Rethinking the foundations of a global humanitarian order in jeopardy

In the face of massive violations of International Humanitarian Law and the impunity that goes with them, all in a context of drastic aid cuts, Caroline Brandao analyses the root causes of the breakdown of the global humanitarian order. The author also puts forward practical mechanisms for rebuild­ing a system based on peace, justice and dignity.

It is no longer just humanitarian aid that is teetering. An entire system of standards, values and principles un­derpinning humanitarian work is at risk of collapse. The proliferation of armed conflicts (over 130 were recorded in 2025),^[1]Press release from the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), Upholding international humanitarian law is crucial to reducing escalating costs of war, 14 February 2025, … Continue reading their growing intensity and the continuing impunity for International Humanitarian Law (IHL) violations mean that IHL is being undermined. However, IHL is one of the last lines of defence for civilian protection in times of war. It is also the legal basis enabling human­itarian organisations to take action in the most dangerous contexts. More in­sidiously, contemporary armed conflicts are threatening world peace, not just because of their destructive impact, but also by fuelling polarisation, distrust and aggressiveness. Furthermore, the swift increase and the growing complexity of information technologies, as used by so­cial networks and the media, are lead­ing to continuous sharing of sometimes contradictory, biased or manipulated news.^[2]See the review’s dossier: “Communication challenges in the era of fake news and ‘post-truth’”, Humanitarian Alternatives, issue 29, July 2025, … Continue reading This information overload makes it more difficult to defend and effectively implement IHL obligations, while under­mining the legitimacy of humanitarian stakeholders. It is not enough to make alarming assessments or draft empty declarations in this context. There is an urgent need to redesign the foundations of a global humanitarian order in jeop­ardy in order to develop collective and sustainable solutions. This means firstly gaining an understanding of the reasons for the breakdown of the existing order, and then sketching the outline of a new humanitarian order based on peace, jus­tice and dignity.

A global situation of massive violations against a backdrop of funding cuts

“The downscaling of humanitarian aid is also weakening the monitoring and checks-and-balances mechanisms, increasing regimes’ grip on resources, and playing a part in normalising a climate of impunity.”

The bleak picture of IHL and human rights violations is part of a worrying context of worldwide humanitarian aid cuts. These budget cuts are considerably reducing humanitarian organisations’ ability to take action, to a great extent jeopardising their presence and their ac­cess to civilian populations. This gradual disinvestment is only increasing impu­nity and is paving the way for authori­tarian regimes to strengthen their hold on power. In fact, the downscaling of humanitarian aid is also weakening the monitoring and checks-and-balances mechanisms, increasing regimes’ grip on resources, and playing a part in normal­ising a climate of impunity. Two major dynamics deserve special consideration in this context. On the one hand, there is the progressive erosion of IHL, both in terms of implementing and upholding the law. On the other, there is the wor­rying eradication of arenas of regulation and international governance.

While international attention is focused on a handful of conflicts that receive extensive media coverage, the world is experiencing a widespread deteriora­tion of the humanitarian situation and human rights. The most basic IHL norms are being flouted in many regions, and populations are paying too high a price. Civilians, and more specifically children, as well as humanitarian workers and journalists (who are, however, protected by IHL), are becoming the direct targets of deliberate violence.

There have been a dramatic number of civilian victims in the armed conflicts in the Occupied Palestinian Territories and Ukraine in 2025. Indiscriminate bomb­ings, attacks on civilian infrastructures and humanitarian access restrictions are frequent in these conflicts. This situation is a serious breach of the obliga­tions resulting from the 1949 Geneva Conventions. However, it is not confined to these two major conflicts.

In Africa, Sudan is sinking into chaos, with the conflict being largely ignored by the media and the international community. Hostilities have intensi­fied in North Darfur and the Kordofan areas, where massive violations of IHL and human rights have been recorded. The situation is particularly alarming in Al-Fashir. Widespread sexual violence, including against children, has been reported for over a year, revealing the sheer scale of the crisis. In the east of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the armed conflicts are taking a turn for the worse, jeopardising the already frag­ile peace processes. Children account for close to 40% of gender-based and sexual violence survivors. According to the United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund (UNICEF), a child was reported raped every half hour during the most intense phase of the conflict. The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights is also investigating allegations of forced recruitment of children into armed groups. The military regimes in Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger are strengthening their grip on power to the detriment of the democratic aspirations of their peo­ples. Attacks perpetrated by non-state armed groups have claimed thousands of civilian victims in all three countries. There are also reports of summary exe­cutions, sexual violence and kidnapping. Instability is growing in Nigeria: armed groups are stepping up killings, kidnap­pings, the forced recruitment of fighters and inter-community violence, threaten­ing to export insecurity to the whole of West Africa.

