Beyond the Rhetoric of Humanity: Why the UN Must Reform Its Approach to the Laws of War in a Fragmented International System

Adediran Babajide, President/CEO
Carlsron Initiative for Peace and Human Rights (CIPEHR)

 

 

 

Keywords: International law; UN reform; laws of war; Security Council; humanitarian protection; geopolitical fragmentation; global governance.

 

 Abstract

The laws of war present themselves as instruments of humanity, yet in practice they often reflect the strategic preferences of powerful states rather than universal moral values. This article argues that the UN’s approach to war law—rooted in outdated power structures, selective enforcement, and geopolitical interests—can no longer manage the realities of today’s fragmented international system. Drawing on cases such as Gaza, Ukraine, and Syria, it shows how contradictions between humanitarian rhetoric and strategic behavior weaken global norms. It further analyses how Security Council paralysis enables impunity and undermines the UN’s credibility. The article concludes by outlining key reforms needed to align war law with global justice, accountability, and the protection of civilians.

 

1. Introduction: War Law Between Humanity and Strategy

Modern international humanitarian law (IHL) is frequently presented as a moral shield protecting civilians from the brutality of conflict. Yet scholars have long argued that war law evolved not as pure humanitarianism but as rules shaped by military necessity and the strategic interests of major powers (Kaldor, 2013; Roberts & Guelff, 2000). This tension is evident today: while the UN promotes universal humanitarian standards, enforcement often depends on political calculations rather than consistent legal principles.

Recent conflicts—including Gaza (2023–present), Ukraine (2022–present), the Sudan crisis, and the long war in Syria—demonstrate how states invoke humanitarian rhetoric even while engaging in, enabling, or ignoring severe violations of IHL. These contradictions expose the limits of the UN system, particularly the structural constraints of the UN Security Council (UNSC), where veto politics frequently override legal and moral imperatives.

This article argues that the UN’s approach to the laws of war is no longer adequate for an international system defined by fragmentation, great-power rivalry, and asymmetric warfare. It calls for reforms that strengthen impartiality, enforcement, and accountability.

 

2. War Law as Strategic Instrument: The Gap Between Ideals and State Behaviour

War law was never merely a humanitarian gift; it emerged historically from negotiations among powerful states seeking to regulate conflict in ways that preserved their own strategic advantages (Best, 1983). This continues today, as states interpret IHL through doctrines such as proportionality, military necessity, and dual-use targeting, often broadening these concepts to justify their operations.

Illustrative Case: Gaza and the Expanding Definition of Military Necessity

During the 2023–present Gaza conflict, debates over proportionality and military necessity exposed how differently states interpret IHL depending on political alignments. Israel argued that extensive urban destruction was justified on the grounds of countering embedded combatants, while many UN officials and humanitarian agencies argued that such expansive interpretations undermined civilian protection (UN OCHA, 2024). The interpretation of IHL thus reflected strategic preferences rather than neutral humanitarian norms.

Illustrative Case: Russia’s Framing of its War in Ukraine

In Ukraine, Russia justified attacks on civilian infrastructure—energy grids, dams, and housing complexes—by labeling them “military objectives,” illustrating how states manipulate IHL terminology to legitimize actions that violate the spirit of humanitarian protection (ICRC, 2023).

These cases show that although IHL aspires to constrain war, its flexibility allows powerful actors to stretch definitions, turning humanitarian language into a strategic tool.

 

3. A Fragmented Global Order: Selective Legality and Norm Erosion

The post-Cold War moment briefly raised hopes for a rules-based order, but the last two decades have reversed that trend. The fragmentation of global politics—rising multipolarity, polarized blocs, and geopolitical rivalry—has undermined the consistent application of the laws of war.

Illustrative Case: Syria and the Normalization of Atrocity Crimes

Repeated chemical attacks and sieges in Syria (2013–2018) were met with fragmented UN responses due to great-power disagreements, particularly between Russia and Western states. The result was what some scholars call the “normalization of atrocity crimes,” where violations continue without meaningful accountability (Bellamy, 2018).

Illustrative Case: Sudan’s Ongoing Humanitarian Crisis

In Sudan’s 2023–present crisis, rampant atrocities—including mass killings and sexual violence—occurred with minimal international enforcement because the conflict fell outside major power strategic interests, illustrating the hierarchy of whose suffering mobilizes action (Amnesty International, 2024).

These examples show that IHL does not fail because it lacks legal clarity, but because the international system applies it unevenly depending on geopolitical calculations.

 

4. UN Security Council Paralysis: Structural Constraints to Enforcing War Law

The UNSC is mandated to maintain international peace and security, yet its structure—especially the veto power of the P5 (United States, United Kingdom, France, China, Russia)—means enforcement of war law often depends on political alignment rather than legal merit.

Veto as Shield for Strategic Violations

• Russia vetoes resolutions condemning its actions in Ukraine or those of allied regimes such as Syria (Security Council Report, 2023).
• The United States has repeatedly vetoed resolutions calling for ceasefires or investigations during the Gaza conflict.
• China has shielded Myanmar’s junta from robust UNSC actions despite evidence of atrocities against the Rohingya.

These examples demonstrate that the UNSC’s structure enables powerful states to insulate themselves and their allies from accountability, obstructing humanitarian enforcement.

