ASYMMETRIC WARFARE AND THE CHALLENGES TO INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW
Keywords:
Asymmetric Warfare, International Humanitarian Law, Non-State Armed Groups, Legal Accountability, Rules of Engagement, Civilian ProtectionAbstract
In recent decades, asymmetric warfare has increasingly defined the landscape of armed conflict, largely due to the significant role played by non-state entities and their reliance on irregular strategies that strain the normative framework of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) (Kaldor, 2012; Hoffman, 2007). This article explores the misalignment between IHL’s core principles— such as distinction, proportionality, combatant status, and accountability—and the operational realities of asymmetric battlefields. A comparative analysis is conducted across three case studies: the Coalition’s operations against ISIS in Mosul, Myanmar’s military conflict with the Rohingya population, and Turkey’s intervention against the YPG in northern Syria. Findings reveal a structural gap in the legal responsibility between state and non-state actors, compounded by the limited enforcement mechanisms of IHL in non-international armed conflicts. The article proposes reform of international legal frameworks, the modernization of military doctrines and rules of engagement, and the integration of ethical and legal education into military training. These measures aim to maintain the relevance and effectiveness of IHL in facing future hybrid and asymmetric conflicts.
References
1. Amnesty International. (2017). At any cost: The civilian catastrophe in West Mosul, Iraq. https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/mde14/6610/2017/en/
2. Bannelier, K., & Cristol, S. (2019). Asymmetrical warfare and international humanitarian law. Leiden Journal of International Law, 32(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0922156519000015
3. Boothby, W. H. (2014). Conflict law: The influence of new weapons technology, human rights and emerging actors. Springer.
4. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
5. Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
6. Durham, H., & Quintin, A. (2021). At the crossroads: Multi-stakeholder and multi-dimensional approaches to international humanitarian law. Cambridge University Press.
7. George, A. L., & Bennett, A. (2005). Case studies and theory development in the social sciences. MIT Press.
8. Henckaerts, J. M., & Doswald-Beck, L. (2005). Customary International Humanitarian Law. Cambridge University Press. https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl
9. Hoffman, F. G. (2007). Conflict in the 21st century: The rise of hybrid wars. Potomac Institute. https://www.potomacinstitute.org/images/stories/publications/potomac_hybridwar_0108.pdf
10. Human Rights Watch. (2017). Iraq: Civilian casualties mount in West Mosul. https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/03/06/iraq-civilian-casualties-mount-west-mosul
11. Human Rights Watch. (2020). Syria: Civilians harmed in Turkish attacks. https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/02/13/syria-civilians-harmed-turkish-attacks
12. International Committee of the Red Cross. (2015). International humanitarian law and the challenges of contemporary armed conflicts. https://www.icrc.org/en/document/international- humanitarian-law-and-challenges-contemporary-armed-conflicts
13. International Crisis Group. (2019). Mitigating risks for civilians in northern Syria. https://www.crisisgroup.org/middle-east-north-africa/eastern-mediterranean/syria/mitigating- risks-civilians-northern-syria
14. Lubell, N. (2010). Extraterritorial use of force against non-state actors. Oxford University Press.
15. Melzer, N. (2016). Integrating IHL into military training: Challenges and best practices. ICRC. https://www.icrc.org/en/publication/4173-integrating-ihl-military-training-challenges-and-best- practices
16. Sassòli, M. (2019). International humanitarian law: Rules, controversies, and solutions to problems arising in warfare. Edward Elgar Publishing.
17. Schmitt, M. N. (2013). The interpretive guidance on the notion of direct participation in hostilities: A critical analysis. Harvard National Security Journal, 1(1), 5–44. https://harvardnsj.org/2010/01/the-interpretive-guidance/
