The rule of law is the bedrock of international relations and human rights, ensuring that nations adhere to established norms to protect humanity during times of conflict. Within this framework, the laws of armed conflict delineate appropriate conduct in wartime through fundamental principles: military necessity, proportionality, unnecessary suffering, and discrimination. The foundational tenet of the United Nations (UN) Charter advocates for peaceful dispute resolution, permitting the use of force only as a last resort. Yet, as recent conflicts illustrate, ignoring these principles poses significant political consequences for both aggressor states and the broader international community. The ongoing Russian invasion of Ukraine and the Gaza conflict serve as poignant case studies, highlighting how leaders can erode their political and moral standing through their actions, ultimately placing them at odds with the tenets of international law with consequential criminal liability.
The Rule of Law and Military Principles
The Geneva Conventions, which embody the laws of armed conflict, emphasize that civilians must never be intentionally targeted. This principle underscores the moral obligation of combatants to safeguard non-combatants during hostilities, preserving human dignity amidst undoubted chaos. Recent conflicts illustrate a troubling trend where one or both parties selectively ignore these principles. The Russian invasion of Ukraine has witnessed extensive civilian suffering and infrastructure destruction, with reports detailing purposeful strikes on non-combatant areas and critical infrastructure. Similarly, the Gaza conflict has seen severe casualties among civilians, with accusations against both Hamas and Israeli forces concerning unnecessary suffering and disproportionate responses.
President Vladimir Putin’s administration has faced widespread condemnation for its aggressive tactics, which fundamentally disregard the prevailing norms of international law. By initiating wars that purposely target civilian populations and infrastructure, he not only flouts military necessity and discrimination principles but also reduces Russia’s moral standing on the global stage. The resulting isolation has led to severe economic sanctions and a geopolitical re-evaluation, with many countries distancing themselves from Russia, showcasing that stepping away from the rule of law incurs tangible political costs.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government in Israel similarly confronts scrutiny due to actions that contravene international norms during the Gaza conflict. The ongoing airstrikes and sieges against densely populated civilian areas have led to significant outcry from various human rights organizations and international observers. Netanyahu’s policies, perceived as disregarding the principles of proportionality and discrimination, have prompted a moral reckoning, diminishing Israel’s intent to portray itself as a democratic state committed to the rule of law. Consequently, Netanyahu faces diminished credibility both domestically and internationally, undermining the very legitimacy he seeks as a wartime leader.
The Rise of Dirty Little Wars
The conflicts of this century have unveiled a harrowing trend of ‘dirty little wars’—conflicts where the laws of armed conflict are brazenly disregarded, resulting in severe humanitarian crises. In these wars, capitalization on civilian suffering becomes a strategic objective rather than an unfortunate byproduct of military action. The global perception of these conflicts is fundamentally altered; mere sideshows turn into vivid tapestries of disregard for human life. The international community, witnessing the devastation wrought by violations of the law, finds itself in a precarious position, weighing the moral implications of intervention against the backdrop of sovereign integrity.
The prospect of establishing a new crime against humanity, termed “Mass Destruction,” is indicative of the urgent need for legal frameworks to navigate the chaotic realities of modern warfare. A policy explicitly aimed at destroying an enemy’s infrastructure through inhumane tactics represents a profound violation of international law. By codifying such actions as reprehensible, the global community amplifies the importance of adhering to established norms, reiterating that the law must prevail over brute force.
Conclusion: The Rule of Law Must Prevail
The political consequences for leaders who disregard the rule of law are profound, affecting not only the aggressors but the global order itself. Both President Putin and Prime Minister Netanyahu have, through their actions, diminished their moral and political capital, demonstrating that blatant noncompliance with laws of war leads to isolation and criticism on the international stage. The persistence of conflicts flouting the rule of law diminishes global stability and undermines the fundamental principles enshrined in the UN Charter. Above all, it is imperative that the rule of law remains more powerful than the rule of the gun, serving as the guiding principle through which disputes are settled and humanity is safeguarded. The collective commitment to uphold these tenets ensures that conflicts are conducted with a measure of accountability, preserving the sanctity of human life amidst the ravages of war.
David M. Crane is the Founding Chief Prosecutor for the UN Special Court for Sierra Leone. He is also the founder of the Global Accountability Network.