Peacekeeping and Mandate Limitations

Even when the UNSC authorizes interventions, mandates often reflect political compromises rather than humanitarian necessity. In the Central African Republic and Mali, peacekeeping missions were constrained by limited mandates and resources, undermining civilian protection (UN DPKO, 2022).

The institutional architecture therefore produces selective legality: some violations generate global attention and action, while others persist in silence.

 

5. Humanitarian Rhetoric vs. Operational Reality: UN Agencies on the Front Lines

While the UNSC is paralyzed, UN humanitarian agencies operate on the ground under severe constraints. Their ability to deliver protection and aid depends on negotiation with armed actors, who may disregard war law entirely.

Illustrative Case: Humanitarian Access in Yemen

UN agencies frequently negotiated with both the Saudi-led coalition and Houthi authorities to gain access to besieged populations. Parties to the conflict restricted aid as a bargaining tool, demonstrating how war law is subordinated to strategic leverage (WFP, 2022).

Illustrative Case: Protection Failures in DR Congo

Despite extensive UN presence in DR Congo, recurring militia violence against civilians continued because peacekeeping forces lacked robust mandates and faced operational restrictions from host governments (Stearns, 2021).

The result is a system where humanitarian actors carry the burden of a legal framework that the political organs of the UN are unwilling or unable to enforce.

 

6. The Crisis of Legitimacy: Why the UN Must Reform or Risk Irrelevance

The inconsistency of war law enforcement has severely damaged the UN’s credibility. Many states in Africa, Asia, and Latin America argue that the Security Council reflects an outdated post-1945 power distribution and lacks moral legitimacy (Adebajo, 2020). This perception fuels calls for multipolar alternatives and weakens global consensus on humanitarian norms.

Erosion of Trust Among the Global South

The UNSC’s selective responses to conflicts in the Global South—Sudan, Yemen, DR Congo, Tigray—contrast sharply with rapid, unified responses to crises affecting major powers or their allies. This asymmetry reinforces accusations of double standards.

Norm Fragmentation

When rules are applied inconsistently, states increasingly treat IHL as optional or politically negotiable. This contributes to norm fragmentation, where regional blocs interpret and enforce war law differently, undermining universality.

Without reform, the UN risks becoming a forum for rhetorical humanitarianism rather than a guardian of global peace and security.

7. Pathways for UN Reform: Toward Consistent and Impartial War-Law Governance

To realign war law with global justice, reforms must address both institutional structures and enforcement mechanisms.

1. Reforming the Security Council

• Veto restraint in mass-atrocity situations, building on the French-Mexican proposal for voluntary veto suspension.
• Expansion of membership to include Africa, Latin America, and South Asia, reflecting demographic and geopolitical realities.
• Limiting veto use on humanitarian resolutions, enabling ceasefires and humanitarian corridors.

2. Strengthening Accountability Mechanisms

• Creating automatic referral procedures from the UN to the International Criminal Court (ICC) for grave violations.
• Expanding independent investigative bodies, such as the UN’s International, Impartial and Independent Mechanism for Syria (IIIM).

3. Enhancing Mandates for Humanitarian Access

• Greater use of Chapter VII authority to secure access for aid agencies during sieges and blockades.
• Strengthening protection-of-civilians mandates in peacekeeping missions.

4. Building a Multilateral Monitoring System

• Establishing a Global Civilian Protection Observatory supported by regional organizations (AU, EU, ASEAN, ECOWAS) to track violations and issue rapid alerts.

These reforms aim to reduce selectivity, improve enforcement consistency, and restore confidence in the UN’s approach to war law.

 

8. Conclusion

The laws of war are essential moral and legal instruments, yet their credibility depends on consistent and impartial enforcement. In today’s fractured global system—marked by great-power rivalry, proxy conflicts, and humanitarian crises—the UN’s current approach is insufficient. The gap between humanitarian rhetoric and strategic behavior undermines global norms and enables impunity.

Reforming the Security Council, strengthening accountability, and expanding mechanisms for civilian protection are not only institutional necessities; they are moral imperatives. Without such reforms, the UN risks drifting further from its founding promise to “save succeeding generations from the scourge of war.” But with renewed commitment and structural change, it can reclaim its role as the guardian of humanity in times of conflict.

 

References

Adebajo, A. (2020). The UN Security Council and Africa: Power, politics, and peacekeeping. Oxford University Press.

Amnesty International. (2024). Sudan: New evidence of mass atrocities. Amnesty Reports.

Bellamy, A. J. (2018). World peace and how we can achieve it. Oxford University Press.

Best, G. (1983). Humanity in warfare. Methuen.

ICRC. (2023). International humanitarian law and the challenges of contemporary armed conflicts. ICRC Report.

Kaldor, M. (2013). New and old wars: Organized violence in a global era (3rd ed.). Stanford University Press.

Roberts, A., & Guelff, R. (2000). Documents on the laws of war. Oxford University Press.

Security Council Report. (2023). UN Security Council vetoes and voting patterns.

Stearns, J. (2021). The war that doesn’t say its name: The unending conflict in the Congo. Princeton University Press.

UN OCHA. (2024). Humanitarian impact of the Gaza crisis. UN Publications.

UN DPKO. (2022). Peacekeeping operations: Mandates and limitations. United Nations.

WFP. (2022). Yemen crisis update: Humanitarian access challenges. World Food Programme.