitarian Henry Dunant arrived at the Battle of Solferino, where he witnessed a scene of pure devastation. Tens of thousands of wounded and dying soldiers were left without care, their suffering ignored by military forces. This trauma moved Dunant to write a powerful eyewitness account, A Memory of Solferino.6 Driven by Dunant’s appeal, a small group founded the International Committee of the Red Cross in 1863. Their efforts culminated a year later in the landmark 1864 Geneva Convention, the world’s first international treaty dedicated to humanizing warfare. By mandating protection for wounded soldiers and medical personnel in international conflicts, humanity took a decisive collective step toward bringing compassion onto the battlefield.7
These efforts to regulate war gathered momentum in the early 20th century. The international peace conferences held in The Hague in 1899 and 1907 established crucial ground rules for the conduct of warfare. They produced formal declarations and treaties that restricted certain weapons—banning expanding bullets and poisonous gases, for example—and defined how occupying powers must treat civilians under their control, creating the bedrock of modern jus in bello, the law governing actions in war.
Meanwhile, the Geneva Conventions themselves were growing in scope and strength. They were revised and expanded three times before the Second World War: in 1906 to improve protections for the wounded, and in 1929 to formally include prisoners of war. However, the sheer scale of suffering witnessed during World War II made it devastatingly clear that the existing rules were insufficient. In its tragic aftermath, the international community came together in 1949 to draft four new Geneva Conventions. These treaties, which have since been ratified by every nation on earth, represent our most solemn and universal pact to shield the most vulnerable in war: the wounded and sick, captured soldiers, and most importantly, civilians.8 The rules of war continued to evolve in the decades that followed. In 1977, two major new treaties—known as Additional Protocols I and II—were created to address the changing nature of conflict. The first strengthened protections in wars between states, while the second established, for the first time, clear legal standards for civil wars, a vital step to restrain violence within a nation’s own borders. These protocols introduced crucial safeguards against indiscriminate attacks and sought to address the realities of guerrilla warfare. Later, in 2005, a third protocol added a new universal protective emblem alongside the iconic Red Cross and Red Crescent.9 This body of law is not static. What began as ancient codes of chivalry has transformed into a living system of binding global obligations, striving to keep pace with technology and politics to shield human dignity from the worst extremes of violence.
International Humanitarian Law (IHL) is grounded in four core principles—distinction, proportionality, necessity, and humanity—that collectively guide the lawful conduct of armed conflict to minimize harm to civilians and those hors de combat.10 The principle of distinction11 is a cornerstone of the laws of war. It demands that warring parties clearly separate fighters from civilians and military targets from civilian homes and infrastructure. This rule forbids deliberately attacking civilians and requires combatants to take every possible step to verify their targets, safeguarding the fundamental immunity of non-combatants during conflict. The principle of proportionality12 acts as a crucial moral and legal safeguard. It prohibits any military strike where the anticipated harm to civilians—including loss of life, injury, or damage to homes and hospitals—would be clearly excessive when weighed against the specific and tangible military advantage sought. This rule compels commanders to engage in a deliberate, good-faith assessment before an attack, carefully balancing the demands of the mission against the imperative to protect innocent lives. It acknowledges that civilian suffering, while sometimes tragically unavoidable, must never be disproportionate. The principle of necessity13 means that force may only be used for a genuine military purpose. It forbids actions meant only to cause terror or needless suffering. This principle bans weapons like chemical agents and requires that every act in war is weighed against the cost to humanity. At the heart of the laws of war lies the principle of humanity.14 It demands respect and protection for all who are outside the fight: the wounded, the captured, and civilians. This rule forbids torture and cruel treatment, insisting on the preservation of personal dignity for every individual. It is a binding commitment to care for the vulnerable, ensuring that even amidst conflict, our shared humanity is not forgotten.
