Year in Review – 2024
2024 was defined by a landscape of intensifying conflicts, continuous technological advancements (see here and here), and evolving debates over the application of the law of armed conflict (LOAC). The persistent war in Ukraine, the volatile Israel-Hezbollah and Israel-Hamas conflicts, the addition of new actors to on-going hostilities (such as Iran and North Korea) and the deepening complexities of hybrid and grey-zone warfare underscored the need for nuanced legal analysis and debate. Against this backdrop, Articles of War provided timely, analytical, and thought-provoking content, publishing over 235 articles addressing legal challenges on the contemporary battlefield.
Our contributors addressed pivotal questions about civilian protection and civilian harm mitigation, accountability, and the interplay of ethics, law, and technology, particularly in the context of artificial intelligence. In addition to addressing various legal dilemmas, they also provided timely and incisive legal analysis regarding incidents that took place throughout the year – from exploding pagers, to damaged pipelines and submarine cable-cuts in the Baltic Sea, to Ukraine’s incursions into Russian territory, to the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) issuance of arrest warrants.
The themes explored in our posts throughout 2024 reflect the diversity and complexity of challenges inherent in contemporary armed conflicts. From the ethical implications of technology to the evolving role of non-State actors, our posts offered in-depth analysis and commentary on some of the year’s most pressing issues. This Year in Review explores some of the themes that emerged from our posts over the past year.
The Evolution of International Law to Meet Modern Realities
In one of our Year Ahead posts at the beginning of 2024, Professor Michael Schmitt cautioned that some recent developments related to LOAC are increasingly corrosive and may undermine the law’s effectiveness on the battlefield. The ongoing conflicts between Ukraine and Russia, as well as Israel-Hamas and Israel-Hezbollah, have highlighted not only a wavering commitment to LOAC in challenging operational contexts but also diverse applications and interpretations of its relevant rules.
The volatile international security landscape of 2024 marked a significant shift in State priorities, with security concerns often taking precedence over longstanding international commitments. Confronted with complex and evolving threats, many States reassessed their adherence to treaties and conventions, weighing the benefits of compliance against the urgent demands of national defense. This trend was exemplified by States reconsidering their positions on cluster munitions or anti-personnel mines, as some opted to withdraw or discussed potential withdrawal from international obligations to regain strategic flexibility in the face of asymmetrical or existential threats.
Thus, a recurring theme throughout 2024 was the inadequacy of traditional legal frameworks to address the complexities of modern warfare, including hybrid warfare, the participation of non-State actors, and the integration of advanced technologies to the modern battlefield. As conflicts evolved, the need for LOAC to adapt to these emerging challenges became paramount. The volatile Israel-Hamas conflict and the urban warfare tactics deployed in Gaza presented new challenges for the principle of distinction and prevalent understandings of siege warfare.
Targeting
Our contributors examined the evolving complexities of targeting and the role of advanced technologies in targeting decisions. The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) and algorithmic systems in targeting, particularly in the Israel-Hamas conflict in Gaza, has raised significant questions about accountability, transparency, and reasonableness in decision-making. While AI systems enhance precision, it is crucial to ensure that these systems adhere to principles of proportionality and distinction, and that decisions involving AI are legally and ethically sound. Given the risks posed by opaque algorithms, particularly in complex operational environments, transparency and explainability have become a growing concern.
Events throughout the year—such as the exploding pagers incident in Lebanon—highlighted the challenges of targeting members of organized armed groups or criminal organizations involved in armed conflicts while adhering to LOAC. Different targeting strategies employed against groups like Hamas and Hezbollah underscored the legal and operational complexities of engaging with adversaries who rely on asymmetrical tactics, including the use of human shields and civilian infrastructure.
2024 underscored how targeting in modern conflict is increasingly shaped by technological advancements, urban complexities, and the interplay of legal and ethical considerations. A consistent thread throughout the year was the growing need for transparency, accountability, and adaptability in targeting processes to address the challenges posed by evolving warfare tactics and technologies. As conflicts become more complex and technologies continue to be integrated into military decision-making, harmonizing legal interpretations and operational rules, as well as ensuring legal interoperability among allies, are critical for maintaining compliance and operational effectiveness.
Accountability as a Central Concern
Accountability emerged as another defining theme of 2024, resonating across diverse contexts – from technological advancements and accountability in opaque technological environments, to military investigations, to enforcing accountability within on-going armed conflicts.
The International Criminal Court’s issuance of arrest warrants became a focal point for discussions on justice during active hostilities. In 2024, the ICC issued two sets of landmark arrest warrants: the first, for Russian flag officers for deliberately targeting civilian infrastructure, and the second, for Israeli and Hamas officials in connection to the situation in Palestine and the war in Gaza. These developments prompted critical analyses of the role of international institutions in enforcing accountability and addressing potential LOAC violations.
