Violations of International Humanitarian Law Related to the Use of Weapons in the Armed Conflict in Ukraine

International Humanitarian Law (IHL), also known as the Law of Armed Conflict, traces its origins back to the mid-19th century, when the International Committee of the Red Cross (hereinafter also referred to as the Red Cross) was established in Switzerland.

Naturally, the original provisions of IHL (which is part of public international law) must be continually revised, both formally and in terms of their interpretation. This includes the provisions relating to the broadly understood use of weapons in armed conflicts. International Humanitarian Law (IHL), as defined by the Red Cross in the introduction to the “Commentary on the Additional Protocols of 8 June 1977” to the Geneva Conventions of 1949, refers to international rules, established by treaties or custom, which are specifically intended to solve humanitarian problems directly arising from international or non-international armed conflicts and which, for humanitarian reasons, limit the right of Parties to a conflict to use the methods and means of warfare of their choice or protect persons and property that are, or may be, affected by conflict. Thus, this body of law applies to the use of weapons during military operations in Ukraine following the Russian aggression in 2022. Both the aggressor and the victim of aggression are parties to International Humanitarian Law agreements, which, among others, regulate the permissible means and methods of conducting hostilities, as well as the treatment of the wounded, prisoners of war, and the sick during armed conflict. However, the Russian Federation has gradually moved away from the obligations set out in the Additional Protocols.

International Humanitarian Law encompasses two main groups of legal regulations that relate to two different issues. The first one includes rules that define permissible and prohibited ways and means of warfare (ius in bello). These are rules of international law which aim to limit the freedom of belligerents in choosing the methods and means of warfare (for example, the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907, the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons of 1980, the Convention on Anti-Personnel Mines of 1997). The other group includes humanitarian law in the strict sense; i.e. rules of international law intended to protect war victims and cultural property (Geneva Convention of 1864, Hague Convention (X) of 1907, four Geneva Conventions of 1949: Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea in Naval Warfare, the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Persons, Additional Protocols of 1977, Convention of 1954 for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict). It is worth noting that IHL, which applies wherever hostilities are taking place, constitutes lex specialis in relation to the international human rights law, which as a rule applies in times of peace.

Read more