An international armed conflict exists when two or more nations are engaged in hostilities, whether through a declared war, a military occupation, or any direct confrontation between their armed forces. This situation activates the full protective framework of the laws of war, as established under Common Article 2 of the Geneva Conventions. All four Conventions immediately apply, safeguarding wounded and sick soldiers, prisoners of war, and civilians. These rules are further elaborated by Additional Protocol I, which clarifies the status of combatants, prohibits actions like the deportation of civilians or collective punishment, and sets stringent standards for humane treatment. Even a peaceful military occupation, without active fighting, obligates the occupying power to maintain public order and safety while respecting the fundamental rights of the people under its control.15
But within the borders of a single country, a different and often more complex type of war can erupt—a non-international armed conflict. This occurs when there is intense, prolonged fighting between a government and organized rebel forces, or between such groups themselves, rising above the level of civil unrest. The legal rules here, established under Common Article 3, provide a vital but basic floor of humanity: all persons outside the fight must be treated humanely, free from murder, torture, and unfair trials. If rebel groups control significant territory, Additional Protocol II strengthens these rules, specifically shielding civilians from attack. These core protections are absolute; a state cannot ignore them, and serious violations are prosecutable as war crimes.16
B. International Human Rights Law (IHRL)
International Human Rights Law serves as a permanent and unwavering covenant of dignity, designed to safeguard the inherent worth of every individual in all circumstances—peace, crisis, or conflict. At its core, this legal tradition makes a crucial distinction: it identifies a set of sacred, non-negotiable rights that must never be abandoned. These are the absolute prohibitions against torture and slavery, the inviolable right to life, and the fundamental guarantee of recognition as a person before the law. No state of emergency, however severe, can justify their violation (non – derogable rights).17 Alongside these immutable protections are other essential freedoms—such as the rights to movement, assembly, and expression. These may be subject to temporary and lawful restriction by a state confronting a true public emergency, but only under strict conditions (derogable rights). Any such measures must be proportionate to the genuine threat, strictly necessary, and never applied in a discriminatory manner. This structure ensures that even in the darkest of times, a baseline of human dignity is preserved, and any temporary concessions are held to the highest standard of justification.18
A state’s duty to uphold human rights does not simply end at its own border, especially during times of conflict. When a nation’s military exercises effective control over a foreign territory or its population—whether through occupation or other forms of intervention—the scope of its legal obligations extends accordingly. The doctrine of extraterritorial application in International Human Rights Law (IHRL) addresses a fundamental legal question: to what extent does a state’s duty to respect, protect, and fulfil human rights persist beyond its sovereign territory, particularly in situations of armed conflict or military intervention? This principle establishes that a state incurs binding human rights obligations not only within its own borders but also in extraterritorial contexts where it exercises “effective control” over a foreign territory (as in belligerent occupation) or exercises “authority and control” over specific individuals abroad.19
Consequently, this evolving legal norm ensures that individuals remain under the protective ambit of IHRL when they fall within the sphere of a foreign state’s control. It acts as a crucial complementary layer to International Humanitarian Law (IHL), mandating that a state’s actions—from security operations to the administration of daily life in an occupied area—are continuously assessed against human rights standards, thereby safeguarding the dignity of affected populations irrespective of geographic location.
International human rights law is anchored in a set of core treaties that lay down comprehensive protections for individuals. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) sets out fundamental guarantees—among them freedom of expression, due-process rights in criminal and civil proceedings, and safeguards against torture and ill-treatment. Complementing this, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) affirms entitlements connected to employment, public health, education, and a dignified standard of living. Alongside these global instruments, regional human rights conventions—such as the European Convention on Human Rights, the American Convention on Human Rights, and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights—adapt and reinforce these protections within their respective regions, responding to distinct historical, political, and social contexts.20
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN IHL AND IHRL IN ARMED CONFLICT
The interaction between International Humanitarian Law (IHL) and International Human Rights Law (IHRL) is complex, characterized by moments of harmony as well as areas where their rules sit uneasily alongside one another. Together, they shape the legal framework that determines how individuals are protected when violence escalates into armed conflict. On the one hand, the two regimes complement each other. IHL steps in with rules tailored specifically to the realities of warfare—regulating how hostilities are conducted and setting limits on the harm that may be inflicted. IHRL, by contrast, is not confined to wartime; it continues to operate before, during, and after conflict, guaranteeing a baseline of fundamental rights that states must uphold. Their simultaneous application means that people caught in conflict zones benefit from a broader set of protections than either regime could provide alone.