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) 2024 advisory opinion on Israel’s practices and policies in occupied Palestinian territory polarized the international community. Following this, Norway underscored its commitment to accountability by leading efforts to secure support from the UN General Assembly for a resolution requesting the ICJ to provide an advisory opinion on Israel’s humanitarian obligations. This initiative reflected the broader global emphasis on holding States accountable for their actions in conflict zones, particularly regarding LOAC compliance.
LOAC and Conversations at the Edges
In another 2024 Year Ahead post, Kobi Leins and Helen Durham emphasized that “[g]oing forward we will also need to move some of the formerly “edge” conversations and themes relating to [international humanitarian law] to the centre.” A hallmark of Articles of War is the wide range of its contributors, whose varied expertise and perspectives enriched the international law and armed conflicts discourse throughout 2024. Our contributors addressed contentious issues from multiple angles, fostering debates that spanned legal traditions, historical contexts, academic disciplines, and professional fields.
Articles of War and Armed Groups and International Law jointly hosted the on-going Beyond Compliance Symposium, which features posts that delve into approaches beyond LOAC compliance to address harm and need in armed conflicts. The symposium presented a range of perspectives, with some contributors advocating for a rights-based approach, while others urged readers to go beyond LOAC compliance to redress civilian harm and address negative lived experiences of armed conflict in general.
A second distinct theme that is often relegated to the “edge” of the LOAC discourse is environmental protection. The laws of armed conflict were established before environmental considerations became a central concern, yet today’s global priorities clearly demand a shift in perspective. Articles of War contributors delved into this emerging legal frontier and highlighted the critical role of environmental protection in modern LOAC. They discussed topics such as the Draft Principles on Protection of the Environment in Armed Conflict, transboundary environmental protection, and the environmental impact of jungle operations, underscoring the lasting humanitarian and ecological impact of military operations.
Civilian Protection as a Strategic Priority
The protection of civilians and mitigation of civilian harm remained a central focus point in our posts this year, not only as a matter of legal compliance but also as a way to achieve broader strategic objectives. The Beyond Compliance Symposium called on both State and non-State actors to go beyond minimal legal compliance toward proactive harm mitigation strategies and full protection of civilians. This approach moves beyond reactive enforcement of LOAC toward a more integrated, preventative framework. The U.S. Department of Defense Civilian Harm Mitigation and Response Policy (see here and here) highlights the growing emphasis on integrating civilian harm mitigation into military planning and operations.
End of Armed Conflicts
In his 2024 Year Ahead post, Eric Jensen expressed hope that the international community would focus more on how to return to peace, i.e., the concept of the jus post bellum. He encouraged the international community to “think about how law can facilitate, guide, and regulate “waging peace” in the aftermath of waging war.”
The major on-going conflicts, including the war between Ukraine and Russia and the Israel-Hamas conflict, have persisted for several years, shaping both regional and international security dynamics. While much has been written on the beginning and continuation of these conflicts, there has been comparatively little attention to their conclusion. As our contributors have observed, the end of armed conflicts is as significant as their beginning, particularly given that LOAC is inherently time-bound.
This year, Articles of War contributors have examined how temporary measures, such as suspension of hostilities or ceasefires (see here and here), influence the legal and practical considerations for concluding hostilities. They have analyzed the complexities of determining the termination of hostilities in situations where there are prolonged intervals between confrontations. Contributors also explored potential practical legal tests for identifying when a non-international armed conflict has effectively ended.
Conclusion
As we move into 2025, the themes and patterns identified in 2024 are expected to further evolve. Hybrid warfare and grey-zone conflicts are likely to proliferate, posing continued challenges to traditional legal frameworks. The integration of ethics and environmental concerns into LOAC may gain greater prominence, reflecting a broader shift toward prioritizing long-term humanitarian outcomes.
Technological advancements will equally remain a critical focus, with AI, cyber operations, and autonomous systems continuing to drive both operational effectiveness and legal complexity. Accountability mechanisms, such as those employed by the ICC, are expected to play an increasingly central role in addressing violations of international law in armed conflicts. Moreover, regional dynamics will significantly influence global discourse on LOAC and the adaptation of international norms.
To our readers, contributors, and our benefactors—especially the Dean’s Office at the United States Military Academy at West Point—we extend our sincere gratitude. Articles of War will strive to continue to lead the conversation by providing timely and analytical commentary on the challenges of modern armed conflicts. By fostering a wide range of perspectives and bridging theory with practice, we remain committed to advancing the understanding and application of international law in armed conflict.
***
Liisi Adamson is Senior Editor of Articles of War and lecturer at the University of Tartu, School of Law.
Photo credit: Marine Corps Cpl. Jaye Townsend