In the Caribbean, meanwhile, Haiti is ex­periencing an extremely serious crisis. At least 2,680 people were killed and 957 injured in the violence unleashed by heavily armed gangs between January and May 2025. These criminal groups have taken control of large swathes of territory, including the country’s capital city. They kill, rape, kidnap and system­atically destroy civilian infrastructure.^[3]Information gathered from reports from the United Nations and the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, ReliefWeb situation reports (https://reliefweb.int), UNICEF – Data on violence … Continue reading

The obligation to respect and ensure respect for IHL – a neglected collective duty

One of the founding principles of IHL is the obligation for states to respect the law and ensure that warring parties re­spect it too.^[4]This principle is enshrined in Article 1 of the four 1949 Geneva Conventions and is also a rule of customary international law, notably included in Rule 139 of the ICRC’s study on customary IHL … Continue reading They have both negative obligations (not to breach IHL) and posi­tive obligations: to take steps to prevent, sanction or put a stop to IHL violations, including when such violations are com­mitted by other states or armed actors. This dual dimension of compliance and implementation gives states shared re­sponsibility to uphold humanitarian law and protect civilians.

However, in the current context, there are very few states that actually take on this responsibility. Some countries have regularly shown themselves to be IHL defenders, particularly in the diplomat­ic arena. Others have also demonstrated a commitment to promoting compliance with IHL, particularly in peace processes. However, the principle’s effectiveness is significantly limited because most states do not have a robust, coherent and co­ordinated stance, particularly military or regional powers directly or indirectly in­volved in armed conflicts. The response of third-party states to the ongoing con­flicts remains timid, selective and some­times even non-existent. The principle is cited in speeches, but is rarely im­plemented in practice through binding measures, such as diplomatic pressure, targeted sanctions, international investi­gations or suspending arms sales.

At the same time, the guarantors of IHL cannot ignore the fact that compliance with IHL is inextricably linked with the fundamental obligation for states to spread knowledge of it, both in times of peace and times of war. This is not an op­tional obligation; it stems directly from the 12 August 1949 Geneva Conventions, and all four Conventions use virtually identical wording. The requirement to disseminate IHL is a treaty obligation and is legally binding for the state parties.

However, this obligation to spread knowledge of IHL has received little at­tention since 1949. Each time that ex­perts have focused on the issue of the effective application of IHL, they have identified the absolute need to spread knowledge in advance and continuous­ly. The many resolutions adopted at the International Conferences of the Red Cross and Red Crescent bear witness to this. As early as 1869, the second International Conference in Berlin was already highlighting a need to “spread awareness of the articles of the Geneva Convention as much as possible, particu­larly among soldiers”. In 1981, a further conference called on the state parties to fully implement this obligation, ensur­ing systematic dissemination of IHL in the armed forces, state institutions, uni­versities, medical facilities and school system and among the general public.

While spreading knowledge in the armed forces can draw on relatively similar structures, providing civilians with infor­mation can prove more complex because of the diversity of educational and social systems. However, spreading knowledge of IHL is just as critical nowadays. It plays a key role in how societies themselves understand, take on board and demand humanitarian principles.

Peacebuilding forums are important diplomatic instruments, but they have been considerably weakened today.

Historically, several peacebuilding fo­rums emerged to try to prevent or re­solve armed conflicts. The League of Nations (1919-1946) was one of the first multilateral institutional initiatives, but it was weakened by an absence of major powers and its inability to pre­vent World War II. The UN (1945 on­wards), notably via its Security Council, General Assembly and specialised agencies, constitutes a major step forward, but nowadays is often paralysed by cross-vetoes, particularly with regard to conflicts involving permanent mem­bers of the Security Council. Likewise, the International Conferences of the Red Cross and Red Crescent (held every four years since 1867) constitute a unique fo­rum for states and the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement to debate implementation of IHL, although their resolutions are non-binding.^[5]Even if they do exert normative, political and moral influence, and can uphold the interpretation of existing IHL. Nowadays, the Paris Peace Forum (since 2018) and the Doha Forum (since 2000) are high-level platforms focusing on global governance and promoting mul­tilateralism, but their tangible impact on current conflicts remains limited.

The fragmentation of the international system, deep geopolitical divisions and the shift away from multilateralism are eroding the ability of these forums to act in a coherent and credible manner. The extreme urgency at the present time is to strengthen these forums for dialogue, equip them with the means to have real influence and ensure that civilian pro­tection and IHL compliance are put back at the heart of their priorities.

