Year Ahead – Land Operations
Editors’ note: We are pleased to announce that Articles of War has recently added several thematic editors to our staff. Each editor has contributed a post to this year’s Year Ahead series with thoughts on issues or situations they recommend our readers track over the coming months in their respective field of the law of war. We will resume our usual publications at the conclusion of this series.
In this year marking the 75th anniversary of the Geneva Conventions, we find ourselves reflecting not only on the strength and resilience of these legal frameworks but also on the challenges they face in a rapidly evolving landscape of armed conflict. Blaise Cathcart KC’s question in this series back in 2022 about the trajectory of compliance with international humanitarian law (IHL) remains deeply relevant. As we step into 2025, I think it worth continuing this line of inquiry in light of on-going land warfare.
Compliance with the laws of war, both now and historically, is rarely reported. It is an unfortunate reality that when IHL is followed, it often goes unnoticed and unacknowledged in the public sphere. Nevertheless, this compliance forms the backbone of efforts to humanize the brutality of armed conflict, even amid the 120 armed conflicts occurring globally today. While violations dominate headlines, every day thousands of decisions are made that uphold the principles of distinction, proportionality, and necessity. These moments deserve recognition, for they are a testament to the enduring relevance of the Geneva Conventions and the broader framework of IHL.
That said, there are worrying trends in contemporary land warfare that demand attention. Among them is the apparent “flipping of the rule and exception.” The tension between military necessity and the protection of civilians—a cornerstone of IHL—is long established and well-documented. Anne Quentin aptly asserts that IHL ultimately leans toward the protection of civilians, placing their safety as the rule. I agree. The exceptions to this principle are narrow but self-interpreted. This self-interpretation introduces a troubling dynamic, as it allows actors to redefine the boundaries of permissible actions, often to the detriment of protected persons.
Carl Schmitt’s observation that “the exception is more interesting than the rule” resonates deeply in this context. The rule, grounded in repetitive adherence, may become unremarkable, while the exception disrupts, challenges, and redefines norms. This phenomenon has arguably allowed the state of exception—where civilians fall outside the protection they are entitled to under IHL—to be invoked with increasing frequency and less scrutiny. As conflicts become protracted, the criteria for military necessity and proportionality often shift, influenced by fatigue, evolving objectives, and changing perceptions of what constitutes acceptable collateral damage.
Another concerning trend is the erosion of the strict divide between jus ad bellum and jus in bello. This divide is foundational to IHL and represents one of the most critical legal and ethical developments in its history. This is particularly so in its insistence on the equality of belligerents in the application of the law. Regardless of the legality of a conflict’s initiation, all parties are bound equally by the rules governing the conduct of hostilities. Yet, we see growing instances where the perceived legitimacy of one party’s cause influences interpretations of proportionality and military necessity, challenging this fundamental principle. The potential collapse of this divide risks undermining IHL’s neutrality and the very premise that protection should not be contingent on the righteousness of a belligerent’s cause.
In 2025, after commemorating 75 years of the Geneva Conventions, it is essential to critically examine when and why the state of exception is raised. The strength of IHL lies in its clarity and predictability, but its application falters when exceptions overshadow rules, eroding trust in its universality. This milestone year offers an opportunity not just to celebrate the enduring relevance of these frameworks but also to reinforce their application in the face of evolving challenges.
The Geneva Conventions remain a testament to humanity’s commitment to limiting the suffering caused by war. Yet, anniversaries are also moments for introspection. As conflicts grow more protracted and complex, we must ask hard questions. Are the exceptions to IHL being invoked too readily? How do we strengthen mechanisms to ensure compliance? And most importantly, how do we reaffirm the primacy of protecting civilians, ensuring that exceptions remain the exception, not the rule?
***
Samuel White is an Associate Professor at the National University of Singapore, where he is the Senior Research Fellow in Peace and Security at the Centre for International Law.
Photo credit: U.S. Army, Sgt. Nicholas Goodman
