For much of the twentieth and early twenty-first centuries, the international community operated under the assumption that armed conflict, while inevitable, could be governed by agreed standards. Central to this framework were the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols, which codified principles of distinction, proportionality, and protection of civilians. These rules of war were meant to restrain the excesses of violence and preserve a minimum of humanity even in times of conflict.
Yet in 2025, the durability of these norms faces unprecedented challenges. The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Volker Türk, warned in September that “the rules of war are being shredded” amid global rights violations spanning Ukraine, Sudan, Gaza, Myanmar, and the Democratic Republic of Congo (Reuters, 2025). This assessment reflects not isolated breaches but a systemic erosion of international humanitarian law (IHL) and the institutions tasked with enforcing it.
A Systemic Crisis Across Conflicts
The crisis is not confined to a single conflict zone. In Ukraine, deliberate strikes on civilian infrastructure have raised concerns about violations of the principle of distinction, which obliges parties to target only combatants and military objectives (ICRC, 2020). In Gaza, reports of disproportionate use of force and the targeting of densely populated areas highlight the challenges of applying proportionality in urban warfare (Human Rights Watch, 2024). In Sudan, mass atrocities and ethnic-based violence against displaced populations continue with little accountability, echoing earlier failures in Darfur. Meanwhile, in Myanmar, systematic abuses against ethnic minorities, including the Rohingya, persist despite international condemnation.
Across these theaters, the common thread is impunity. Mechanisms designed to enforce accountability, such as the International Criminal Court (ICC), often lack jurisdiction, face political blockages, or are activated only after prolonged delays. The result is a growing perception that IHL is aspirational rather than binding—a set of principles invoked rhetorically but disregarded in practice.
Why Are the Rules Weakening?
1. Geopolitical Polarization
The first explanation lies in the broader geopolitical climate. The post-Cold War era witnessed a degree of consensus on the importance of humanitarian norms, exemplified by interventions in the Balkans and the development of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine. However, the current international order is marked by polarization among major powers. Rivalries between the United States, China, and Russia frequently paralyze the UN Security Council, where vetoes block resolutions aimed at curbing abuses. This politicization has undermined multilateralism and eroded the legitimacy of international institutions (Weiss, 2023).
2. Asymmetric and Urban Warfare
Second, the changing nature of conflict complicates adherence to established norms. Non-state armed groups increasingly operate from within civilian areas, using human shields or blending into local populations. States, in response, often employ heavy firepower in urban settings, resulting in civilian casualties. While IHL still applies, the cost of compliance is perceived as high, particularly when adversaries do not abide by the same rules (Kellenberger, 2010).
3. Weak Enforcement Mechanisms
Third, enforcement remains inconsistent. While the ICC has pursued cases in Africa and elsewhere, its ability to hold major powers or their allies accountable is limited. States outside the Rome Statute, such as the United States, Russia, and China, often resist ICC jurisdiction. This selective application fuels accusations of bias and weakens the court’s legitimacy (Akhavan, 2019). Without credible enforcement, deterrence collapses.
4. Erosion of Trust in Institutions
Finally, there is a broader decline in confidence in international institutions. The perception that humanitarian law is applied selectively strongly against weaker states but ignored when violated by powerful actors has led to cynicism, particularly in the Global South. This further reduces incentives for compliance, as states question whether the norms are genuinely universal.
The Consequences of Erosion
The weakening of humanitarian norms carries profound consequences. At the most immediate level, civilian populations bear the brunt. The principle of civilian protection, a cornerstone of IHL, becomes hollow if neither states nor non-state actors feel bound by it.
At a systemic level, the erosion of norms risks normalizing violations. If one side justifies targeting civilian infrastructure on grounds of military necessity, others may follow suit, creating a cycle of reciprocal disregard. Over time, this undermines the idea that war can be governed at all.
There are also implications for international stability. Humanitarian violations often fuel cycles of revenge, radicalization, and displacement, which in turn spill over into neighboring regions. The Syrian conflict, for example, generated massive refugee flows that reshaped politics in Europe and the Middle East. If current conflicts continue unchecked, similar destabilizing effects are likely.
Lessons from History
History demonstrates that humanitarian norms often emerge from moments of crisis. The devastation of the Second World War prompted the 1949 Geneva Conventions. The atrocities in Rwanda and the Balkans spurred the creation of the ICC and the refinement of R2P. Each instance shows that international law evolves in response to human suffering, though often belatedly.
The current moment may represent a similar turning point. If violations become normalized without reform, the credibility of the entire humanitarian regime will collapse. But if states, regional organizations, and civil society act to strengthen accountability, the erosion could trigger renewal rather than decline.
Pathways to Renewal
Several measures could help arrest the current erosion.
- Strengthening Accountability Mechanisms: Expanding universal jurisdiction and supporting hybrid courts may provide alternatives where the ICC cannot act. For example, national courts in Europe have successfully tried Syrian officials for war crimes.
- Leveraging Technology: Advances in satellite imagery, open-source intelligence, and digital documentation have made it harder to hide violations. These tools, if integrated into formal accountability processes, could improve evidence collection and deter abuses (Mazurana & Gordon, 2021).
- Role of Middle Powers: Countries not caught in great-power rivalries, such as Canada, South Africa, or Japan, may serve as brokers to build consensus on humanitarian enforcement. Their credibility can help bridge divides in multilateral forums.
- Civil Society and Grassroots Pressure: NGOs, advocacy groups, and victims’ organizations have historically played key roles in advancing humanitarian causes. Their continued mobilization remains essential for maintaining pressure on states and institutions.
Conclusion
The warning that “the rules of war are being shredded” should not be dismissed as mere rhetoric. It reflects a profound crisis in international relations and humanitarian law. The erosion of norms in conflicts across Ukraine, Gaza, Sudan, and Myanmar demonstrates that violations are not anomalies but symptoms of a systemic breakdown.
Yet the story of international law has never been one of linear progress. It has always advanced in response to catastrophe, shaped by both failure and renewal. The question in 2025 is whether the international community will allow humanitarian law to fade into irrelevance, or whether it will summon the political will to reaffirm its relevance.
Ultimately, rules of war exist not to eliminate conflict but to humanize it. Their erosion threatens not only the lives of civilians but the credibility of a global order built on shared restraint. Rebuilding that order will be difficult, but the alternative a world where cruelty is unconstrained is far worse.