International jurisprudence has reinforced this understanding. The International Court of Justice has repeatedly confirmed that IHL does not replace or suspend human rights obligations during conflict. In its Advisory Opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons,21 the Court emphasized that human rights norms remain relevant even amid hostilities. The same approach was adopted in the Wall Advisory Opinion and in the case of Democratic Republic of Congo v. Uganda,22 where the Court underscored that both bodies of law overlap and together form a more comprehensive shield for civilians, combatants, and all those whose lives are disrupted by war. Yet, even with the areas of overlap between International Humanitarian Law and International Human Rights Law, their integration is far from seamless. Deep-rooted normative differences and practical gaps often make it difficult for the two systems to operate in perfect harmony. One of the most prominent points of friction concerns the standards governing the use of force. IHL relies on rules shaped by the realities of military operations, grounding its approach in principles such as distinction, proportionality, and military necessity. These standards are crafted for battlefield conditions, where lethal force may be a routine and expected consequence of hostilities.
IHRL, on the other hand, views the use of force through a very different lens—one shaped by law-enforcement practices appropriate for peacetime. Here, force must be strictly necessary, proportionate, and typically used only as a last resort. When these two paradigms collide in situations like counterinsurgency operations, occupation, or urban warfare, commanders and policymakers may find themselves grappling with conflicting expectations. This complicates both operational decision-making on the ground and efforts to determine state responsibility after incidents involving civilian harm.23 Another layer of tension arises from the rules governing derogations. Human rights treaties generally allow states to temporarily restrict or suspend certain rights during a public emergency, provided strict conditions are met. By contrast, many of the fundamental protections under IHL—such as the absolute ban on torture or the prohibition on deliberately targeting civilians—apply at all times and cannot be set aside. This imbalance can make it challenging to reconcile state practices with their overlapping legal obligations, especially in protracted or ambiguous conflict settings.24
A further, and increasingly significant, difficulty lies in determining how conflicts are classified, since this classification often dictates which legal rules come into play. Under IHL, the distinction between an international armed conflict and a non-international one is foundational—each category triggers a different set of obligations and protections. In practice, however, today’s conflicts rarely fit neatly into these traditional boxes. Modern warfare frequently involves a mix of state forces, non-state armed groups, foreign fighters, private military companies, and loosely organized networks, all operating across borders or in contested territories.25 This reality of “hybrid” conflict—where elements of civil war, cross-border hostilities, and insurgency blend together—makes it increasingly difficult to identify which branch of IHL governs a particular situation. The ambiguity can also affect how IHRL is applied, as states may invoke security concerns or argue over whether a situation qualifies as a full-fledged armed conflict. As a result, the legal framework risks becoming inconsistent or selectively applied, leaving individuals without clear or adequate protection.26
APPLICATION OF IHL AND IHRL DURING ARMED CONFLICTS
International Humanitarian Law places an unambiguous ban on directing attacks against civilians. This principle sits alongside and reinforces the protection of the right to life under International Human Rights Law.27 During armed hostilities, any use of lethal force against individuals who are not taking part in the fighting is treated as an unlawful and arbitrary deprivation of life unless it falls within the narrow conditions that IHL permits. The combined effect of these two bodies of law is to create a strong shield for civilian populations, even in the midst of active conflict.
Beyond regulating the conduct of hostilities, IHL also imposes clear obligations regarding humanitarian relief.28 All parties engaged in an armed conflict must allow and actively enable the swift and unhindered passage of assistance intended for civilians. This includes the delivery of food, medical supplies, and other essential relief items, as well as the safe movement of humanitarian personnel. Any restriction on this access is permissible only when justified by an imperative military necessity, and even then, such limitations must be temporary and proportionate. These responsibilities become even more demanding in situations of occupation. An occupying power is required to ensure that the civilian population under its control has access to sufficient supplies, services, and humanitarian assistance. If the occupying authority is unable or unwilling to meet these needs on its own, it must allow neutral humanitarian organizations or other third parties to provide the necessary aid. The law makes clear that the welfare of the civilian population cannot be compromised because of political, strategic, or security considerations of the occupying power.29
International Humanitarian Law (IHL) places an unequivocal emphasis on safeguarding civilian life and dignity, beginning with its categorical prohibition against intentionally directing attacks at civilians. This foundational rule reflects the broader humanitarian purpose of the law of armed conflict: to limit the effects of warfare on persons who are not, or no longer, participating in hostilities.30 International Human Rights Law (IHRL) reinforces this protective framework through the right to life, which generally forbids the intentional taking of life. In situations of armed conflict, any killing of civilians is treated as an arbitrary deprivation of life unless it can be justified strictly within the narrow exceptions recognized by IHL—for example, incidental harm arising from attacks directed at legitimate military targets, provided all IHL constraints are respected.31
Beyond the rules governing the conduct of hostilities, IHL imposes affirmative duties on conflict parties to protect populations facing humanitarian distress. All parties—state and non-state alike—must make arrangements that allow humanitarian aid to reach civilians swiftly, safely, and without unnecessary impediment. This includes permitting the entry and movement of essential relief items such as medical supplies, foodstuffs, water, clothing, and shelter materials. Equally important is the obligation to allow humanitarian personnel to travel, deliver, and distribute aid without undue delay or obstruction. Any restrictions placed on humanitarian access must be justified solely on grounds of imperative military necessity, must be temporary, and must never undermine the life-saving nature of relief operations.32
International human rights norms place strong emphasis on carrying out prompt, impartial, and credible investigations whenever serious violations are alleged. Although International Humanitarian Law recognizes that such inquiries can be difficult during active fighting, accountability remains essential. Oversight bodies within the UN system regularly review and report on compliance, while the International Criminal Court pursues cases involving grave breaches such as war crimes. In some situations, hybrid tribunals,33 combining domestic and international legal elements—are established to deliver justice that reflects both global standards and local needs. Together, these mechanisms aim to close accountability gaps and limit impunity.