Establishing national evaluation bodies and effective enforcement mechanisms

It therefore seems necessary to build a new global humanitarian order. The is­sue of strengthening IHL and its effec­tiveness remains pivotal in the current context. However, the protection of­fered by this law relies on the political will of leaders to ensure compliance and implementation. The future of the 1949 Geneva Conventions depends on normative and political decisions that need to be taken today: the interna­tional community’s ability to protect, or, conversely, endanger people in the midst of armed conflicts, will hinge on these decisions.

Researchers and legal experts have an important role to play in reaffirming hu­manitarian norms in order to tailor them to current challenges and make them easier to understand. Technological de­velopment, particularly artificial intelli­gence and autonomous weapon systems, requires ongoing discussion of standards and theory, involving academics and hu­manitarian organisations with a view to interpreting and clarifying IHL. Once again, this dynamic should also be accompanied by increased sharing of information about the law across all strata of society.

However, this also – and, perhaps, es­pecially – requires setting up a credible enforcement system. The mere existence of standards is no longer enough in itself. From now on, there is a need to consider setting up independent nation­al evaluation and grading authorities, able to measure the degree of IHL imple­mentation, respect and compliance by the state and those affected by this law, namely combatants, legal practitioners, diplomats, magistrates, the media, hu­manitarian workers, businesses and the general public. These bodies should be able to provide an independent, trans­parent and comparable evaluation of the degree of IHL implementation, re­spect and compliance for each state and each category of actor. The publi­cation of periodic reports addressed to decision-makers would help develop learning and alert tools. For instance, these bodies could evaluate and grade:

• The existence and extent to which IHL has been transposed into domestic law, for states.
• The transparency of investigations into alleged violations in the armed forces.
• Mandatory IHL training.
• The existence of charters of ethics re­garding media coverage of armed con­flicts and the amount of verified news published, for the media.
• Respect for humanitarian principles by humanitarian organisations.
• Due diligence policy for businesses in armed conflict settings.^[6]United Nations, Implementing the third pillar: lessons from transitional justice guidance by the Working Group, Report of the Working Group on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations … Continue reading
• Level of the general public’s IHL knowl­edge by means of periodic surveys.

“There is also a need for collective discussion about setting up effective enforcement mechanisms able to sanction violations and, where necessary, compel government officials or individuals to put a stop to these violations.”

There is also a need for collective dis­cussion about setting up effective en­forcement mechanisms able to sanction violations and, where necessary, compel government officials or individuals to put a stop to these violations.^[7]Hans Kelsen, Peace through Law, The University of North California Press, 1944, https://styluscuriarum.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/hans-kelsenpeace-through-law-2008-1.pdf ; Antonio … Continue reading The cre­ation of specialised units within nation­al police forces could be the first phase of this process. These units would be tasked with monitoring IHL compliance in their countries, in foreign military op­erations, and when training the armed forces. Their remit would include iden­tifying violations, gathering evidence and, where applicable, arresting those suspected of IHL violations. Reporting to independent judicial authorities, they would help bring the application of IHL closer to classic national law mech­anisms, in this way increasing individual and state responsibility. Moving beyond the national level, the idea of an interna­tional IHL police force would be in line with the rationale of legal obligations, applying to everyone, to respect and ensure respect for IHL. Reporting to an international organisation within a new ad-hoc structure created by a treaty, this police force would be tasked with taking action in situations where serious IHL vi­olations have occurred. It would have the power to investigate, arrest and transfer before the competent national or inter­national jurisdictions.

For instance, the creation of an International Secretariat for IHL Compliance could be envisaged. The Secretariat’s main remit would be to prevent, detect and arrest the perpetrators of IHL viola­tions. Under the aegis of a multilateral treaty based on the Geneva Conventions, the Secretariat would be an independent authority that would cooperate closely with the International Criminal Court (ICC) and national jurisdictions. Just like Interpol, the International Secretariat for IHL Compliance would manage a set of specialised databases that could be accessed in real time by state parties and the competent jurisdictions. These databases would list the people wanted or being accused of IHL violations; doc­umented instances of serious IHL viola­tions; armed units, command structures and assets involved in these violations; damage to cultural property and human­itarian infrastructure; etc. The aim would be to ensure systematic traceability and limit impunity by centralising informa­tion. The Secretariat would provide states and jurisdictions with forensics expertise (ballistics and DNA analysis, satellite imagery) tailored to armed conflict situations, teams of investiga­tors specialising in war crimes and who could be deployed in joint missions with national and international jurisdictions, and a system of international wanted persons notices, making it easier to locate and arrest suspects. This mech­anism would fill a significant gap, as the ICC does not have an executive arm able to enforce its warrants. The International Secretariat for IHL could be structured around four themed departments:

• Civilian and civilian infrastructure protection,
• Violation prevention and law enforcement,
• Prohibited arms control and traceability,
• Protection of cultural property.