TOWARDS A HARMONISED APPROACH
International Humanitarian Law (IHL) serves as lex specialis relative to International Human Rights Law (IHRL) in armed conflicts, specifying the scope of IHRL norms without displacing them entirely, as affirmed by the International Court of Justice. In two of its Advisory Opinions—the Nuclear Weapons case34 and the Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory35 decision—the International Court of Justice clarified that International Human Rights Law continues to operate even when International Humanitarian Law also applies. In the Nuclear Weapons opinion, the Court emphasized that the protections contained in the ICCPR do not simply disappear during armed conflict unless a state formally derogates from specific rights under Article 4 of the Covenant.
At the same time, the Court explained that during hostilities, IHL functions as the lex specialis: the more specialized body of rules that shapes how certain human rights obligations are understood in wartime. For example, the right to life under Article 6 of the ICCPR cannot be suspended, but what counts as an “arbitrary” deprivation of life must be interpreted through the standards and conduct permitted by IHL. Thus, IHRL continues to apply in conflict situations, yet its practical scope is determined by the more specific norms of IHL rather than overridden by them.
CONCLUSION
As the nature of today’s conflicts rapidly transforms—stretching from traditional battlegrounds to digital, cyber, and hybrid arenas—there is a pressing need for a unified legal approach that brings International Humanitarian Law and International Human Rights Law into closer alignment. A coordinated application of these frameworks is essential to shield civilians more effectively, provide clearer guidance on the use of force, strengthen accountability, and uphold fundamental rights even in the chaos of war. By combining the operational specificity of IHL with the broad protective scope of IHRL, the global community can create a stronger, more humane system that better safeguards human dignity during armed conflict.
*****
Footnotes
1. Mary Kaldor, New and Old Wars: Organized Violence in a Global Era, 4th ed. (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2012).
2. Human Rights in Armed Conflict, UN OHCHR (United Nations, Geneva 2018) https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Publications/HR_in_armed_conflict.pdf accessed 02 December 2025.
3. Ibid.
4. Michael N. Schmitt, ‘The Relationship Between the Law of Armed Conflict and International Human Rights Law’ (Lieber Institute at West Point, 12 June 2018) https://lieber.westpoint.edu/relationship-law-of-armed-conflict-international-human-rights-law/ accessed 02 December 2025.
5. International Committee of the Red Cross, ‘What is the Difference Between IHL and Human Rights Law?’ (International Committee of the Red Cross, 22 January 2015) https://www.icrc.org/en/document/what-difference-between-ihl-and-human-rights-law accessed 02 December 2025.
6. Islam, M. (2018) The Historical Evolution of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) from Earliest Societies to Modern Age. Beijing Law Review, 9, 294-307.
7. Ibid at 6
8. Scott Fisher, ‘A Brief Modern History of International Humanitarian Law’ (ANZSIL Perspective, 28 October 2020) https://anzsilperspective.com/a-brief-modern-history-of-international-humanitarian-law/ accessed 02 December 2025.