Each of these departments would bring together technical expertise, data gath­ering, training and operational cooper­ation with the states. IHL training and awareness-raising programmes for judg­es, prosecutors, armed forces and secu­rity forces would be a key component. The aim would be to spread a culture of compliance with IHL and build the ca­pacity of the most fragile states in this particular area. Finally, the Secretariat would have a monitoring and research remit for developments affecting IHL. To cite two examples, this would in­clude the impact of new technologies (armed drones, autonomous weapons, cyberattacks against civilian infrastruc­ture) or analysis of global trends. The mechanism would not replace the ICC, but would bolster its efforts by provid­ing it with the investigative and deten­tion tools that it currently lacks. Such an institution could help bridge the gap between proclaimed IHL standards and their actual effectiveness in real life. The proposal to form a national and in­ternational IHL police force may seem utopian. However, it stems from a sim­ple observation, namely that there is a growing gap between IHL rules and their actual application on the ground. IHL could be turned into functioning law by equipping the international community with independent and credible enforce­ment mechanisms, in this way ensuring that the principles of dignity, justice and peace that underpin it stop being abstract proclamations and instead be­come tangible guarantees.

A new global humanitarian order based on peace, justice and dignity

There is a need to devise a new global humanitarian order because of the inad­equacies of the current victim protection mechanisms in armed conflicts. Such an order should be based on the obliga­tions arising from both IHL and human rights law. Its development requires a partnership between states, as they sign legally binding treaties, civil society, as it disseminates and takes ownership of standards, and humanitarian organisa­tions on the ground. The peace process cannot solely be viewed as a vertical in­terstate prerogative. It should incorpo­rate a horizontal dimension, enabling civil society to undertake a monitoring and participatory role, and victims to be recognised as procedural rightsholders, notably with regard to truth, justice and reparations. Academics specialising in the study of armed conflict, magistrates in national and international jurisdic­tions, humanitarian workers and journal­ists working in conflict zones contribute, through their work, to consolidating a space for dialogue on norms. This space is the vital cornerstone for developing tailored and effective reparation mech­anisms, a prerequisite for the emergence of an updated international humanitari­an order that complies with the requirements of the law.

The reactivation of international forums for dialogue, a prerequisite for starting proper peace processes, requires clear methodological foundations to be laid down. In the first instance, this involves negotiating agreements with the main parties in the armed conflict under the auspices of an impartial mediator and in politically neutral locations. These processes should not be limited to the exchange of land or solely to economic considerations. On the contrary, they should explicitly include the consider­ation of IHL violations and the issue of justice and reparation mechanisms for the victims. Furthermore, excessive me­dia coverage of negotiations seems to be counter-productive, as it tends to rigidify positions and hamper efforts to achieve significant compromises. Therefore, it is better for the talks to take place in a confidential and neutral setting to avoid a slide towards public forums dominated by recriminations and discourse based on a felt lack of recognition.

Conducive settings, often selected for their political stability, their lack of di­rect involvement in the conflict and their diplomatic tradition, can play a role. Vienna is one such example, where the headquarters of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe are known for hosting multilateral negotia­tions. Helsinki is another example: the city boasts a long-standing experience of facilitating East-West dialogue (the 1975 Helsinki Accords). Oslo, the ven­ue for the historic Israeli-Palestinian agreements, boasts a tradition of dis­crete mediation. The Hague is where the International Court of Justice and the ICC are headquartered. Stockholm has a long tradition of neutrality and hosting nego­tiations. And, finally, San José in Costa Rica (a nation with no armed forces) is a country committed to promoting peace and international law.

The challenge is not only to uphold existing law, but also to strengthen it to prevent it from becoming purely declaratory in nature and stripped of its substance. The current crisis should not be viewed as an inevitability, but as an opportunity to reflect and rebuild. Redesigning the foundations of the global humanitarian order involves both critical analysis of the mechanisms that have led to it be weakened and normative plans for new mechanisms to be created. The way forward outlined here, of redesigning a humanitarian order based on peace, justice and dignity, should be viewed in this light.

Translated from the French by Gillian Eaton

Picture Credit : ©CICR – Laura Salvinelli