9. Amanda Alexander, A Short History of International Humanitarian Law, European Journal of International Law, Volume 26, Issue 1, February 2015, Pages 109–138, https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/chv002
10. International Committee of the Red Cross, What is International Humanitarian Law? (Advisory Service, International Committee of the Red Cross, Geneva July 2004) https://www.icrc.org/sites/default/files/document/file_list/what_is_ihl.pdf accessed 02 December 2025.
11. Ibid.
12. Ibid.
13. Ibid.
14. Ibid.
15. How Does Law Protect in War?, ‘International Armed Conflict (IAC)’ (Casebook, International Committee of the Red Cross, 2020) https://guide-humanitarian-law.org/content/article/3/international-armed-conflict-iac/ accessed 02 December 2025.
16. Aarushi Tomar, ‘Internal Armed Conflict under International Humanitarian Law’ (IPleaders Blog, 20 December 2023) https://blog.ipleaders.in/internal-armed-conflict-international-humanitarian-law/ accessed 02 December 2025.
17. Studocu, ‘What is the Difference Between a Derogable and a Non-derogable Right in Human Rights?’ (Q&A Forum, Studocu, 2023) https://www.studocu.com/en-za/messages/question/4005530/what-is-the-difference-between-a-derogable-and-a-non-derogable-right-in-human-rights- accessed 02 December 2025.
18. Ibid at 17
19. Christina M Cerna, ‘The Extraterritorial Scope of Human Rights Treaties: The American Convention on Human Rights’ (2003) https://www.corteidh.or.cr/tablas/r31600.pdf accessed 02 December 2025.
20. Edward T Hart, ‘International Human Rights Law Research Guide’ (Georgetown Law Library Guides, Updated 14 January 2022) https://guides.ll.georgetown.edu/c.php?g=273364&p=6066284 accessed 02 December 2025.
21. Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (Advisory Opinion) [2004] ICJ Rep 136 https://www.icj-cij.org/case/95 accessed 02 December 2025.
22. Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v Uganda) (Judgment, Merits) [2005] ICJ Rep 168 https://www.icj-cij.org/case/116 accessed 02 December 2025.
23. UNODC Education for Justice (E4J), ‘The Relationship between IHL and International Human Rights Law’ (University Module Series: Counter-Terrorism, UNODC, 2020) https://www.unodc.org/e4j/fr/terrorism/module-6/key-issues/relationship-between-ihl-and-intern-human-rights-law.html accessed 02 December 2025.
24. Cordula Droege, ‘The Interplay Between International Humanitarian Law and International Human Rights Law in Situations of Armed Conflict’ (2007) 40 (2) Israel Law Review 310 https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021223700013160 accessed 02 December 2025.
25. David Kretzmer, Rotem Giladi and Yuval Shany, ‘International Humanitarian Law and International Human Rights Law: Exploring Parallel Application’ (2007) 40 (2) Israel Law Review 306 http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2666503 accessed 02 December 2025.
26. Ibid at 25
27. Ka Lok Yip, Demystifying the Right to Life during the Conduct of Hostilities: Theories, Methods, Practices, European Journal of International Law, Volume 36, Issue 1, February 2025, Pages 77–112, https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/chaf005 accessed 02 December 2025.
28. International Committee of the Red Cross, IHL and Humanitarian Assistance, Casebook: How Does Law Protect in War? https://casebook.icrc.org/law/ihl-and-humanitarian-assistance accessed 02 December 2025.
29. International Committee of the Red Cross, Humanitarian access: what the law says, ICRC (Geneva, 2020) https://www.icrc.org/en/document/humanitarian-access-what-law-says accessed 02 December 2025.
30. Gus Waschefort, The Alchemy of the Right to Life during the Conduct of Hostilities: A Normative Approach to Operationalizing the ‘Supreme Right’, European Journal of International Law, Volume 34, Issue 3, August 2023, Pages 615–646, https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/chad045 accessed 02 December 2025.
31. International Committee of the Red Cross, Targeting under International Humanitarian Law, Casebook: How Does Law Protect in War? (Geneva) https://casebook.icrc.org/highlight/targeting-under-international-humanitarian-law accessed 02 December 2025.
32. Ibid at 27.
33. Elena Naughton, Committing to Justice for Serious Human Rights Violations: Lessons from Hybrid Tribunals, International Center for Transitional Justice, Research Report (2018)
34. Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, ICJ Reports 1996.
35. Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, ICJ Advisory Opinion, 9 July 2004.